Eliminating Oppression Isn't Enough by Brandon Saunders

 “Justice should refer not only to distribution, but also to the institutional conditions necessary for the development and exercise of individual capacities and collective communication and cooperation.”

-Iris Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, pg. 39

Indeed, a concept of justice should include both, “distribution”, a tangible way of ensuring representation of the underrepresented in society, and “necessary institutional conditions”, prerequisites needed to guarantee human life development in an efficient way. Justice in the broadest sense means fairness. From a social perspective, the definition of justice is the relationship established between the individual and the state, such that the state creates for all persons, the ability to participate actively in the economic, political, social and cultural life of society. Iris Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression”, predominantly works on an intangible and covert level of society. The faces of oppression are covert in daily interactions between groups and individuals. Social transformation occurs by eliminating oppression. However, there are no tangible, affirmative solutions for “transforming” social structure. In contrast, Martha Nussbaum’s ten capabilities operate in a tangible and overt manner. Her list includes capabilities and concepts, where one can clearly analyze the functionality of her ten capabilities. These capabilities act as preconditions for basic human dignity in society.

The oppression theory and capabilities approach’s practicality are different in three key ways: completeness, efficiency, and institutional guarantees. By simply eliminating all forms or “faces” of oppression, the process of establishing justice is only halfway complete. The absence of oppression is not enough to guarantee justice. Institutions must provide a threshold level of capabilities for justice to hold. Establishing a threshold of capabilities enables society to use a pluralist approach, where society can simultaneously, use transformative and affirmative solutions that guarantee all the opportunity to succeed in society.

Iris Young’s concept of justice is based on opposition to oppression. The definition of oppression is, “some inhibition of their [a group’s] ability to develop and exercise their capacities and express their needs, thoughts and feelings.” (Young 40) Oppression is both structural (not determined by an individual’s actions) and relational (relative to the privileges of other groups). The ways society defines groups, causes a systematic reproduction of structural oppression. Oppression is experienced by groups as groups, or individuals as members of a group, not to individuals qua individuals. Not only are social groups oppressing one another, but now public institutions are exercising power over marginalized social groups unintentionally. These groups generally include the underrepresented in society. This allows the groups in power to control and keep down those who do not have power. Young uses five categories to describe oppression of groups: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Exploitation is the act of using people’s labors to produce profit while not providing fair compensation. In exploitive conditions, society may define everyone as free, yet still maintains a hierarchical system. Marginalization relegates and confines a group of people to a lower social place or outer edge of society. Marginalization limits group possibilities and power. Powerlessness happens when people are oppressed by simply not having power. The powerless are dominated by the ruling class. Additionally, powerlessness is the unreciprocated lack of control, status, influence, and voice in decision-making processes. Cultural imperialism involves taking the culture of those in power, and establishing it as the norm. Cultural norms oppress those people who do not share the same beliefs. Violence is the most visible and overt face of oppression. The use of violence oppresses people through humiliation, damage, harassment, intimidation, and physical harm. This form of violence is systematic, motivated by the want to demean and destroy the person based on membership of the oppressed group. These group members live in fear due to threats of potential violence. Together these five faces of oppression are identifiers used to recognize oppression.

Nussbaum’s ten capabilities establish a threshold level for which an institution (the state) must maintain in order to be just. It is important for each individual to have basic capabilities. People should be treated as an end, not as a means to an end because each person has intrinsic value. Included in this value is the ability to function, and the ability to choose. The capabilities are basic human entitlements as well as a moral set of goals for human development.  These capabilities are, “not just abilities residing inside a person but also the freedoms or opportunities created by a combination of personal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment”.  The purpose of the outcome-based capabilities approach is to focus what individuals are able to do, and are capable of.  This approach does not concern itself with preference utilitarianism or distribution of resources alone. The former concept is incorrect because of potential distortion of preferences, and the latter concept because these resources have no inherent value without human functioning.  Nussbaum seeks a capabilities approach that will express human powers, and provide opportunities for people. She provides a list of capabilities and activities central to human life. The capabilities are: 1) Life, 2) Bodily health, 3) Bodily integrity, 4) Senses, imagination, and thought, 5. Emotions, 6) Practical reason, 7) Affiliation, 8) concern for and in relation to Other Species, 9) Play, and 10) Control over one’s environment. As she states, “The basic idea is that with regard to each of these, we can argue, by imagining a life without the capability in question, that such a life is not a life worth of human dignity.” (Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice 78)

If one were to apply only the concepts stated by Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression” towards a full process of justice, the application would produce incomplete justice. Young is correct by arguing that those in power are the ones who oppress. Without power people cannot: make hierarchical class systems, decide who works, have power and influence to tell others what to do, force others to accept their culture, and commit violence against other groups of people. With power, people subjugate themselves to the five faces of oppression. Eliminating these forms of oppression greatly benefits society. However, the absence of oppression doesn’t help reestablish oppressed victims in society. Oppression’s absence only guarantees that will people will not be hurt, it doesn’t lay real groundwork for the oppressed person to fully become human. We understand how to end the pain, but we don’t ensure a potential resurgence, nor help the victim become an active member in society. We also don’t consider how to [re]establish the victim’s place in society.

This scenario becomes analogous to retributive (Young) vs. restorative (Nussbaum) justice.  “Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, by providing satisfaction and psychological benefits to the victim, the offender and society.”  Financial reparations are also generally involved for the oppressed or victimized party. Contrasting, “Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of the need to satisfy the rules of law or the need of the community to give out punishments.”  Restorative justice is seen in situations where a particular ethnicity experiences discrimination. One theory focuses on punishing the offender, while the other focuses on the needs of the victims, and seeks to establish an active place in society for them. Retributive justice accomplishes half of the goal by focusing on the offender/oppressor, but does not consider the victim’s place. Restorative justice on the other hand, enables society to make a list of prerequisites and capabilities needed for the victim to fully become a citizen and human in society. Young’s theory is analogous with retributive justice because it identifies and eliminates the source of oppression. Nussbaum’s theory is analogous with restorative justice because it focuses on the oppressed, and creates a plan to institute and include them back into society.

