Reading Response 4: Dis/Ability
Society views dis/ability as something "bad" and "not normal". Whether someone has an intellectual, physical, or mental deficit, they are viewed as dis/abled. In the article, the prefix dis indicates "indicates negation, lack or deprivation: to deprive something of its power. We feel this when we disagree. To negate is to nullify, invalidate, render null and void, make invalid, neutralise, cancel out, undo, reverse, revoke, rescind, abrogate, overrule, over turn, avoid and retract. To dis is to trouble" (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2016) This article strives to disrupt the narrative that dis/abled people are "different" and therefore have different needs and wants. When in reality, they are entitled to the same rights to a job, a family, and a home.
Because we have been socialized to think of dis/abled as "less than", people have been focused on finding cures, lessening "symptoms", and making their experiences more "normal". However, people who do have the unique experience of being dis/abled still have a great quality of life. Sometimes there is nothing to be "fixed". This is just how humans are. And since we are all human, there is no need to put us into a binary of abled versus dis/abled, or good versus bad.
I think that its very important to disrupt the "us versus they" mentality when it comes to dis/abled people. These people deserve to be treated equally by all in their daily lives. It is important that they receive the help they need, but only if they ask for it. People with any kind of deficits are still able to be independent and free thinkers who can speak up for themselves and strive for their goals. Using person-first language can help disrupt the narrative of people with deficits. For example, I have been a coach at Special Olympics for the basketball team for the past 6 years and have always referred to the athletes as "athletes." Not as "they," "them," or "the autistic one" (which I overheard someone call one of the players), because they are like any other athletes. The players in this program want to learn the game, are competitive players, and understand sportsmanship. They are like any other basketball players, so its hard to hear someone reduce a player to just their dis/ability when they are so much more than that.
I think its a good thing that most programs (at least here in Saskatchewan) have been using names that disrupt this narrative of being "disabled". There is Sask-Abilities, Autism Resource Centre, and Special Olympics Saskatchewan, all of which imply that the people in these programs are more than what society views as a "deficit." These people are able, resourceful, and athletic. All these places employ people with dis/abilities and take direct feedback from their users to improve the way the program runs and the opportunities that are available.
Goodley, D & Runswick-Cole, K. (2016) Becoming dishuman: thinking about the human through dis/ability, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37:1, 1-15, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2014.930021.
You give a very thoughtful and informative response to the article. I agree with the article that dis/ability is not something that is "bad" just because it is different from what is considered "normal". Persons with dis/abilities have the same needs as persons without dis/abilities and deserve love, family, friends, job etc. just like anyone else. They may need extra help because they are forced to live in a world constructed for what is considered "normal", but differing abilities do not mean that someone is not capable.
ReplyDeleteI like how you make a point about the naming of organizations/programs disrupt the narrative that "disabled" is synonymous with "lacking". It's important to use first person language and not refer to someone based on their disability. This also disrupts the "us vs. they" narrative and creates a more inclusive society.
Kelsey,
ReplyDeleteWhat a precise, thought-provoking and useful response to ‘Dis/Ability’ article. The way you’ve conveyed even in your representation of your title, ‘Dis/ability’ shows how capable, independent and freethinker any person with dis/ability can be. Also, I liked the way you used rich artifacts of norms of Dis/ability and counter disruption with informative examples of programs.
Critically evaluation on the views of society demonstrates us that how ‘normal people’ have constructed the self-identity of person with dis/ability to be ‘not normal’. But who are we to describe someone else identity with classicism. Even various terms of ‘dis’ such as, ‘different’, ‘bad’, ‘negation’, ‘lack of power’, ‘no intellectuality’, ‘no physical strength’, ‘less than’, and more represents the intersectionality of discrimination with a formation of ‘disabled category’. No doubt our human tendency to split issues with comparisons like ‘us’ versus ‘them’ and ‘try to fix it up’ has formed a normative narratives of Dis/ability. But who says that everything has to be fallen in accordance to ‘binary’ classification! Before even trying to understand ‘other self’, how can it be classified! Raising such questions and explaining with the way you disrupted norms of people with Dis/ability’s life expectation is a first step towards their identification of self.
But it's not enough, normative roots are often deep. Thereby, continual disruption by talking Person-first language with an action and spreading awareness of people with Dis/abilities’ perspective might contribute to a change of acceptance without discrimination and equality without biased opinions.
Hello Kelsey, this was a very well-written reading response. I have not thought enough about how people who are differently abled are viewed as being "broken" by society and how wrong that it. I liked that you were able to bring in your own experience as a special Olympics coach into this response. That really made the whole piece come alive for me. Overall, I enjoyed reading this response, job well done!
ReplyDeleteI thought I was signed in, oops. This was Kyle Sisson
Delete