Disability studies – (A cultural, historical, linguistic and literary examination)

Name of the Student
Professor’s Name
Disability Studies
10th December, 2016
Perceptions on Disability
The development of a critical consciousness has found a crucial distinction between the biological condition of impairment and the socially imposed condition of disability (Barnes 146). Individuals who acquire impairment either through injury or gradual loss of physical functions or chronic illness) are often faced with identity crisis due to their debility. It is contended that the identity crisis does not stem from the physical impairments, but from social confinement and discrimination. It is commonly debated that social impositions and personal experiences are mutually exclusive of each other in situations of disability. This is because a distinction could be made between the biological condition of impairment and the socially imposed condition of disability (Barnes 146). On the other hand, different theorists have contended that isolation and exclusion do not descend from impairment, but they are socially imposed conditions. Hence, it should be acknowledged that “disability” is a feature that is socially imposed on individuals due to their physical or functional impairments. These individuals are often isolated and are excluded from participating in the society. The theorists and activists further argue that holistic sufferings in an individual not only results from oppressions (related with their personal tragedy) but is as much a social problem. The perceptions of the society towards disabled individuals and its respective impact influences the identity crisis such individuals Impaired persons often endure a tragic inner suffering that results from discrimination at the workplace, denied access to public spaces and denial of leading an autonomous and independent life (Corker 1998).

The present article reflects the perceptions of “disability” from a social and historical perspective. The article further portrays the effect of linguistics in modulating the perceptions of disability.
It is contended that the loss of identity and the personal transformation associated with a disability does not result from a personal crisis, but from the social confinement that is imposed on these individuals. Impairment does have a biological background. Impairments are either physical or psychological. Physical impairments result from sudden injury or accident, or from inborn or congenital conditions, and sometimes it is the manifestation of chronic illnesses. Medical science generally refers disability in terms of “time” or “duration”. Chronic fatigue, intermittent symptoms, constant pain, frequency, incidence, occurrence, delay, are all terms used to underline the temporal aspect of disability. Hence, medical science itself in some way recognizes that disabled individuals have the capacity to revive or overcome their disability. Medical science itself considers that disability and ability as separate functional entity but provides adequate hope that disability could be reverted to “ability” (McNamee 141-155)
The disabled condition of an individual should be considered a process or a flux, rather than the sudden manifestation of a new status. Diagnosis of biological impairment could be made in independent and isolated manner. However, the perceptions and feelings of disability develop over time. The perceptions of being deviated from ability and capability in an individual stems from various inner and outer forces. Hence, societal perceptions regarding their changed status (due to impairments) contribute to the designation of disability. Inner factors that contribute towards the feeling of disability include psychological variables, self-perceptions, self-evaluation, and the ability to cope with physical impairments. On the other hand, the outer elements that contribute towards the feeling of disability include political factors, cultural factors, social factors, family support, and linguistic exposures. Hence, it is contended that the state of “disability” is a multifactorial phenomenon.
The inner feelings or self-perceptions that are realized by impaired people leads to the genesis of “disability.” These perceptions and realizations vary between individuals but holistically remains the same. At the beginning, there can be a sort of emotional dullness, followed by denial as a defensive mechanism and manifestation of anger or depression. The external manifestations of anger or inner manifestations of depression stems from the social restraints imposed on disabled individuals. The perceptions of the society towards disabled individuals are crucial for orienting or adjusting them in the society. The adjustment could translate into acceptance if the society offers a right development and expression to human potential. This is true both for those who boast “ablebodieness” and for those who suffer from a disability. “Ablebodieness” is a term that is used to denote the physical and psychological ability of an individual, before being challenged with physical impairment. It is contended that if “debility” is a condition imposed by the society, it should also acknowledge the concept of “ablebodieness”. Hence, “ablebodieness” is a perceptional concept which could be considered exactly opposite to the concept of “disability.” Moreover, “ablebodieness” is also an inner perception of the impaired individual itself. The person concerned is fully aware of their own state of ability and disability. It is contended that the state of “ablebodieness” towards “disability” and vice-versa is an evolutionary process. However, the evolution is not a step-by-step process and does not have deterministic outcomes. Rather, internal and external variables can impact on it and different unknown aspects could drive one state to the other. This is the underpinning principle for the societal interactions with disabled individuals and also the determining factor towards self-perceptions of impaired individuals. The society might be supportive or hostile towards challenged individuals. If the society is accommodative and supportive towards impaired individuals, there would be a transition from the state of ‘disability” towards “ablebodieness”.