Another variance between the oppression theory and capabilities approach involves the respective methods’ universal level by way of efficiency. The use of the capabilities approach is more efficient than eliminating forms of oppression. Nussbaum’s capabilities are more universal. It allows sole focus on the individual, and the individual’s human qualities. The capabilities are applicable to all types and forms of societies. As she states, “The capabilities approach is fully universal: the capabilities in question are held to be important for each and every nation, and each person is to be treated as an end.”(Nussbaum, FOJ 78) Nussbaum’s capabilities set up a base criterion and standard for what is right.

Contrasting, simply eliminating oppression is less universal because of two reasons.  The first reason involves an inherent particularity, unique to each society. Each society is in its own situation equipped with a different hierarchy in place, different relationship dynamics between groups, and different circumstances (historical or evolving) supporting the hierarchy and relationships. Multiple groups colluding to oppress one group, is one hypothetical scenario.

The second reason involves oppression as a structural concept. Oppressive structures are not overt. Disadvantaged groups discover oppressive structures through reflection of their own experiences. Young states that oppression’s causes “are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules”. (Young 41) Oppression is generally found in “ordinary interactions, media and cultural stereotypes, and structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms…..the normal processes of everyday life”. (Young 41) Structural oppression, to the extent, suggests the existence of oppressors. The oppressors don’t always understand or recognize their role in oppression. When trying to situate oppression, it’s harder to identify covert forms of oppression, in order to eliminate them. Additionally, the multiple group presence (blacks, whites, homosexuals, disabled people, etc.) causes the five faces/forms of oppression to create different subcategories. Ideologies such as: racism, classism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, etc. are present. The groups’ and ideologies’ presence create a myriad of relationships. Some group or someone will always be oppressed. Therefore, these five simple identifiers create countless situations, where a solution is needed, and implemented. The capabilities approach sets criterion, which eliminates a need for proper identification. The process is now cleaner and more direct.

For Young’s theory, the covertness of her oppression leads to injustice becoming hidden within society. This makes our understanding of “what is injustice?”, into a subjective metric. Objective metrics satisfy the public’s demand for basic criterion applying to the structure of society. The capability approach is an objective metric which focuses on ends rather than means, is sensitive to individual variations in functioning that have democratic import, and delivers public services, especially education and health, in an efficient manner because of guidance by public institutions.

Perhaps what makes Nussbaum’s capabilities approach better than Young’s oppression theory, is that the capabilities approach creates more institutional guarantees than oppression theory. Yes, oppression guarantees an elimination of attitudes associated with oppression. However, eliminating these attitudes is a transformative (changing social constructions) fix. This solution is at best, informal with no real tangible policies supporting the oppressed party. While the oppression theory tells us what needs to change, it gives us no practical method of eliminating the attitudinal problems, or implementing a system that will reestablish victims into society. We can guarantee you there will be no oppression, but we cannot simultaneously guarantee you that the environment (economic, political, social and cultural life) will produce equality. The capabilities approach guarantees effective access to levels of functioning, and effective access to a package of capabilities sufficient for standing as an equal over the course of an entire life. This theory guarantees lack of oppression, and at the same time, creates a standard of living. The lack of oppression’s fundamental guarantee is found in Nussbaum’s bodily integrity capability.  It states, “Being able to move freely from place to place; to secure against violent assault.” (Nussbaum, FOJ 76) This coincides well with Young’s notion that oppressed people are trapped within their bodies, and are only a product of their inherent characteristics. The ten capabilities are formal because they show a necessary threshold level for full justice. 

Now we can apply a pluralist approach, using transformative fixes, as well as affirmative fixes (fitting groups/individuals within current society). Using both types of solutions enables recognition and elimination of the oppressor, while reconstructing the individual as an active human participating in society. The pluralist approach is effective because of its flexibility. It sets a standard of living, but allows for attention to unique situations of oppression. This approach finishes the process of justice by making victims active in society. The pluralist approach completely establishes justice for all people.

References:

-Iris Marion Young, “Five Faces of Oppression,” in Geographic thought: a praxis perspective eds. George L. Henderson, Marvin Waterstone. 55-71
-Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, pp 122-155
-Martha Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice, pp 55-95, 96-103; 179-195; 216-223

Philippians 4:13

Many of you guys might wonder why I have the Philippians 4:13  biblical scripture posted on my blog. As you can see from the visual evidence to the right, it is a big part of my life.

In terms of disability, this scripture, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" empowers many to work through their inherent disadvantages in order to live life. As a person who has Crohn's disease, it truly gives me strength to work through my struggles, both associated to general life, as well as those caused by my illness.

Please excuse if this post is too much of a personal message, but this scripture, at least in the world of Christianity has been used as a pseudo-slogan for those going through difficult times.

Edit:

Here is even a sports camp helping people with disabilities in Arkansas with the Title,
Camp 4:13

Check it out!

A follow up to the previous blog post. This article explains how disabilities can be seen as workplace assets.

Link

The Benefits of Disability in the Workplace

This is an article on Forbes.com by Judy Owen outlining the possible benefits of being disabled in the workplace. You never really hear this angle of the conversation, so it interesting to receive this perspective.

