Some of the disabled people you might see are there in your world because of advances in medicine that have taken place over the last 100 years (ironically, much of it in response to WW2). And the same medicine that kept people alive to face the challenges of a world that isn't built for them, is investing everyday in technology to give sight to the blind, to give hearing to the deaf, and to give robotic arms and legs to those who survived trauma and spinal injuries. Or do we use stem cells? Is that where our priorities should be?

The raw motivation to save damaged bodies is a kind of love. You're something other than your capabilities. You're a personality. You're a family member. You're a dreamer of dreams. It's love for that conception of personhood that has healthcare workers reflexively reaching to help. But on the other end is a healthcare industry. It's all about money. Who pays for what?

Does it come down to the bottom line no matter how you answer the question in my first paragraph? Should we make laws that require builders to adhere to disability related guidelines? Or should the state pay?

There is ample archaeological and paleopathological evidence that ancient humans, including early Homo sapiens and even Neanderthals, cared for and cared for their fellow tribesmen with serious injuries, disabilities, or illnesses. This is evident in the traces of old injuries on the bones of the inhabitants of that time, and yet, later in life, the tooth enamel of such individuals often appears better than that of their fellow tribesmen (they ate pureed food). This is interpreted by scientists as evidence of healthy group members caring for the sick or disabled.

This has led to disability being seen as a gap between what a body is able to do and what it has been historically expected to be able to do, the gap between body and social expectation. — Banno

In your initial post, you alienate the problem of disability from the individual and transfer it to society or the environment. However, what if we consider the possibility of continuing to live with an illness as a humane act, an act of caring? What if it is part of a cultural code based on empathy on the one hand, and on the caregiver's desire to insure against their own disability on the other?

In this scenario, care ensures the continuation of life, albeit not a fully fulfilling life. Caring for the disabled is no longer an obligation of the state or society, but an individual interest. It's an investment in one's future safety, making altruism a rational choice for group members, not simply an emotional impulse.
Nevertheless, in many countries around the world, government building codes and regulations require buildings to be constructed with the disabilities of some people in mind.

Caring for the disabled, like the social model of disability, existed long before the advent of modern cities and architectural barriers. Care wasn't simply "fulfilling requirements" but a cultural imperative.

Is disability no more than an issue of welfare and charity, or should we [url=http:// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_On_Pity ]piss on pity[/url]? — Banno

If caring is a cultural code or a rational interest, it is not pity. Pity is passive; caring is active and instrumental.

There is ample archaeological and paleopathological evidence that ancient humans, including early Homo sapiens and even Neanderthals, cared for and cared for their fellow tribesmen with serious injuries, disabilities, or illnesses. This is evident in the traces of old injuries on the bones of the inhabitants of that time, and yet, later in life, the tooth enamel of such individuals often appears better than that of their fellow tribesmen (they ate pureed food). This is interpreted by scientists as evidence of healthy group members caring for the sick or disabled. — Astorre

I'm sure that's true. Advances in medicine mean more people will survive the acute phase of trauma, when blood loss, infection, and temporary neurological deficit would take out the average Neanderthal, the result being that we probably have more disabled people among us than in other times in history.

Are post traumatic stress syndrome and autism spectrum disabilities? How about learning difficulties? Being tone deaf or maybe having stage fright. Who, therefore is completely "abled"?

I'd add another layer to this. If we take what I've described about ancient times as a starting point, then in that society, caring for the disabled was a completely understandable and logical phenomenon: it's part of a cultural code based, on one hand, on empathy, and on the other, on the caregiver's desire to insure against their own disability. The modern world is somewhat different. Individualism and organized care for the elderly (for example, pensions) or the disabled (for example, benefits) don't strongly compel a contemporary to contribute to the well-being of such people. "The state will take care of them," or "It doesn't concern me," or "What does this have to do with me?" This is most likely the underlying cause of the problems faced by disabled people today.

Furthermore, I've also noticed that disabled people are portrayed as objects of hate or jokes (in films like "Avatar"). I don't know whether this is truly the norm in society or whether it's a distortion. If this is true, I'd like to point out that the very permissibility of making jokes about people with disabilities was probably perceived differently in earlier times. Furthermore, I think this has become possible due to the secular nature of modern times.

One sociological book which may be relevant is Erving Goffman's, 'Stigma' which looks at how physical characteristics impact on social identity. What is seen as an 'abnormality' often leads people to focus on the characteristic more so than all other features. The book was written a few decades ago, so attitudes may have changed but people I know who are disabled often feel perceived differently in a negative way.

There is also the issue of learning disabilities and how this can be stigmatising, even though there is more understanding of associated issues, such as dyslexia and autism in education. One thing which I have noticed is that some institutions for those with profound learning disabilities is that they are often (in England) in rural, remote locations, as if hidden mainstream communities.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. A few interesting things are happening here.

