If you've missed the previous installments of this series, check out Part 1, in which I introduce the concept of ableism; and Part 2, in which I attempt to define ableism. In the latter, I discussed examples of ableism in my own life while admitting that part of labeling someone's behavior ableist is contingent upon that person knowing about the disability in question. Ableism isn't always easy to define, and defining disability is also complicated.
According to our good friend Wikipedia, a disability is "any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or effectively interact with the world around them (socially or materially)." Historically, society has taken for granted what is now called the medical model of disability: the person has a problem that needs to be fixed. For example, with a person who cannot use stairs, the goal is to "fix" that person to make them physically able to use stairs. If such interventions don't work, then that person is seen as the problem, rather than unaccommodating social systems and structures.
On the other hand, there is the social model of disability, in which the person is disabled just by virtue of the fact that society does not accommodate them. The conditions that the person has are instead referred to as "impairments" (which I think is strange because it sounds judgmental, which seems to contradict what the social model is trying to prove), and "disability" is what happens when society refuses to accommodate said person.
So which definition of disability is better?
Unfortunately, the Internet is where nuance goes to die, and unless I immediately embrace only the social model of disability, I anticipate a huge backlash with accusations of ableism. Well, lay it on me. Like it or not, this is a nuanced issue and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. Both the medical and social models of disability have their merits and limitations. But what this comes back to for me is how difficult it is to define disability. So let's use an example that will elucidate the complexity of the issue:
Vision impairment. Nearly everybody needs glasses eventually. Some people need them full time from early childhood and others, like me, don't need their first pair until their 40s or later and even then only wear them part-time. If we lived in a world in which visual impairment wasn't so pervasive and inevitable, I think it would likely be seen as a disability. However, because it is pervasive and inevitable, accommodations-- known as glasses-- are readily available. It probably doesn't hurt that said accommodation easily fits into one's handbag or backpack. Vision impairment is only regarded as a disability when it is so severe that glasses don't readily help the person see clearly, the most extreme case being when the person is blind.
Well then, is blindness a disability by the medical definition or the social definition? I really don't know. Thankfully, there are more resources to aid blind people in navigating the world-- such as the availability of reading material in Braille or on audio, service dogs, and transportation services. It probably isn't enough, but if there were perfect accommodations available for blind people, would they suddenly no longer be disabled? I think we are burying our heads in the sand if we pretend that this is only a societal issue. Even without the dangers of modern society-- such as cars while crossing the streets-- a blind person is at a disadvantage in ways that are beyond the systemic. A blind person living in a traditional tribal society where predators that feed on humans run rampant, for example, might not survive long.
However, I want to make it clear that even if we embrace the medical definition of disability on any level, that doesn't mean society should see a disabled person as "lesser" or "broken", and we shouldn't impose a cure on them for their condition, if one ever develops. It is tempting to think that a person with a disability might want to be cured, but in the 21st century it is ignorant to make this assumption. Years ago, I spoke to a person online who was completely blind, and I asked him if he ever wished he was able to see. He said he didn't, and if there was a cure he wouldn't take it. Being blind is what is normal to him because it is his world, his reality, and what he has always known.
As for autism, how do we define it in terms of the medical definition vs. the social definition of "disability"? I really don't know. Looking back at my childhood, I would have been far less "disabled" if I had been met with more understanding and acceptance. Then again, I am what is often labeled as a "high-functioning" autistic, so maybe it is easier for me to make this statement. But that brings rise to another contentious issue-- functioning labels-- which many of us in the community see as problematic. I have mixed feelings on the issue. While I don't think functioning labels are irrelevant, they are not easy to define. Non-verbal autistic people are generally seen as "low-functioning" because they're unable to speak, but many of these people are also intelligent, as one might see when giving these people a computer to help them communicate. Intelligence is automatically seen as a "high-functioning" trait. Functioning labels, overall, are another complex issue and beyond the scope of this series of blog posts. Maybe I'll come back to it eventually.
I will say this though-- I do have several neurodevelopmental disabilities: I am autistic, I have non-verbal learning disability, auditory processing disorder, and prosopagnosia (and let's be real, NVLD, APD, and prosopagnosia have been strongly linked to autism). Would I want to be "cured" of autism? I don't think so. It comes with assets and limitations, but overall it makes me who I am. My propensity to hyperfocus can be equally a blessing or a curse, depending on what I'm hyperfocusing on. Getting hyperfocused on a project I'm working on? That's a good thing! It makes me productive! But what about the obsessive crushes (which are common among autistic people) I've experienced in the past? Well, when another person is on the receiving end of such an intense focus, no good can come of it. But aside from that, my ability to hyperfocus-- and be alone for copious amounts of time, for that matter-- are good things.
But what about my other developmental disabilities? If there were a cure for prosopagnosia, for example, I would take it in a heartbeat. There is nothing fun about prosopagnosia. While I don't think it makes me "less than", and while people are very understanding when I warn them I'll end up asking their names dozens of times before recognizing them on site, it's just a pain in the ass. I don't like having it. It's not something intrinsically tied in to my identity, and it just gets in the way. Just for saying that, I'm sure I'm going to (unfairly, I think) get a lot of accusations of internalized ableism. And just what is that? Well, stay tuned for next week's installment.
No comments:
Post a Comment