Concise Oxford Dictionary (2010) defines a theory as
supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one
based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Theories of disability are the ideas that try to speculate
on disability; to analyze different systems on which the term disability can be
easily perceived and comprehended in general terms.
Pity Charity Theory
In this theory of disability there is a practice of
Christians who take up active roles in supporting people who are less fortune
than themselves. It is a diaconal work which was conducted by the apostles of
Jesus to help the needy people. It was a part of good of the gospel. The New
Testament documents many stories about Christ and his disciples healing the
sick as the removal of sin. Stiker (1999) indicates that these stories are
predominantly in the gospel of Matthew. He gives the examples of Christ healing
the blind, cripples, dead, fool, misfits, lepers and epileptics.
According to the Bible, every human
being is created in God’s likeness regardless of their physical or mental capacities.
The love that God has for every human being also applies to people with
different kind of disabilities. God’s wish to save every human being and the
whole creation from evil is a wish he also has for those who live with disabilities.
That means that God’s command that we love our neighbour as ourselves (Lev
19:18) also includes those who have disabilities.
According to the same chapter, God commands
his people not to curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind. The
Old Testament tells its readers to treat people with disabilities justly and
fairly. So Moses tells people that to mislead a blind man on a road will lead
to a curse (Deut 27:18).
There is one
well-known scripture passage that from our modern point of view may look
discriminating. That is the command in Leviticus 21 that no one who has a
blemish may be a priest. We can understand this passage by comparing it to
Malachi 1:7 where the prophet complains that the priests are offering polluted
food on the altar.
The idea is that
what is offered to the Lord should not be something that would be thrown away
anyway. What is offered to the Lord should be something valuable, so that the
one who is offering makes a real sacrifice. Similarly, a family which is asked
to offer one son as a priest should not be allowed to offer a son who can not
help them on the farm. The son offered for priesthood should be without
blemish, like the lamb killed at Easter (Ex 12:5-6). This rule for the temple cults
on earth. But when Ezekiel gives us his prophecy about the future temple, this
rule is omitted, and that is not a coincidence. That rule is not needed in the
kingdom to come.
Sometimes this
passage has been interpreted as if the Bible regards people with disabilities
as unworthy and whose injuries or sicknesses are a punishment for sin. We can
see this interpretation behind the disciples’ questions to Jesus when they meet
the man who was blind from birth: (John 9:2) "Who sinned, this man or his parents
that he was born blind?" Jesus’ answer is clear: "It was not that
this man sinned or his parents." This answer should have prevented any
interpretation that the Bible teaches us that disability is a punishment from
God for sins. Yet we meet such interpretations among Christians all over the
world.
Medical Theory of Disability
This is the 20th century theory of disability
under the age of MEN OF SCIENCE which govern and colonize the bodies (and
minds) of people with ability differences. The theory deals mainly with
intellectual disability (cognitive disability). The focus of study has been the
measurement of intelligent through the use of IQ knowledge, and nowadays is the
function and structure of human brain. The medical theory of disability links
disability to illness and as such the requirement to seek a cure.
Wills (2000) argues that disability became socially
understood as illness around 1500s when Leprosarium became empty. Under medical
theory of disability, the authorities and the society in general decided to set
buildings to place people with ability differences. This category of people
with ability differences, and sometimes were termed as unfit to society included
the poor, unemployed, single mothers, mad, feebleminded and other types of
disabilities.
Criticism to the
medical disability theory
Oliver (1990:4) is quoted criticizing medical theory of disability
as follows;
“The problem is that the doctors are
socialized by their own training into believing that they are experts and
accorded that role by society. When confronted with the social problems of
disability as experts, they cannot admit that they do not know what to do.
Consequently they feel threatened and fall back on their medical skills and
training inappropriate as they are and impose them on disabled people. They,
then appear bewildered when disabled people criticize or reject this imposed treatments
(Oliver, 1990:4)”.
From the statement of Oliver above, one can grasp the
weakness of this theory in that; even the disability types which are
non-medical oriented are generalized and classified into the group of
medication process which later bring forth the dangerous conditions to the
patients.
Social theory of disability
Proponents: the theory was pioneered by Stephene Taylor,
Michael Oliver, Tom Shakespeare, Scott Danforth, Jenny Morris, Rosemarie
Garland Thomso, Dan Goodley, Christopher Newell, Mark Rapley and Simi Linton.
This theory had the following tenets;
Firstly, the theory argues that it is the society that
disables a person, not their individual differences.
Secondly, the theory refers to the impairment as the
individual ability differences of bodies; that is, all people cannot bear the
same body with the same abilities. For example, the way we build buildings
disables people in wheel chairs and visually impaired including blind people.