On the contrary, if the society extends hostile environment towards impaired individuals, there would be a transition from the state of “ablebodieness” towards the state of disability.” The societal interactions and social perceptions perhaps modulate the inner feelings of impaired individuals in driving the state of “ablebodieness” or “disability.” Societal support might inculcate suitable coping strategies within the concerned stakeholders to overcome the feeling of disability. On the other hand, a hostile society may hamper the self-coping strategies of concerned individuals and lead them towards the feeling of “disability.” It is contended that for creating the identity of an individual (“ablebodieness” or disabled); prior and underlying deontic necessities are inescapable. “What you can do of your own identity?” “How one can construct an inner consciousness?” or “What society can do to a person by imposing restrictions?” are questions that influence the identity of an individual. Hence, subjectivity is an important consideration while determining the state of disability or designating an individual as a disabled person. The subjectivity of concerned individuals comes from their own self, personal choices, determinations, and emotional/cognitive reactions. This notion could appear as a tautology because identity is the result of ontological conditions.
The identity of a disabled individual is largely influenced by external, social and political pressures than any other factor. This unbalanced oscillation toward external pressures causes a status of inferiority and dependency. Through decades, civil right movements have acted to give preponderance to individual choices in the assertion of self-being, self-perception, self-consideration, concerning various aspects of human identity. According to civil rights movements, the problem of giving validity to the identity of disabled individuals resides within individuals and not in the socially asserted “truths.” The self-perceptions of different individuals are diverted by social/cultural/political forces, especially the perceptions for disabled individuals. Medical sciences consider disability to be a treatable and clinical condition. Hence, medical science views disability or ability as a normality and abnormality. However, medical interventions and increased autonomy of physicians have increased the risk of dehumanization with the use of the ICF classification (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health). Considering “disability” under the category of ICF has caused concern amongst scientists and other professionals belonging to the field of disability studies. ICF could cause the prevalence of a professional’s authority over the will and needs of disabled individuals. Medical sciences certainly bear the responsibility of managing physical impairment in a disabled individual. However, it cannot impose interventions that may erode the self-esteem or personal needs of individuals who are disabled. The transition between “physical impairment” and “disability” should be addressed through consideration rather than by imposition. Individuals who are disabled should not be overpowered but should be empowered to overcome their disability. However, ICF puts medical sciences to exhibit power on the body of disabled people. Medical sciences consider physique as a component of normal and abnormal functions. However, it does not consider the perceptions of an individual while implementing therapeutic or psychological interventions. It extends practice-based or knowledge-based interventions that may have individual implications. This is absolutely true for individuals suffering from the status of “disability.” Certain interventions might not be compatible with the ideology or mindset of disabled individuals. However, they might be forced to accept such interventions from clinicians or psychologists. Hence, it may be seen that societal interactions or societal processes could aggravate or address the state or feeling of disability within an individual.
In 1976, Michel Foucault introduced the concept of “Biopower.” Biopower represents the way of regulating and conditioning individuals by intervening on physical and health issues. Foucault asserted that States can head the behaviors of their population through “an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations”. Political, cultural and social forces often invade the territory of disability. However, they do so to fight an ideological war on autism, when their intentions are to develop challenged individuals and improve the performances of intellectual disabled people and when such individuals engage on the theme of physician-assisted suicide. Hence, “Biopower” might be viewed as a positive attitude towards the capability and “ablebodieness” of individuals suffering from a disability (Foucault, 1983).