Link

From Redistribution to Recognition? by Nancy Fraser

Nancy Fraser seeks to schematize two types of demands for justice, redistribution and recognition, and two forms of political demands affirmative and transformative. She develops this scheme in order to highlight a dilemma she sees in the two types: redistribution requires the elimination of group difference, and recognition requires the maintenance of that difference. Redistribution produces political and economic changes that result in greater economic equality. Recognition redresses the harms of disrespect, stereotyping and cultural imperialism. Similarly, affirmative demands maintain the underlying structures that cause group differentiation while transformative demands radically pluralize the field of norms such that we have many more groups than before. Fraser articulates these schemes as an attempt to re-center theories of justice on the needs of economic transformation, which she sees as lost in current focuses on cultural recognition. She argues that race and gender based movements are most susceptible to these contradictions because they include both demands for redistribution and recognition.

However, Iris Young criticizes Fraser stating, “Her dichotomy between political economy and culture leads her to misrepresent feminist, anti-racist and gay liberation movements as calling for recognition as an end in itself, when they are better understood as conceiving cultural recognition as a means to economic and political justice.” (Young 148) In other words, while redistribution and recognition are both pursued by the social movements, often recognition is used as a means of redistribution. Young also mentions that Fraser’s dilemma is due to her use of two arbitrary poles for justice claims.

I tend to believe that Young is unfairly criticizing Fraser, and being a little short-sighted. First, her main criticism involves using a dichotomy to polarize her justice claims. However, Young uses only 5 forms of oppression, to express all different types of oppression. Additionally, simply eliminating these forms of oppression, most likely won’t produce justice in and of itself. Fraser uses these two types of demands for justice as a scale to situate where the goals of the movement lay.

Young claims that the goal of recognition movements is only to receive redistribution. However, she fails to consider the reverse. It is a possibility that groups pursue redistribution schemes because the groups feel that is their only way of receiving recognition. Then, once that recognition is established, a change in the environment is more likely. The African-American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s took this path. Once these political and economic policies were pursued, the marginalized group received recognition. Fast-forward 40 years later, many of the same stereotypes, disrespect, and preconception do not occur. What is interesting is that Young doesn’t criticize the related affirmative/transformative model. This model is simply the result of pursuing redistribution/recognition. In simpler terms, we use recognition with the hope of transforming the social environment, and we use redistribution with the goal of establishing political and economic policies. Both of these models represent a valid method of scaling the type of pursuit, as well as the goals (end result) of social movements.

References:

Nancy Fraser, “From Redistribution to Recognition?” in Justice Interruptus, pp 11-39
Iris Marion Young, “Unruly Categories: A Critique of Nancy Fraser’s Dual Systems Theory,” New Left Review 222 (March-April 1997)

Radical Democracy by Chantal Mouffe

The above video is the Keynote Address from the 2013 Radical Democracy Conference Social movements that want to create social and political change need a strategy that challenges common concepts associated with democracy. This strategy needs to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on equality and freedom to include difference.  According to Chantal Mouffe, liberal democracy, while seemingly an open form of government oppresses differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. Radical democracy seeks to implement these differences. Radical democracy doesn’t just except these differences, but is dependent on it. If democracy is built to include difference, relationships of oppression will come to the forefront. Then these oppressive relationships will be challenged.

Particularly, Mouffe challenges universalism and abstract individualism. Universalism has never been truly universal; it is always a space inhabited by the hegemonic ideal or identity. Abstract individualism tries to take the person out of history and out of social contexts. This means that the individual is always a product of her traditions and contradictory experiences.

Mouffe really is proposing a radical form of democracy. Essentially, she is saying that we can take all of these different ideologies, views, and opinions, and fit them into political formations in our society. It is important to note, that the differences don’t exist to take over democracy, but just improve democracy by introducing new, innovative concepts not normally associated with democracy. She makes a compelling argument stating, “the so-called communitarians who, while they all share a critique of liberal individualism's idea of a subject existing prior to the social relations that form it, have differing attitudes toward modernity.” (Mouffe 42) In other words, similarities don’t always hold everything together, producing harmony and continuity. As I see it, there are differences, but that is not always a bad thing. Thinking about differences helps secure our own ideologies. Differences also allow us to borrow and incorporate other concepts to improve upon our own understandings and methods.

Personally, I like radical democracy. In a melting pot such as the United States, we should be very open to several different methods of thinking. Obviously though, there will always be a tradition of liberal democracy, but a place as the United States has the capacity to have these differences. The million-dollar question concerning theories such as radical democracy, “How do we make this theory practical?” This is the issue I have. If this theory were to be put in action, all of the differences could not possibly be incorporated. Only those that are not too radical will be given credence. In classical democratic fashion, the overwhelming majority will suppress  the radical minority.

References:

Paul Holdengräber and Chantal Mouffe, 1989, “Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?” Social Text, No. 21, Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism (1989), pp. 31-45

The Difference Principle by John Rawls

I'm not the biggest fan of John Rawls' content, but you cannot have a disability blog without him.

Background (courtesy of worldhistoria.com)

“The difference principle was formulated by the renowned political philosopher, John Rawls in his 1971 scholarly publication, A Theory of Justice and reinforced in his 2001 revised text, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. The difference principle is one of the three components of Rawls' "special conception of justice" and through the difference principle, Rawls essentially argues that inequality is unjustifiable, unless the existence of inequality is operating to benefit the least advantaged in society. As he states, "Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all".

