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

Inaccessible UChicago

Inaccessible UChicago

Here is just a preview of an inaccessible building around my campus (University of Chicago).  Our campus has to be one of the most inaccessible campuses in the country. I would guess this is due to our old gothic-esque buildings. These type of buildings are probably very hard to modify. Nevertheless, I doubt the University has put much of an effort towards the matter.

Clink on the link above for more information.

Record 10,978,040 Now on Disability; ‘Disability’ Would Be 8th Most Populous State

CNSNews.com- The total number of people in the United States now receiving federal disability benefits hit a record 10,978,040 in May, up from 10,962,532 million in April, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.

The 10,978,040 disability beneficiaries in the United States now exceed the population of all but seven states. For example, there are more Americans collecting disability today than there are people living in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia.

The record 10,978,040 total disability beneficiaries in May, included a record 8,877,921 disabled workers (up from 8,865,586 in April), a record 1,939,687 children of disabled workers (up from 1,936,236 in April), and 160,432 spouses of disabled workers.

May was the 196th straight month that the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments increased. The last time the number of Americans collecting disability decreased was in January 1997. That month the number of workers taking disability dropped by 249 people—from 4,385,623 in December 1996 to 4,385,374 in January 1997.

As the overall number of American workers collecting disability has increased, the ratio of full-time workers to disability-collecting workers has decreased.

In December 1968, 1,295,428 American workers collected disability and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 65,630,000 worked full-time. Thus, there were about 51 full-time workers for each worker collecting disability. In May 2013, with a record 8,877,921 American workers collecting disability and 116,053,000 working full-time, there were only 13 Americans working full-time for each worker on disability.

According to the latest Census Bureau population estimates, if disability were a state in the union it would rank eighth in population, coming in after Ohio but ahead of Georgia:

1. California 38,041,430

2. Texas 26,059,203

3. New York 19,570,261

4. Florida 19,317,568

5. Illinois 12,875,255

6. Pennsylvania 12,763,536

7. Ohio 11,544,225

8. Disability 10,978,040

9. Georgia 9,919,945

Link to Original Article