The most obvious is the prominence of the deficit model, in various guises.

The idea that disabilities need fixing.

The idea that a person with a disability cannot pay their way and will require more than they could provide.

And the related way that the focus moved so quickly from disability to care, to re-centring on the able bodied.

Offered as something for consideration, not as a negative. Why did this happen? is it justifiable? How?

Is there a defensibly “normal” human body? — Banno

No. Though we can still have a norm that functions socially like this.

Nor mind, for that matter, which I'd include with "the body" in terms of the medical model. So a person with depression is not able to want in the manner seen as not-depressive, though with training can be taught to act as if not depressed to fit in with the social expectations of people.

Interesting note there for similarity in terms of ability: a common symptom of depression is feelings of worthlessness or being a burden upon others. Others are able to care for the unable -- in this case largely defined by the economic model. Those with income are not a burden, those without it, or who "need" government assistance to live are the social burdens of the world. Hence the emphasis on curing or restoring ability to some norm, in this case the ability to pull a paycheck large enough to sustain oneself and not have to ask for "handouts", as they're often called by those not-disabled.

Which in a way shows that there's a connection here between body and sociality -- yes, the body feels worthless (mind), and the social world reinforces those feelings by setting up a norm by which to divide the providers from the feeders, the earners from the dependents, the worthwhile from the worthless.

Really interesting OP. All the questions you raise are good ones.

Let me push back on one point:

A wheelchair user is not incapacitated by ramps, but by stairs. — Banno

This is true, if the capacity in question is to ascend or descend from level to level. But that's a convenient choice of capacity, because it can be ameliorated. The wheelchair user is also incapacitated by being unable to dance, and that can not be ameliorated. I'm doubtful whether wheelchair dancing could be said to overcome the incapacity. It resembles dancing with the body, certainly, but is far from the same thing, whereas "going up a level" is literally the same, no matter how you accomplish it. So, is there a way of thinking of this incapacity as also social in nature? I don't see it, at first glance, but what do you think?

I’ll stick to the medical understanding of disability because it is the disabled body that prevents certain bodily movements and actions, not stairs. We could put a paraplegic man and an able-bodied man in any environment imaginable, including accessible ones, and witness how this is the case. It’s just a plain fact that one’s capacity is diminished by his disability, so in my mind the able-bodied ought not be blamed for it.

The reason we use stairs and not ramps in architecture is that stairs take up significantly less horizontal space for the same vertical rise. In other words, stairs are practical and cost less. Not only that, but the physiological cost of stairs is always less than a ramp of equal slope. No doubt, this poses a problem for the disabled, but to argue building stairs is an act of exclusion, or otherwise the failure of an architect to consider human variability, is unjust and absurd.

The real social question ought to be: why are the disabled left to care for themselves?

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. A few interesting things are happening here.

The most obvious is the prominence of the deficit model, in various guises.

The idea that disabilities need fixing.

The idea that a person with a disability cannot pay their way and will require more than they could provide.

And the related way that the focus moved so quickly from disability to care, to re-centring on the able bodied.

Offered as something for consideration, not as a negative. Why did this happen? is it justifiable? How? — Banno

I think we all wish to do what is best to make everyone's lives easier and not harder, and it's difficult to really to know what to do in contexts one has little famiilarity with. I guess my question is what might you propose the best response to the disabled would be if there are some well intentioned faux pas occuring?

This is just to say that I stand for the elderly on the bus because that's what I have been told to do and it seems the right thing to do, but now that I'm dilgently working on being more elderly, I don't know I'd take a young person's seat. I'd tell the whipper snapper to sit back down while I struggled to stand the whole time in spite of myself.

One of the tensions in that literature is around the nature of disability. We might focus on that here.

It might seem obvious that disability is a medical issue. On this understanding, it is the body of the person that is the source of the disability. On this account, an amputee is disabled because they are missing a limb, a para is disabled because they cannot move their legs, the blind are disabled because they cannot use their eyes, and so — Banno

The ‘dis’ in disability can be compared to the dis in dis-ease. It serves different purposes depending on the context of use. It can be a socially imposed determination of failure on the part of the so-labeled individual to fit in. Or it can be an internally generated perception of loss of capability. Instructive here is the difference in perception between someone born without sight or hearing and someone who loses these capacities at some point in their life. The former person has never experienced a loss of sight or hearing, and so never experienced few themselves as having become disabled. The latter individual may eventually transition from mourning such a loss to adapting to a new normal. But this process of normalization may never be complete in some persons, regardless of how accommodating the social environment is to someone the culture is happy to label differently abled rather than disabled.