Rawls' "special conception of justice" is encapsulated in Rawls' two principles of justice, where the first principle stipulates that each person has an equal right to "the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others" while the second principle instructs that social and economic inequalities are required to be arranged (a) according to the difference principle and (b) based on fair equality of opportunity. Hence, subject to the constraints of the other two principles, the difference principle requires that one should "arrange social and economic inequalities so that everyone benefits", thereby through its leximin formulation its operation is permitted on the condition that the fair value of political liberties are not compromised. Therefore the difference principle is essentially based on the simple notion that social and economic inequalities are justifiable "only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off". This is fundamentally achieved through existing social and economic institutions who are permitted to initiate schemes which encourage better prospects for the most advantaged on the basis that it will also simultaneously benefit the less fortunate. As Rawls argues, "Their [the most advantaged] better prospects act as incentives so that the economic process is more efficient, innovation proceeds at a faster pace and so on. Eventually the resulting material benefits spread throughout the system and to the least advantaged".”

My View

All people are not created equal. Every person has their own set of unique strengths and weaknesses. Thus, society needs to put those better suited, into more difficult jobs for the sake of society. This ensures maximum efficiency. This is an old management principle. Rawls is seen as a genius for creating this principle, but this principle is very old. Rawls seemingly combines various other concepts, principles, and ideologies of other authors to create the difference principle. In saying that, Rawls has created an operative principle that avoids equality at any price, and maximizing aggregate without regards to distribution.

Economically, the difference principle works because it is compatible with efficiency. An economy becomes inefficient and stagnant if everyone is paid the same rate. However, the difference principle works because it provides people with an incentive to still work hard. Incentives lead to greater efficiencies. The end result in this process, is the industry advancing at a quicker pace, with greater material, and more benefits to distribute throughout the system. Socially and morally it works because the principle cannot operate unless everyone is benefitting. Plus, Rawls makes a good argument by bringing up the veil of ignorance. Individuals are more likely to accept this principle because they (or their offspring) could end up in an unwanted position in society.    

References:

Rawls, John. 2005. A Theory of Justice. Original ed. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. 

Disability and Sports

It would not be a true blog done by me, if sports were not somehow on the blog. Excuse the previous double negative, but I really love sports, and they need to be on my blog!

Disabled Sports USA is a nonprofit organization found in 1967 based in Rockville, MD (go DC metro area!). They provide opportunities to youth and adults with disabilities to develop independence, confidence and fitness through participation in disabled sports. It really is a great organization that helps people participate in my favorite hobby.

Please check out there website at: www.disabledsportsusa.org

"What is the Point of Equality" by Elizabeth Anderson

A comparison between the views of Anderson and Silvers

Sharing numerous arguments with Silvers’ “Formal Justice” is Anderson’s “Democratic Equality”. Similar to Formal Justice, the Democratic Equality conception submits that justice as equality seeks to end socially oppressive relationships. Anderson writes, “Positively, the claim asserts that all competent adults are equally moral agents: everyone equally has the power to develop and exercise moral responsibility, to cooperate with others according to principles of justice, to shape and fulfill a conception of their good.” (Anderson 312) For Democratic Equality, an ideal society has social conditions where everyone’s freedom is secured. Legitimate relationships with fundamental equality, equal respect, and real freedom to participate in democratic self-government are a basic threshold of liberties. Democratic Equality has three central spheres important to its axiom. The first sphere is functioning as a human being. This requires access to sustaining one’s biological existence (food, shelter, clothing health care) and access to human agency such as knowledge of one’s circumstances and options, the ability to deliberate about means and ends, and the ability to think and judge for oneself including freedom of thought and movement.

The second sphere is functioning as a participant in a system of cooperative production. This requires access to education, means of production, and fair contracts. Additionally, the second sphere includes recognition for productive contribution, and the right to receive the fair value for one’s labor. Finally, the last sphere is functioning as a citizen in a democratic state. This requires access to political participation such as freedom of speech and franchise, as goods/services/relationships in civil society, including access to public spaces, access to public accommodations, and the social conditions of being accepted by others. (Anderson 317-318) The societal obstacles mentioned by Silvers, should not exist in society according to Anderson. Holding a similar view to Silvers, Anderson suggests that luck egalitarianism wrongly focuses attention on the distribution of privately owned goods among individuals. The most important matter is equal moral value or equality in human relationships. Democratic Equality guarantees equality across various capabilities, and equal and effective access to all levels in society. Putting Democratic Equality in terms of people with disabilities, it aims to reconfigure public spaces to make them accessible and adapt work situations to the needs of people with disabilities in order to participate in productive activity.

By initially outlining their respective arguments, one can see similarities between Silvers and Anderson. Both offer the same alternative conception of justice. That is, by altering the environment in which disabled people live in,  and restructuring various aspects of society in order to include people with disabilities. Each author lays the foundation for their argument based off of all citizens possessing equal moral value. This is the job of the government in society. The government assures that all citizens have the freedom of participation and association, i.e. free of social barriers. As seen in the last sphere of Democratic Equality, the goods/services/relationships that civil society calls for are the exact same things Silver asks for when she says, “principles and practices” that “should be constructed to be neutral in respect to whether person are normal, or impaired” (Silvers 16), as referenced before.  Justice should only assure a basic capability threshold. Silvers says this is all disabled people want (a basic threshold), while Anderson goes further stating that justice should be unconcerned about the life after that threshold is established. Both authors argue against distributive equalizing methods as the primary resource for incorporating disabled people into society. Both build off of the claim that it is morally bad if people are badly or worse off through no fault of their own.

What Silvers calls distributive justice, Anderson calls this “Luck Egalitarianism”. Anderson has one criticism of “Luck Egalitarianism” that aligns with Silvers’ philosophy. It is that: 1)It is that Luck Egalitarianism takes the distribution of goods and resources to be morally important in its own right, but the concern of social justice should be the quality of human relationships The connection with this criticism is fairly clear. Both authors contest the idea of giving handouts in order to equalize. With Distributive Justice, happiness for the population is the end goal, but it should not be. Freedom of equality should be the objective.