According to Foucault, an individual’s identity is the result of historical or contingent conditions that influences subjectivity. Foucault endorsed the concept of “epistemological breaks.” An “epistemological break” is considered a domain of medicine that refers to the separation between science and superstition. Foucault extends the conceptions of “epistemological breaks” to his History of Insanity. He assumed that power causes a break in the flow of knowledge, and changes it toward a specific direction, which is decided by power. Simon (1995) contended that interaction between power and knowledge constitutes the identity of an individual. On the other hand, language mediates or modulates the interaction between power and knowledge. Linguistics or the art of expressing language influence the concept of “othering.” “Othering” is based on the philosophy of “naming,” “identification” and a creation of the identity of an independent individual. Words are considered important tools for representing and expressing the inner thoughts of an individual. “Interpellations” as referred in linguistics is the approach through one communicates or addresses another individual/s. Interpellation helps to differentiate individuals from one and another and develops a space for identity. Interpellation connects the self-perception of an individual with a societal definition or societal perception of the individual. It is contended that oppressive language is one of the major factors in developing the sense of “disability.” Different social theorists have argued for the connection between an identity of an individual and interpellation used to address such individual (Danziger 137-159). History suggests that identity of an individual is strongly created through language. That is why Harter (p. 677) stated “the self is primarily a social construction crafted through linguistic exchanges with others.” Harter (1999) implicated that linguistic exchanges serve as symbolic interactions in communicating with each other. Disability could be explained based on a sociological perspective of languages. Hence, Saussurean linguistics and Foucault’s philosophy of power could explain the perception of disability or identity in an individual. Saussure (1983) contended that language is not a physiological function of an individual, but a combination of socially created symbols that is generated from societal interactions. Hence, Saussure (1983) contended on the principle of semiotics. He assumed that language is predetermined in its structure and cultural or societal factors influence its linguistic expression. Saussure (1983) further contended that words are arbitrary and do not carry any meaning and have no inherent connections to what they describe. Rather, the meanings behind the words are important in expressing oneself. The meaning of the words indicates the intent based n which words are framed or spoken. Words also provide the expression of power as put forward by Foucault. Hence, the state of “disability” and “identity” of a disabled individual is created through linguistic expressions.
The perceptions towards disability have significantly changed over the tides of time. Historically, such perceptions have also varied across different communities. Munyi (p 2) explored the attitudes toward disabled individuals across different cultures. The author suggested that societal perceptions towards disability were neither homogenous nor static. The Greeks considered sick individuals as inferior to their healthy counterparts (Barker, 1953). On the other hand, Plato recommended that “deformed offspring of both superior and inferior be put in some mysterious unknown places” (Munyi 2). Barker (1953) stated that “early Christian Doctrine introduced the view that disease is neither a disgrace nor a punishment for sin but, on the contrary, a means of purification and a way of grace.” During the 16th century, the Christians considered disabled and mentally retarded individuals to possess evil spirits. Hence, it was speculated that religious leaders and certain individuals viewed disability and mental retardation as a way of exorcising the spirits (Munyi 2). During the 19th century, the supporters of the Darwinian Theory strongly opposed aid and support to individuals who were disabled. These individuals believed that preserving unfit individuals in the society would violate the principles of natural selection and prevent “selection of the fittest.” Moreover, they further contended that preserving unfit individuals would lower the fitness of offspring, born to disabled individuals. This is because they believed that “unfit “traits would be inherited in future progenies (Hobbs, 1973).