Thirdly, disability is not inability that means, any person
can do anything provided there is conducive environment to do so.
Fourthly, people become disabled because our social system
mistreats them, putting before them a lot of barriers-indeed exploit them and
finally label them as disabled.
Fifthly, every person is, in one way or another has
disability, whether hidden or open, congenital or acquired, and it can be of
any range (profound, severe, or moderate).
The theory is drawn from the work of post structuralists,
social construction, feminist and Marxist frameworks to inform the
deconstructive work undertaken in examining disability construct.
These were the précised words of Stiker narrating how
disability concept is enumerated from the general systems of the culture of our
societies. Disability is cultural constructed phenomenon.
“There
is no history of thought outside the history of systems of thought.
There
is no speech outside systems of languages.
There
is no spirituality outside received spiritual frameworks.
There
is no disability, no disabled, outside precise social and cultural
constructions;
There
is no attitude toward disability outside a series of societal references and
constructions (Stiker, 2000: 14)”.
The social construction of disability is done in various
ways and finally accepted in society.
Massie (2006) explains
that, the accepted ways of thinking, reacting and doing business become firmly
embedded in society and can be remarkably resistant to change. Negative
attitudes can become institutionalized. We often see the impact of negative
attitudes in how one person treats another. But negative attitudes are also the
foundation stone on which disabling policies and services are built. Harmful
attitudes that limit and restrict are institutionalised in policies and
services and so maintain the historic disadvantage that disabled people have
faced.
A major reason proposed for negative social
attitudes, resulting in the denial of basic values and rights/conditions, is
the way disability is portrayed and interpreted in society.
Biklen (1987) and Taylor et al (1993) identified
social construction of disability as a barrier to social inclusion. At
community level negative attitudes can become structured into social patterns
of segregation and discrimination. The theory of social construction attempts
to explain the process by which knowledge is created and assumed as reality (Douglas,
1970 cited by Devine, 1997). The theory asserts that meanings are created, learned
and shared by people and then reflected in their behaviour, attitudes and language
(Devine 1997 citing Berger et al, 1966).
Particular social constructions of disability portray
people with disabilities as “other” and not as an integral part of the ‘normal’
world. Negative attitudes and behaviours develop from this ‘worldview’. In the
last two decades disability rights activists and academics have highlighted
cultural and environmental factors that marginalise people with disabilities,
denying them basic values and the accompanying basic rights/conditions.
Oliver (1990) sees this social model of disability as
among many triggers that places a person’s impairment in the context of social
and environmental factors, which create disabling barriers to participation. This
social model of disability approach suggests that the root of disability lies
in a failure of the environment to allow someone to function to his/her full
capacity as much as in any functional impairment that the person may have.
Crow (1996) furthermore suggests that, highlighting
the marginalisation of people with disabilities through cultural and environmental
factors does not mean that impairment is denied. Impairment is an objective
concept and means that aspects of a person’s body do not function or function with
difficulty
However, when impairment is taken a step further to
imply that a person’s body, the person and the person’s worth is inferior to
that of others, then there is an interpretation that is socially created and is
therefore not fixed or inevitable (Crow, 1996). Crow argues that one can think
of impairment in three, related, ways. First there is the objective concept of
impairment. Second, there is the individual interpretation of the subjective
experience of impairment. Finally, there is the impact of the wider social
context upon impairment, in which misrepresentation, exclusion and
discrimination combine to disable people with impairments. It is this third
aspect of impairment which is not inevitable. Such socially constructed
interpretations and meanings are not fixed or inevitable and can therefore be
replaced with alternative interpretations (Crow, 1996).
Advocacy Theory
Proponents: Stephene Taylor, Dan Goodbley, Marie Knox, Trevor
Parmentor, Susie Beart, Chritine Bigby, Pats Frauley and Heather Forsythe.
Self- Advocacy movement stands for sel-determination, empowerment and equality
for people who are labeled with mental retardation (nowadays popularly known as
cognitive disability).The slogan for Self- Advocacy is “Nothing about us with us”.
They call into question the authority of others who control and limit their
lives and the opportunities which they are exposed to.
The theory deals with people having intellectual impairment
and holds the notion that their lives are controlled by others; and services
and treatments given to them do not have feedback. Therefore, there must be
other people to represent the intellectual impaired people on decisive matters.
This group of movement includes the parents and other immediate people and
agencies that seem to volunteer in helping these people with intellectual
impairment.
Turnbull and Turnbull (2001:56) have defined Self-advocacy as self-determination for
individuals with significant disabilities as the means for experiencing a
quality of life consistent with one’s own values, preferences, strengths, and
needs. They point out that the challenge is to develop a self-determined vision
of quality of life, actualize the vision, and make adjustments and enhancements
over the lifespan. Self-advocacy, goal setting and attainment,
decision making, risk-taking, and self-awareness are among the behaviors
reflected in curricula and instructional interventions designed to teach
self-determination to students with disabilities.
