![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniI originally wrote the bulk of this post on October 5th (2010), and ever since I've put words to my ideas, it's been floating around in my head like an earworm. Then, on Tuesday, while listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation, it was like someone blasted the song again at full volume.
I'd tuned in half-way through an interview with H. G. (Buzz) Bissinger (I looked it up later), the sports reporter famous for writing the novel Friday Night Lights, and he was there as an apologist for the violence in American Football, and why the threat of concussion (he actually used the phrase "get your bell rung") is part of what makes the game so wonderful and fun and such a big money-maker, and that early dementia that results from those concussions is a perfectly acceptable risk. He said that if we shifted to "wrap-around" tackles such as they use in rugby, that would lead to crippling a person's legs, and he mentioned a retired player who now "walks with two canes." And he asked, without a hint of sarcasm or irony: "Which is worse?" Though, since he did not pose the same quality-of-life question about living with dementia, it was pretty clear to me that he'd already decided for himself what the answer was. And when the host (Neil Conan) only replied with: "Okay, next caller..." it was also pretty clear that he agreed -- or at least, saw it as a valid question.
And I was hit, again, with the cultural reminder that if you have a visible disability, you are not welcome among other human beings*, and left me wishing, again, that my disability was invisible enough for me to "pass" at least until I get through the door of the party. And that's why I opened my post on Tuesday worrying that I was sounding like "My oppression is more oppressive than yours." Because I know that people with invisible disabilities have their own $#!+ to deal with, when it comes to the bigotry of others... But still...
For those who may not be clear on what I mean by "medical model of disabily," some definitions. The "medical model" of disability focuses on the physical condition (and in mental disabilities, the physical condition of the brain), and assumes that to improve the quality of life for someone with a disability, you must medically cure their condition. The "Social model" of disability focuses on the society at large creates a disability out of a physical difference by the errection of physical barriers and social attitudes (A doctor following the medical model would say that I'm limited in my ability to hold down a job because I can't walk into the job site. An activist following the social model of disability would say that I'm limited in my ability to hold down a job because so few job sites have ramps to the front door, and HR directors who are willing to hire someone with "Special needs"). In terms of cultural shorthand, Britain tends to work around the Social Model of Disability (which is why their Disablity Rights law is titled the "Disability Discrimination Act"), and America is focused on the Medical Model (we have the "Americans with Disabilities Act" -- the fact of our disabilities is placed with the individual).
My immediate response to the Social Model is mostly agreement: take away the physical and bureaucratic barriers that are woven into the structure of society and my disability mostly disappears (but no matter how accessible the world at large may be, there will still be nights, when on my own, in my own home, I will have trouble getting my feet under me in order to climb into bed).
But that whole question is something of a non-sequitor. I don't really care if I can move through my life as easily as everybody else can move through theirs (whoever "everybody else" is).
Just Stop Shaming Me Over What is Difficult. Stop demanding proof that I deserve to bask in your company, and breathe your air, or, worse, deciding off the bat that I do not, before even considering the evidence.
The word "Monster" comes from the Latin for "omen" or "sign" (the same root as 'demonstrate'), and originally referred to human or animal offspring born with missing or extra limbs. Such births were interpreted by the priests and oracle-readers as a sign that the Gods were angry, and was taken as a warning to prepare for devestating punishments against the whole society.
I was struck, reading that, that it was not, originally, the monster itself (himself, herself, ouself...) that was angry or wished to wreak havoc, as we define the word today, but was simply the unwitting, and unwilling, messenger of the gods' anger. Blaming the monster for the coming wrath is like blaming the stop sign for the car that runs you over.
Human psychology being what it is, however, such transference is predictable. The ostracization of the disabled, the denial of our existance within a society, probably stems from a desire to deflect Divine Wrath:
"What? Who, us? Oh, no... We're not the people who're sinning... no, nope. You warned us, sent us an omen, Jove? You sure? 'Cause no such monster was born around here. You must be looking for that other village, over in the next valley."
*whistle* *eyedart*
That's the reason why I don't trust the medical model, or the medical industry. Doctors started out as priests, using magic and ritual to summon spirits and banish demons of illness. Scientific discoveries have changed the language used to describe phenomena, and have changed the way an illness or difference is analysed on a physical level. But if you peel back the generational layers from teacher to student, teacher to student, it won't take long before you find the superstitious beliefs that link physical conditions to sin and/or righteousness.
