"Inabilities, through courage, support and incentive, can be compensated so that they can even become greater abilities. When accounted for, an inability can provide a rich resource or a stimulus that can propel individuals toward higher achievement. Those who question what it is to be 'normal' often take the first step towards rejecting stigma. Only when one takes risks, confronts the consequences of ones acts, and takes on responsibility for the self as it were, can a person begin to 'transcend' traditional constraints and stigma....
In a post traditional society responsibility, whether the individual chooses to take it or not, is devolved onto the inner world more so than controlling the outer. Ignoring 'reality' whether by being 'lazy' in friendship, work, personal mental and physical well being, can ... lead to a feeling of personal meaninglessness and that life has nothing worthwhile to offer. Giddens (1991: 9) believes the latter is characteristic, and is a widespread, "fundamental psychic problem in circumstances of late modernity." The notion of responsibility, or the successful management of an individual's choices, has close associations with commitment or the creation of commitments. This has a close attachment with dignity of risk, reciprocity and interdependence. Commitment, whether to people or to life goals, allows individuals to better handle difficulties and cope with otherwise disturbing life patterns or events. Commitment also focuses on self-development and the capacity to sustain involvement in a series of tasks maintained over an extended period of time."
Barnes and Oliver cite problems with potential maximization. They claim that the 'process of adaptation' is expected of people with impairments in order to acclimatize and become 'normal' as possible. This pressure can add to an already hostile environment. On the other hand, those who 'overcome their disability' "are sanctified and held up as exemplars of individual will and effort, while the majority who do not are referred to as passive, apathetic or worse." (Barnes and Oliver, 1993; Reiser and Mason, 1990) Susan Wendell (1997: 271) refers to these people as 'disabled heroes': "people with visible disabilities who receive public attention because they accomplish things that are unusual even for the able-bodied." In addition, Lennard Davis (1996: 10) believes that the majority sees the disabled as individuals without abilities, social functions or status, and that those who 'perform successfully' somehow lose their disability.
The manufacturing of 'disabled heroes' creates a 'feel good' factor that is comforting to the able-bodied and largely perpetuates the myth that "science will eradicate the disabled body." (Davis, 1995: 40) The many who cannot meet the ideal set by 'disabled heroes' are the truly 'disabled' and abnormal. The fact that they are feared, stigmatized and excluded might be because they "symbolise failure to control the body and the failure of science and medicine to protect us all." (Wendell, 1997: 271)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: I know this because Tyler knows this.
Date: 2009-11-04 10:51 pm (UTC)"Inabilities, through courage, support and incentive, can be compensated so that they can even become greater abilities. When accounted for, an inability can provide a rich resource or a stimulus that can propel individuals toward higher achievement. Those who question what it is to be 'normal' often take the first step towards rejecting stigma. Only when one takes risks, confronts the consequences of ones acts, and takes on responsibility for the self as it were, can a person begin to 'transcend' traditional constraints and stigma....
In a post traditional society responsibility, whether the individual chooses to take it or not, is devolved onto the inner world more so than controlling the outer. Ignoring 'reality' whether by being 'lazy' in friendship, work, personal mental and physical well being, can ... lead to a feeling of personal meaninglessness and that life has nothing worthwhile to offer. Giddens (1991: 9) believes the latter is characteristic, and is a widespread, "fundamental psychic problem in circumstances of late modernity." The notion of responsibility, or the successful management of an individual's choices, has close associations with commitment or the creation of commitments. This has a close attachment with dignity of risk, reciprocity and interdependence. Commitment, whether to people or to life goals, allows individuals to better handle difficulties and cope with otherwise disturbing life patterns or events. Commitment also focuses on self-development and the capacity to sustain involvement in a series of tasks maintained over an extended period of time."
Barnes and Oliver cite problems with potential maximization. They claim that the 'process of adaptation' is expected of people with impairments in order to acclimatize and become 'normal' as possible. This pressure can add to an already hostile environment. On the other hand, those who 'overcome their disability' "are sanctified and held up as exemplars of individual will and effort, while the majority who do not are referred to as passive, apathetic or worse." (Barnes and Oliver, 1993; Reiser and Mason, 1990) Susan Wendell (1997: 271) refers to these people as 'disabled heroes': "people with visible disabilities who receive public attention because they accomplish things that are unusual even for the able-bodied." In addition, Lennard Davis (1996: 10) believes that the majority sees the disabled as individuals without abilities, social functions or status, and that those who 'perform successfully' somehow lose their disability.
The manufacturing of 'disabled heroes' creates a 'feel good' factor that is comforting to the able-bodied and largely perpetuates the myth that "science will eradicate the disabled body." (Davis, 1995: 40) The many who cannot meet the ideal set by 'disabled heroes' are the truly 'disabled' and abnormal. The fact that they are feared, stigmatized and excluded might be because they "symbolise failure to control the body and the failure of science and medicine to protect us all." (Wendell, 1997: 271)