Another similarity emerges from Silvers and Anderson’s respective philosophies. Silvers uses the concepts of institutionalism, devaluation, and guiltiness to support her claim. Similarly, Anderson uses a comparison between pity and. compassion to justify herself. Beginning with Silvers, disabled people have been institutionalized because the social institutions treat disabled people as dependents. This leads to their devaluation in society, thinking of them as deficient, needing “special benefits, entitlements, and exemptions to sustain them in their exclusion from the mainstreams of commercial and civic life.” (Silvers 138) This notion leads to a final step where nondisabled people feel guilty for both a disabled person’s situation, and the fear of insensitivity. Analogous with this claim is pity for Anderson. Pity similarly balances the suffering in the relationship. Anderson writes, “Pity, by contrast, is aroused by a comparison of the observer’s condition with the condition of the object of pity. Its characteristic judgment is not ‘‘she is badly off’’ but ‘‘she is worse off than me.’’ (Silvers 306-307) Compassion instead relieves the suffering. Both concepts allude to the same fundamental concept of not justifying a disabled person’s position by means of equalization, in this case, by artificial emotional support.

The similarities shown above show that Silvers and Anderson offer the same alternative conception of justice. The only negligible differences are: 1) The slight change in language and 2) That Anderson goes farther in her claims, making larger assertions. With these points made however, neither Silvers nor Anderson’s theories are persuasive. For starters, it is very difficult for equalizing “distributive” policies to be neatly separated from purely formal antidiscrimination. In other words, by the nature of policies, the resulting consequences will most likely produce this indirect effect of distribution, which leads to discrimination.  This result can be through tangible and intangible resources. If one seeks to only to alter the environment, nondisabled people will still feel guilty and possess a sense of pity because of the inherent differences that cause disabled people to live non-normative lives. While the resources may be tangible, they still are visible and apparent. There is legitimate proof, that a form of aid is going toward disabled people. Whether the aid is actually helpful….. is another debate.

References:

Elizabeth Anderson “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics 109 no 2 (1999) 287-337

Formal Justice by Anita Silvers

As a side note these next two blog posts are related.

Anita Silvers suggests that “formal justice” alone has caused various integration accommodations such as remodeled bathrooms, closer parking spaces, signers for Deaf, and Braille signs to become a major part of American society. These “just principles of material distribution” are examples of what is “constructed to be neutral in respect to whether person are normal, or impaired.” (Silvers 16) These just principles in Formal Justice, shouldn’t necessarily seek to equalize the life chances of disabled persons, but rather the principles should only remove the social, cultural, and legal barriers to equal opportunity. Formal Justice says that justice is served when no one is prevented from seeking their conception of the good, by these culturally and socially imposed obstacles. These barriers include concepts such as institutionalism, devaluation, marginalization, guiltiness, and exclusion. These imposed obstacles would include the way disable people are discriminated against by the nondisabled because of their inability to possess all of the same physical, sensory, and cognitive characteristics.  One example is the condescending judgment received due to various government handouts. The nondisabled feel morally and politically obliged to mitigate and rectify specific kinds of disadvantage occasioned by the differences. In other words, the nondisabled feel obligated to equalize the people because of their disabilities. This gives disabled people inherently less moral value. However, the crux of Silvers’ argument claims equal moral value is most important.

Equalizing justice, in opposition to formal justice, holds that a just society should compensate those who draw less advantageous shares. Our need for equal entitlement (happiness, life, liberty, etc.) makes it a requirement of justice to equalize life opportunities.  According to Silvers, this shows how American society promotes separation in order to keep disabled people separate, thereby not maximizing efficiency. She states, “However praiseworthy, the generous distribution of resources cannot reconfigure the circumstances that dim their prospects. Distributing benefits to individuals with disabilities does not address the bias that isolates them.” (Silvers 17) Formal Justice enables everyone, regardless of condition, to have an equal playing surface without socially induced obstacles.

For Silvers this equalizing method is “Distributive Justice”. Silvers states, “Rather than broadening the social participation of people with disabilities by reducing their isolation, theoretical egalitarians who are unprepared to alter interpersonal conventions turn to distributive schemes that compensate people with disabilities for their isolation but continue them in it.” (Silver 23) This act of Distributive Justice will only serve to keep those underrepresented, in the same position. Silvers then use the concepts of institutionalism, devaluation, and guiltiness to support her claim.

Both Silvers and Anderson advocate social movements as part of the solution. However, this contradicts one of their fundamental claims of elevating private preference into the public light. In essence, they are elevating their own private preferences into the public light. The democratic way becomes less democratic. Running along the same mind of thinking as the slogan “Nothing For Us, Without Us”, Silvers cannot suggests what she wants, and speak for all disabled people. Each disabled person has different needs. It is up to society to establish principles for all members, able or not. Even still, is the democratic way the only way to achieve social equality? While they argue for Formal Justice and Democratic Equality, and against Distributive Justice and Luck Egalitarianism respectively, there are a great number of those who feel that the latter option is the better method, including disabled people. The tangibility of the resource demonstrates attention and sensitivity towards situations. Great portions of disabled people have a multitude of conditions, or a great severity of an impairment that all intangible resources cannot account for.

For example, a person with Crohn’s disease has so many side conditions, that acts of distributive justice will be needed at some point (assistance for amount of medicine/procedures/surgeries). To believe that social and cultural barriers are the only things holding disabled people back is naïve. Most disabled people can break through these barriers by will, but at times, their restrictive condition becomes tangible, legitimate if you may.  To conclude, to think that social movements will alter the environment surrounding disable people is too idealistic. Discrimination will always appear in at least one form. This is not to say that social movements should not be used, but rather, it is a fragmented and incomplete solution. For these assertions to be persuasive, a tangible and thorough plan must be suggested. One, which will assure, that without the use of distributive resources sensitivity towards disabled people will be maintained. 