Why else, when Christopher Reeve was recruited to help raise money for S.C.I. research, would all the attention be focused on "Getting up, out of the chair, and walking" instead of treating the invisible health risks of spinal cord injury that actually shorten lifespans (controlling blood pressure and body temperature, etc.), if not to hide the 'mark' of disability from the society?
Why else would people with visable disabilites be shamed for not seeking cures at the same time that people with invisable disabilities are shamed if they do?
Why else would Medicare (in America) only provide money for assistive technology if you need it to function behind the walls of your own home (and "function" being limited, here, to: eating, pooping, and sleeping), but would deny you the funding if you intend to use it to hold down your job, raise your kids, or volunteer in the community?
Why else would demands for inclusion be treated as if they were deliberately hostile acts?
It's almost as if people still believed that if Jove saw the "monsters" had indeed been born into our village, we wouldn't be able to dodge the floods and fires any longer... So that if a disabled person dares to go out in public, that person must want to invite the lightning bolts, and destroy our society. How dare they. Why can't they just realize it would be better for everyone if they just stayed home, and focused their attention on being good cripples?
I read the text of a sermon somewhere online (forget where, and a quick Google search was not forthcoming), that Jesus cured the blind and lame in order to prove to the members of society that God his Father did not inflict them as punishment for sin. But because Kosher laws claimed that the disabled were "unclean," he had no choice but to cure them, since he wanted them to have access to the Temple, and the society within. The preacher of this sermon took this as evidence that "Jesus wants us to build an accessible society! Therefore we should build ramps to our church!" But I noted that Jesus did nothing to challenge the notion that the blind and lame were "unclean" in the first place (Just to point out that the stigma of sin connected to disability was not limited to the ancient, polytheistic religions)....
*Please don't argue this point, and say: "But we love you! You're welcome in my house!"
I'd tuned in half-way through an interview with H. G. (Buzz) Bissinger (I looked it up later), the sports reporter famous for writing the novel Friday Night Lights, and he was there as an apologist for the violence in American Football, and why the threat of concussion (he actually used the phrase "get your bell rung") is part of what makes the game so wonderful and fun and such a big money-maker, and that early dementia that results from those concussions is a perfectly acceptable risk. He said that if we shifted to "wrap-around" tackles such as they use in rugby, that would lead to crippling a person's legs, and he mentioned a retired player who now "walks with two canes." And he asked, without a hint of sarcasm or irony: "Which is worse?" Though, since he did not pose the same quality-of-life question about living with dementia, it was pretty clear to me that he'd already decided for himself what the answer was. And when the host (Neil Conan) only replied with: "Okay, next caller..." it was also pretty clear that he agreed -- or at least, saw it as a valid question.
And I was hit, again, with the cultural reminder that if you have a visible disability, you are not welcome among other human beings*, and left me wishing, again, that my disability was invisible enough for me to "pass" at least until I get through the door of the party. And that's why I opened my post on Tuesday worrying that I was sounding like "My oppression is more oppressive than yours." Because I know that people with invisible disabilities have their own $#!+ to deal with, when it comes to the bigotry of others... But still...
For those who may not be clear on what I mean by "medical model of disabily," some definitions. The "medical model" of disability focuses on the physical condition (and in mental disabilities, the physical condition of the brain), and assumes that to improve the quality of life for someone with a disability, you must medically cure their condition. The "Social model" of disability focuses on the society at large creates a disability out of a physical difference by the errection of physical barriers and social attitudes (A doctor following the medical model would say that I'm limited in my ability to hold down a job because I can't walk into the job site. An activist following the social model of disability would say that I'm limited in my ability to hold down a job because so few job sites have ramps to the front door, and HR directors who are willing to hire someone with "Special needs"). In terms of cultural shorthand, Britain tends to work around the Social Model of Disability (which is why their Disablity Rights law is titled the "Disability Discrimination Act"), and America is focused on the Medical Model (we have the "Americans with Disabilities Act" -- the fact of our disabilities is placed with the individual).
My immediate response to the Social Model is mostly agreement: take away the physical and bureaucratic barriers that are woven into the structure of society and my disability mostly disappears (but no matter how accessible the world at large may be, there will still be nights, when on my own, in my own home, I will have trouble getting my feet under me in order to climb into bed).