Disability Right Theory
Adam (2007: 384) discusses that the disability right theory
came as the results of what Aristotle called a natural slaves.
Natural slaves, according to Aristotle, are people who are born with persistent
impairments that prevent them from reasoning like “normal” human beings.
Specifically, he thinks they lack the part of the soul that engages in reasoning,
though they possess the part that responds to reason.
Aristotle seems
to mean that a natural slave is a person with a moderate or severe mental
disability whose condition renders him dependent on the direction and guidance
of others. These people deserve to be slaves by their nature, according to
Aristotle, so justice requires them to be enslaved. And since they are able to
perform ordinary tasks that contribute to the good of others, Aristotle thinks
the relationship between natural slaves and masters is not only just, but
mutually beneficial as well.
In addition to
being inconsistent and empirically inadequate, Aristotle’s justification of
natural slavery is quite demeaning. Commentators on these passages are usually
careful to signal their abhorrence:
Arguments
against “Natural Slave of Aristotle”
“That
[Aristotle] defended an intuition that is inherently debasing and often brutal
is a deeply disturbing feature of his political thought, and our repugnance
increases when we learn that his attempt to justify this practice played a
significant role in its perpetuation. (Kraut 1997: 277)”.
“Aristotle’s
views on slavery are an embarrassment to those who otherwise hold his
philosophy in high regard. (Schofield 2005: 91)”.
“What
sensible person now believes in . . . natural slaves? (Reeve 1998: lx)”.
Negative Selectionism
Negative
selectionism is the view that, as a matter of social policy, there is good
reason not to bring in to existence people with disabilities.
While political
contractualism figures prominently in courses on moral and political theory,
bioethics courses often involve discussions about whether we should choose to
avoid having children with disabilities.
Currently, there
is a practice of such negative selection by conceiving at a later time in order
to have a child without a disability implanting an embryo with little or no
disposition for disability, or aborting an embryo or fetus that is likely to be
disabled.
Debates about
negative selectionism usually focus on its implications. Some people think
negative selection for disability is justified because it reduces overall
suffering in the world and improves the opportunities of the children who are
born. Opponents of selection against the disabled, however, argue that such
actions diminish human diversity, which is either bad in itself or bad because
it denies some people rewarding interactions with the disabled. Opponents also
claim that selection against the disabled reduces the number of disabled
people, and so might decrease the support they receive from society. In
addition to concerns about its implications, disability rights advocates
vigorously object to negative selectionism because of its expressive character.
References
Berger, P.L., Luckmann, T. (1966) The social
construction of reality:
A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, Garden
City, NJ: Doubleday & Co.
Biklen, D. (1987) The culture of policy: Disability images
and their analogues in public policy. Public Policy Journal, 15 (3),
515-535.
Crow, L. (1996) Including all of our lives: renewing the
social model of disability in Exploring the Divide (C Barnes & G
Mercer, Eds.) Leeds: the Disability Press pp 55-72
Devine, M.A. (1997) Inclusive leisure services and
research: A consideration of the use of social construction theory Journal
of Leisurability 24 (2), pp 1-9 (accessed on 07/02/2013 at
Douglas, J.D. (1970) Understanding everyday life In J.D.
Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: Towards the reconstruction of
sociological knowledge (pp 3-43), Chicago: Aldine.
Massie, B. (2006) ‘Participation – have we got an Attitude
Problem?’ Paper presented in the NDA 5th Annual Conference Civic, Cultural and
Social Participation: Building an Inclusive Society. Dublin, Ireland, 16th
November.
Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement,
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Oliver, M. (1990). The
Individual and Social Models of Disability. PhD reader in Disability Studies. Thames Polytechnic.
Reeve, C. D. C. (1998). “Introduction: Rulers and
Subjects,” in Aristotle 1998.
Schofield, Malcolm. (2005). “Ideology and Philosophy in
Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery,” in
Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, ed. Richard
Kraut and Steven Skultety (Lanham ,
Md.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).
Stiker, J. H. (2000). A History
of Disability. University
of Michigan
Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. (1993) Promises made and promises
to be broken In P. Wehman (Ed.), The ADA mandate for social change (pp
255-268) Baltimore: Paul H Brookes.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull,
H. R. (2001). Self- determination for individuals with significant Cognitive
disabilities and their families. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicap, 26 (1), 56-62.
Wills, D.
(2000). Parent Education Workshop. Independent Advocacy, Adelaide .
Prepared by
Sokime Philemon
Contact: sokime2012@gmail.com