Munyi (p2) reported that certain communities extended maltreatment towards blind individuals and individuals who were physically challenged. The authors also stated that some communities totally rejected and discarded disabled individuals from the society. This is because they considered disabled individuals to be a burden to the society and an economic liability to their own families. The believers of this philosophy also contended that families of disabled individuals were not at all pleased to accommodate such individuals. However, they have to compromise with their thoughts based on societal pressures. In certain cultures, disabled individuals were tolerated and respected and allowed to participate in societal proceedings as per their fullest capability. On the other hand, individuals with disabilities were viewed differently in the African culture compared to the European or Westernized culture. Munyi (p.2) also reported that the Chagga tribe in East Africa perceived physically challenged individuals as the saviors from evil spirits. Therefore, extreme care was taken to prevent harm to the physically handicapped. In certain communities in West Africa ( for example Benin), children born with congenital anomalies or disabilities were considered to be protected by supernatural forces. Wright (1960) indicated that those communities believed that children born with a disability brought in good luck for the society. On the other hand, the Ibo tribe in Nigeria either accepted children with a physical disability or rejected them altogether.
Lippmann (1972) observed that in many European countries like Denmark and Sweden, individuals with a physical disability were more accepted compared to their counterparts in the United States. Moreover, the authors also implicated that these Scandinavian countries extended better rehabilitation services to those who were physically challenged. Such interventions are in line with the Scandinavian philosophy, which promotes social responsibility and consideration, for each and every individual in the society. In certain communities of Kenya and Zimbabwe children born with a disability are viewed as a symbol of a curse for the family (Munyi 2). Desta (1995) indicated person born with disabilities were viewed as hopeless and helpless in most parts of Africa. The authors implicated that Africans considered disability as a consequence of witchcraft, or sex linked factors or as features that were supernatural. Hence, it can be seen that from a cultural perspective that different circumstances have influenced the society, living conditions and attitudes of other individuals towards individuals who are physically challenged. History indicates that ignorance, lack of awareness, neglect, superstitious beliefs and fear are some of the social factors that have expedited the exclusion of physically disabled individuals from the society.
It is contended that child rearing plays a major role in influencing their perceptions towards disability. Children, who are sensitized on physical disability, have a different perception towards such individuals, compared to their counterparts, who have witnessed neglect towards disabled individuals (Gellmann 254-256). Societal perceptions and treatment towards disabled individuals is the guiding philosophy for future perceptions (Munyi 2). They speculated that different types of attitudes could stem from cross-cultural settings towards disabled individuals. The different perceptions include tolerance, hatred, fear and awe and revulsion.
Works Cited
Barker, R. G., Social Sciences Resource Council, Wright, B.A., Meyerson, L., & Gonick, M.R. Adjustment to physical handicap and illness: A survey of the social psychology of physique and disability. New York; 1953
Barnes, C. (1998) Review of ‘The Rejected Body’ by Susan Wendell. Disability and Society, 13 (1): 146.
Corker, M. Disability discourse in a postmodern world. In Shakespeare, T. (ed) The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. London: Continuum 1998; 221- 233
Danziger, K. The historical formation of selves. In Ashmore, R. D. &Jussim, L. (eds) Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997;137 -159
Desta, D. Needs and provisions in the area of special education: The Case of Ethiopia. Report on the 2nd South-South-North Workshop. Kampala, Uganda; 1995.
Foucault, M. ‘The Subject and Power,’ in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1983
Gellman W. Roots of prejudice against the handicapped. Journal of rehabilitation, 1959:254-256
Harter, S. Symbolic interactionism revisited: Potential liabilities for the self constructed in the crucible of interpersonal relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1999; 45(4): 677
Hobbs, M.C. The future of children categories and their consequences. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1973
Lippman G.UNESCO Braille Courier; 1972
McNamee, S. Therapy and identity construction in a postmodern world. In Grodin, D. &Lindlof, T. R. (eds) Constructing the Self in a Mediated World, London: Sage 1996; 141-155
Munyi C. Past and Present Perceptions Towards Disability: A Historical Perspective Disability Studies Quarterly 2012; 32:2
Saussure, F. Cours de LinguistiqueGenerale. Trans. R. Harris, London: Duckworth; 1983
Simons, J. Foucault and the Political. London: Routledge; 1995
Wright, B.A. Physical disability: A psychological approach. New York: Harper and BON;1960