But that whole question is something of a non-sequitor. I don't really care if I can move through my life as easily as everybody else can move through theirs (whoever "everybody else" is).
Just Stop Shaming Me Over What is Difficult. Stop demanding proof that I deserve to bask in your company, and breathe your air, or, worse, deciding off the bat that I do not, before even considering the evidence.
The word "Monster" comes from the Latin for "omen" or "sign" (the same root as 'demonstrate'), and originally referred to human or animal offspring born with missing or extra limbs. Such births were interpreted by the priests and oracle-readers as a sign that the Gods were angry, and was taken as a warning to prepare for devestating punishments against the whole society.
I was struck, reading that, that it was not, originally, the monster itself (himself, herself, ouself...) that was angry or wished to wreak havoc, as we define the word today, but was simply the unwitting, and unwilling, messenger of the gods' anger. Blaming the monster for the coming wrath is like blaming the stop sign for the car that runs you over.
Human psychology being what it is, however, such transference is predictable. The ostracization of the disabled, the denial of our existance within a society, probably stems from a desire to deflect Divine Wrath:
"What? Who, us? Oh, no... We're not the people who're sinning... no, nope. You warned us, sent us an omen, Jove? You sure? 'Cause no such monster was born around here. You must be looking for that other village, over in the next valley."
*whistle* *eyedart*
That's the reason why I don't trust the medical model, or the medical industry. Doctors started out as priests, using magic and ritual to summon spirits and banish demons of illness. Scientific discoveries have changed the language used to describe phenomena, and have changed the way an illness or difference is analysed on a physical level. But if you peel back the generational layers from teacher to student, teacher to student, it won't take long before you find the superstitious beliefs that link physical conditions to sin and/or righteousness.
Why else, when Christopher Reeve was recruited to help raise money for S.C.I. research, would all the attention be focused on "Getting up, out of the chair, and walking" instead of treating the invisible health risks of spinal cord injury that actually shorten lifespans (controlling blood pressure and body temperature, etc.), if not to hide the 'mark' of disability from the society?
Why else would people with visable disabilites be shamed for not seeking cures at the same time that people with invisable disabilities are shamed if they do?
Why else would Medicare (in America) only provide money for assistive technology if you need it to function behind the walls of your own home (and "function" being limited, here, to: eating, pooping, and sleeping), but would deny you the funding if you intend to use it to hold down your job, raise your kids, or volunteer in the community?
Why else would demands for inclusion be treated as if they were deliberately hostile acts?
It's almost as if people still believed that if Jove saw the "monsters" had indeed been born into our village, we wouldn't be able to dodge the floods and fires any longer... So that if a disabled person dares to go out in public, that person must want to invite the lightning bolts, and destroy our society. How dare they. Why can't they just realize it would be better for everyone if they just stayed home, and focused their attention on being good cripples?
I read the text of a sermon somewhere online (forget where, and a quick Google search was not forthcoming), that Jesus cured the blind and lame in order to prove to the members of society that God his Father did not inflict them as punishment for sin. But because Kosher laws claimed that the disabled were "unclean," he had no choice but to cure them, since he wanted them to have access to the Temple, and the society within. The preacher of this sermon took this as evidence that "Jesus wants us to build an accessible society! Therefore we should build ramps to our church!" But I noted that Jesus did nothing to challenge the notion that the blind and lame were "unclean" in the first place (Just to point out that the stigma of sin connected to disability was not limited to the ancient, polytheistic religions)....
*Please don't argue this point, and say: "But we love you! You're welcome in my house!"
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 10:32 pm (UTC)I feel like the entire premise of needing to 'fix' people to 'help' them is, yeah, predicated on the idea that there is something wrong (unclean) with them and I have been pondering why this is so persistent and pervasive. This post has some illuminating insights in that direction!
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 10:41 pm (UTC)But I was tired of sitting at the keyboard with these thoughts in my head, and I was getting cranky. So I stopped.
I think I'll go onto YouTube, now, and look for clips from The Muppet Show
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-11 02:42 am (UTC)I'm making room for this in my head. Lovely post.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-11 05:08 am (UTC)I hope thoughts don't get too lost in the reshuffle...
no subject
Date: 2012-07-30 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-30 04:11 pm (UTC)