References:

Anita Silvers: “Formal Justice” in Disability, Difference, Discrimination, Anita Silvers, David Wasserman, and Mary B. Mahowald, 13-53; 133-145

National Disability Policy: A Progress Report - August 2012

A link to the latest progress report from the NCD regarding national disability policy.

Link

"Nothing About Us Without US"

Oppression occurs when individuals are systematically subjected to political, economic, cultural, or social degradation because they belong to a social group.”   
-James Charlton  

These different contexts determine the similarities and differences in the experience of people with disabilities.

The slogan “Nothing About Us Without Us” resonates with the philosophy and history of the disability rights movement (DRM), a movement that has embarked on a mission parallel to other liberation movements. This slogan can be interpreted to mean different things, but to me, it says (from a first-person perspective) to mean, “We should have a say in the policies that affect us.” Charlton says, “to understand anything about people with disabilities or the disability rights movement, one must recognize their individual and collective necessities.” (Charlton 17) This slogan has built a movement that has united many to put an end to the oppression people with disabilities face. And why not, it is simple and to the point. Plus, many different oppressed groups can use the same phrase, because of their mutual understanding concerning the matter.

In his book, James Charlton argues that socially-constructed needs, and deprivation experienced by people with disabilities that constitute the terms of struggle as well as the need for people with disabilities to agitate for their own needs, from their own lived experience. To me, it comes down to an assumption of inferiority that people with disabilities take issue with. This assumption of inferiority includes an assumption that people want the norm, a lack of publicity, and an exclusion of participation. It almost seems like people are saying…..if you truly want to help, how about asking us what we need. By taking away disabled people’s voices on matter regarding them, one could argue you are not only demeaning them, but taking away their own sense of identity. As Charlton says, our country is “transforming the notion and concept of disability from a medical condition to a political and social condition.” (Charlton 17)

I conclude with a passage from California Scholarship Online,

“The DRM's demand for control is the essential theme that runs through all its work. Control has universal appeal for DRM activists because the needs of people with disabilities and the potential for meeting these needs are everywhere conditioned by a dependency born of powerlessness, poverty, degradation, and institutionalization. This dependency, saturated with paternalism, begins with the onset of disability and continues until death. The condition of dependency is typical for hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. Only in the past twenty-five years has this condition begun to change. Although little noticed and affecting only a small percentage of people with disabilities, this transformation is profound.”

The need for control has developed out of dependency. It becomes so vital for people who are dependent on others, to at least have a voice in matters concerning them. Their voice is already marginalized do to their inherent uniqueness. Only they can truly understand how our actions and policies will affect them. Let’s not create social and political policies for them, thinking that they do not know what’s best for them.

References:

James I. Charlton, 1998, Nothing About Us without Us, University of California Press., 3-20, 153-168

"Nothing About Us without Us : Nothing About Us Without UsDisability Oppression and Empowerment California Scholarship Online." Home California Scholarship Online. http://california.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1525/california/9780520207950.001.0001/upso-9780520207950-chapter-1 (accessed June 2, 2013).

Internalized Ableism

http://www.leverageinc.org/ATWebinar/AT&DisID/SHOW/SHOW/html/web_data/file15.htm

Internalized ableism is the polar opposite feeling that those with disabilities should be feeling in society. However, the legal protection serves as a covert, formal form of oppression in society. I must point out that I do not believe this is intentional. This thesis is simply meant to imply that those in power, making these laws, do not understand the indirect effects it has on the consciousness of people with disabilities.

Fiona Campbell argues that we need to take account the negative ontology of disability; that is, that in order to define and maintain the value of the normal, disability must be seen as something to be avoided, prevented, or eliminated. This negative ontology means that calls for inclusion will extend only so far as people with disabilities are willing to move away from their own disabilities. To make claims of legal protection on the basis of disability produces resentment against those who have “special rights” and thus, the law reinterprets disability protections as mechanisms for disability normalization and elimination, as shown in a variety of court cases concerning the definition of disability in the ADA. Thus, these laws serve to cause people with disabilities to internalize ableism rather than create new ontological formations that could accept non-normative body presentations. (Credit Claire Mckinney of the University of Chicago for summary of Campbell’s Legislating Disability)

“What happens when we live in this world of negative messages all the time and people telling us that disability is something to be ashamed of and something that needs to be cured and something that needs to be fixed is that we internalize that. We call that ableism.” (leverageinc.org) Albelism can only exist relative to disability. (Campbell 109) This notion leads Campbell, to basically state that a person with a disability can only be seen as a negative being. People with disabilities start believing that they cannot “do it”. They begin judging themselves based upon the norms established by society. This is how the oppression of disability is being carried out. I agree with Campbell when she states that, “the legal categories of ‘disability’ and ‘disabled person’ disallows the ‘disabled’ subject any escape from the normalizing practices of compensation and mitigation.” (Campbell 126) It seems like our society has effectively labeled people with disabilities. Instead of restructuring our society to include those with disabilities, our society makes people with disabilities feel like they are a lesser person in it. It is our job to eliminate this covert form of oppression.

References:

Fiona Campbell, 2005 “Legislating Disability: Negative ontologies and the Government of Legal Identities” in Foucault and the Government of Disability edited by Shelley Lynn Tremain, 108-131

All in the Family by Kennan Ferguson

Reactions to Family Guy and Disability

In Chapter 2 titled, “The Functioning Family” from his book All in the Family, Ferguson analyzes the family’s role in political theory. In short, family is the most fundamental building block from which our society is based on. He uses various quotes such as, “The family has centralized power for the contemporary nation.” (Ferguson 22), “The family acts as a nidus, in which human concerns, conflicts, and cares rest.” (Ferguson 23), and “The family is important precisely because it is the locus of negotiations of unity and difference.” (Ferguson 24) Family is the place that shapes who we are, and in part motivates our actions. We are not inclined to act against our family’s ideals. It is very useful that Ferguson points out how our nuclear family directly and indirectly formulates our ideals and our actions.

In saying all of this, it can be argued that family is the main reason for why establishing justice for people with disabilities is not at the forefront of our minds. Family personalizes the political by putting human passions in the realm of the legitimate. This can be a good thing, but it also establishes normalities in our society. Often these normalities leave out the different and underrepresented. Most families in this country do not have to deal with the day to day responsibility of having a disabled person in their household. Those that do, recognize that people with disabilities need more inclusion in our society. Ferguson has an alarming quote when he states, “We care far more about those close to us than we do about those who can change the world.” (Ferguson 26) If the issue is not in our family, at times we become blind to the needs of others. Family ideals disable us from truly developing a third-person perspective for the world.

  

In the video above, people are asked about what they think of Family Guy making fun of people with disabilities. While I’m not a gambling man, I would assume that those in the video, who found the subject funny, did not have people with disabilities in their family, and vice-versa. On a more positive note, it seems that everyone recognized the satire criticizing our society in the video. My overall point though still stands, the reason Family Guy satirically points this issue out is because our families have established preconceptions regarding people with disabilities. These preconceptions have been translated to our society because of the important role family plays in structuring our society.

References:

Ferguson, Kennan 2012, "All in the Family", 22-31

Myths and Facts About People with Disabilities

Here are just some myths and facts regarding people with disabilities tat I would like to share with you guys. I feel many people have these preconceptions or make these mistakes everyday.

Credit Easter Seals:Original Link

Myths and Facts About People with Disabilities

Everybody's fighting some kind of stereotype, and people with disabilities are no exception. The difference is that barriers people with disabilities face begin with people's attitudes — attitudes often rooted in misinformation and misunderstandings about what it's like to live with a disability.

Myth 1: People with disabilities are brave and courageous.

Fact: Adjusting to a disability requires adapting to a lifestyle, not bravery and courage.

Myth 2: All persons who use wheelchairs are chronically ill or sickly.

Fact: The association between wheelchair use and illness may have evolved through hospitals using wheelchairs to transport sick people. A person may use a wheelchair for a variety of reasons, none of which may have anything to do with lingering illness.

Myth 3: Wheelchair use is confining; people who use wheelchairs are "wheelchair-bound."

Fact: A wheelchair, like a bicycle or an automobile, is a personal assistive device that enables someone to get around.

Myth 4: All persons with hearing disabilities can read lips.

Fact: Lip-reading skills vary among people who use them and are never entirely reliable.

Myth 5: People who are blind acquire a "sixth sense."

Fact: Although most people who are blind develop their remaining senses more fully, they do not have a "sixth sense."

Myth 6: People with disabilities are more comfortable with "their own kind."

Fact: In the past, grouping people with disabilities in separate schools and institutions reinforced this misconception. Today, many people with disabilities take advantage of new opportunities to join mainstream society.

Myth 7: Non-disabled people are obligated to "take care of" people with disabilities.

Fact: Anyone may offer assistance, but most people with disabilities prefer to be responsible for themselves.

Myth 8: Curious children should never ask people about their disabilities.

Fact: Many children have a natural, uninhibited curiosity and may ask questions that some adults consider embarrassing. But scolding curious children may make them think having a disability is "wrong" or "bad." Most people with disabilities won't mind answering a child's question.

Myth 9: The lives of people with disabilities are totally different than the lives of people without disabilities.

Fact: People with disabilities go to school, get married, work, have families, do laundry, grocery shop, laugh, cry, pay taxes, get angry, have prejudices, vote, plan and dream like everyone else.

Myth 10: It is all right for people without disabilities to park in accessible parking spaces, if only for a few minutes.

Fact: Because accessible parking spaces are designed and situated to meet the needs of people who have disabilities, these spaces should only be used by people who need them.

Myth 11: Most people with disabilities cannot have sexual relationships.

Fact: Anyone can have a sexual relationship by adapting the sexual activity. People with disabilities can have children naturally or through adoption. People with disabilities, like other people, are sexual beings.

Myth 12: People with disabilities always need help.

Fact: Many people with disabilities are independent and capable of giving help. If you would like to help someone with a disability, ask if he or she needs it before you act.

Myth 13: There is nothing one person can do to help eliminate the barriers confronting people with disabilities.

Fact: Everyone can contribute to change. You can help remove barriers by:

• Understanding the need for accessible parking and leaving it for those who need it
• Encouraging participation of people with disabilities in community activities by using accessible meeting and event sites
• Understanding children's curiosity about disabilities and people who have them
• Advocating a barrier-free environment
• Speaking up when negative words or phrases are used about disability
• Writing producers and editors a note of support when they portray someone with a disability as a "regular person" in the media
• Accepting people with disabilities as individuals capable of the same needs and feelings as yourself, and hiring qualified disabled persons whenever possible

Palestine and the Ease-Disease Continuum

The current conflict between Palestine and Israel brings interesting developments to disability theory. Theorists of psychiatry are starting to focus on the effects of political, social, and racial oppression on the well-being of people, rather than solely focusing on the individual and their “indigenous mind”. In my opinion, this is the right approach. By taking this approach, it takes the onus and blame off of the individual and redirects it back towards society. Instead of saying, “Something is wrong with him.”, this approach says, "What is wrong with the structure of society such that these people are feeling these ways?", i.e. the structure of society might not be the most advantageous for his health.

Arab societies have a long tradition of caring for the mentally ill in hospitals and in the community. In the early 20th century, the primary responsibility for mentally ill people rested with families. However, British and French colonialism brought an intolerable approach towards mental illness. They believed in treating the individual. “This treatment modality assumes that the pathological effects of war are located inside a person, and can be cured through individual treatment, as if the individual was recovering from an illness rather than suffering from the long-protracted consequences of historical and contemporary political injustice." (Summerfield 2002).Steadily, this approach became more popular, and is presently the dominant approach. This western approach is used to treat Palestinians today. While I believe this is a short-sighted approach, it has only been heavily used because over the years no other legitimate alternatives have been established. Those trying to help Palestinians, have been doing so the only way they know how to. For many Palestinians, one-on-one counseling is an imported and culturally unfamiliar practice. They don’t believe that these counselors know the root of their problems, never mind, knowing how to fix those problems.

Many of you may have been wondering why I put that odd looking chart above. How could this possibly relate to Palestine? My friends, that chart is the Ease-Disease continuum. Palestinian researchers have spent the past decade developing this scale. Not only does it not exclusively rely on medical symptoms, but it links mental health indicators to social well-being and quality of life. Expressions on this scale include: something is wrong with him, wilted, not happy, not able, low energy, no energy to complete daily activities, down, tired, broken/achy, and sick. (Giacaman 553) Most Palestinians oscillate back and forth on this scale because they live in constant trauma and fear. I love this scale because it accomplishes two goals. Not only does it distinguish mental illness from social suffering, but it also establishes a social and political response to mass suffering with the “reversal of historical injustice as its primary aim.” (Giacaman 555)

Studies have shown that Palestinians’ mental health has worsened since the turn of the millennium. However due to the conflict, their quality of life has worsened. My point is, all of these “diseases”, might have more to deal with societal oppression, than individual psychology. It is one matter if a particular group has these disorders, but a whole nation is another matter.  As Giacaman states on pg. 555, “Palestinians have seen their social suffering (mis)diagnosed as clinical pathology.”

  

If anything this new approach can be related back to our own country. I wonder how many people have been misdiagnosed in this country. For instance, how many children diagnosed with Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are simply a little hyper or just “bad”? Misrepresentation of true disorders vs. feelings or symptoms is definitely a legitimate possibility. Certainly this ground of diagnosis will always be shaky, but new approaches have given us an alternative way of thinking about a person's mental well-being.

References:

Giacaman, Rita et al. 2011, "Mental health, social distress and political oppression: The case of the occupied Palestinian territory" Global Public Health 6(5), 547-559

Disability Rights and Wrongs from Tom Shakespeare

-A reaction of mine of Chapter 9 titled "Care, support, and assistance" from Shakespeare's book Disability Rights and Wrongs

Shakespeare makes the claim on page 151, which states, “in this chapter I have argued for the pluralist approach to care and support, recognizing the diversity of disabled people’s lives and preferences.” Additionally, by stating that the solution is to have a balance of individualism (independent living) and mutuality (residential care), it provides an easy, yet not truly helpful solution to this problem. While Shakespeare is correct in saying this, he provides no real valid solution to the problem. This is ironic because he criticizes supporters of the feminist ethic of care for the same thing. A balance in these situations is always the best method. We want people who are disabled to feel incorporated into a community, but still provide them insurance for those things they simply cannot do. However, the implementation of such program is another issue. At this point, direct payments seem to be the best form because it is a tangible way of showing support and care to the disabled person.

As Shakespeare basically indicates, it is very difficult to create such a system that provides legitimate solutions for every problem a disable person has. Each disabled person has a different set of consequences. Disabled people have physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, each affecting their situation in a specific way. Thus different forms of “care needs to be provided”. Direct payments and independent living may provide those with physical benefits a solution because their impairments are easier to target, and thus find a solution for. However, this does nothing for those with cognitive impairments. As Shakespeare notes on pg. 141, those individuals need other forms of care such advocacy, advice, and emotional support. No amount of money can fix this type of impairment. There was a suggestion of personal assistants. However, this falls short as well, because while a personal assistant can help those with physical impairments, it doesn’t help with cognitive impairments because they are unable to provide the support needed by the nature of their relationship with the client. Additionally, good personal assistants are hard to find, and even less that actually “care” for the client. My grandmother provides an example as an elderly individual with both physical and cognitive impairments at this stage in her life. She needs the pluralist model described by Shakespeare. She is in assisted living with subsidiaries from the government. Independent Living does not abolish her dependency, there may be more or less of it, because she cannot do certain tasks without conventionally dependent adults. However, this also wouldn’t solve all of her problems. She still need the feminist ethic of care model to provide for her cognitive disabilities. Thankfully, her situation works out, but it is still very difficult to coordinate.

           

Shakespeare attempts to find a solution on pg. 151 when he states, “it may be that independent living based on direct payments represents the best compromise between the different ends for the average disabled person.” In other words, you can use money to achieve your levels of convenience, control, companionship, safety and routine. Making this process even more difficult is that all disabled people do not have the same ends that they are trying to establish. As Shakespeare says on pg. 150, “Care is not a single and simple goal, but can be disaggregated into a range of different goals or ends.” Some ends include: control over one’s own life, convenience and lack of responsibility, safety and security, companionship and intimacy, and routine and familiarity. Each person thinks about their situation in a different way, depending on their condition, how serious it is, and where they are at in their lives. Different agents further complicate the process. It appears the only viable system is the current one, with more individualism methods implemented, and more flexibility to use your resources to find the solution that directly impacts one’s situation.

References:

Shakespeare, Tom. 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs. New York: Routledge. 135-152