There is ample archaeological and paleopathological evidence that ancient humans, including early Homo sapiens and even Neanderthals, cared for and cared for their fellow tribesmen with serious injuries, disabilities, or illnesses. This is evident in the traces of old injuries on the bones of the inhabitants of that time, and yet, later in life, the tooth enamel of such individuals often appears better than that of their fellow tribesmen (they ate pureed food). This is interpreted by scientists as evidence of healthy group members caring for the sick or disabled. — Astorre

Interesting and good evidence of our sociability being a core aspect of our nature..

Furthermore, I've also noticed that disabled people are portrayed as objects of hate or jokes (in films like "Avatar"). I don't know whether this is truly the norm in society or whether it's a distortion. If this is true, I'd like to point out that the very permissibility of making jokes about people with disabilities was probably perceived differently in earlier times. Furthermore, I think this has become possible due to the secular nature of modern times. — Astorre

There is something going on here, and I'm not at all sure it is cultural. It is not just in films, I noticed growing up that this attitude was very widespread in children. Rather than something that is socialized in us, it is as if this is something that needs to be socialized out of us. This experience made me wonder if there is a dark side to human nature expressing itself here. A drive to exclude based on perceived lack of fitness and lack of ability of the individual to contribute to the group.

This phenomenon concerns me. I'd like to delve into the descriptive description of the phenomenon (how it happens) rather than the prescriptive (how it should be).

And to what I've said above, I should add this: General indifference, which has become the norm for any individualistic society, continues to be perceived somewhat differently in the case of people with disabilities. It would be interesting to explore this. For example, according to the modern, generally accepted notion in developed countries, we are indifferent to an ordinary person walking towards us. Even if they do something wrong or even violate some norms, look very strange, smoke something illegal, or are simply lounging on the sidewalk after drinking, we calmly tell ourselves, "It's none of my business." And this seems generally accepted.

However, if a disabled person does all of the above, even if they're just walking towards us, we shouldn't seem so indifferent.

You'll agree, even despite our profound individualism, we still have a special attitude toward people with disabilities.

The very fact of indifference toward people with disabilities touches us. Hence, even despite secularism, something still lingers within us at a very deep level. This is a great area for conjecture. And I would suggest that this "special" attitude toward people with disabilities stems from our ordinary unpredictability of existence. We, residents of the 21st century, nevertheless continue to feel vulnerable, and it could easily happen that we ourselves could find ourselves in this position.

Perhaps this feeling among people with disabilities themselves is the root of the protest movement pointed out by the author of the thread: "Piss_On_Pity." Perhaps they don't like being special...

I think probably the extension of the term "disability" to encompass things other than objective disabilities (against the standard - more on that in a moment) is causing the discussion to be essentially impossible.

I live with a legally disabled person who cannot stand for more than a bout 45 minutes without searing pain throughout her head, neck and feet. But I meet criteria for legal disability on psychological grounds. Which is utterly preposterous. Having bad mental hygiene, or refusing to go to therapy, or rejecting attempts to have you break bad habits shouldn't ever be considered a disability. They are choices that compound and eventually feel overwhelming. But them stem from refusal to attend to oneself. I also have a son who has been diagnosed with what the kids call 'neurospicy' conditions. Which is bizarre, because I know exactly why he behaves the way he does because I've watched him his entire life. I am slowly ameliorating some of these mental barriers by attending to the events which caused them, and the styles of interaction which he is either leaning into, or away from, for a better outcome as set against his goals in life. This is not news or even interesting - but its a clear example of bad diagnosis in an attempt to label someone 'disabled' when they clearly are not disabled in any reasonable sense. We need to be careful to not over-label behaviour as 'ability'.

We can carve that off, and speak about objective disabilities: 99.9% of people are born with two arms. A vanishingly small number are not. That's a disability against the norm. That is not a social expectation. It is a statistical fact. Similarly, some autism spectrum conditions are absolutely objective, almost unattendable and eventually result in disaster as with PTSD. There's a rather well-known case here in NZ where a mother killed her severely autistic, violent and sociopathic daughter after years of abuse and i want to say neglect from the medical system, but if you read the case, that's not true. The person cost a disproportionate amount to keep both safe and out of prison. The mother got less than two years because the court basically said 'Yep, fair enough, I would too'. There's some ambiguity there now, morally speaking (and, by the by, there's a good reason a lot of the world thinks Canada's MAID system is ridiculous). So we should probably speak about different disabilities differently.

The ones who are physically unable to do that which some extreme majority can are not 'disabled' by anything at all on my view. They are disabled on account of their physical lack. To be clear genital impotence through to missing limbs or organs fit here. The world around them did not cause their disability. They are unable to do x, y and z on account of their *insert description of condition here*. And largely, we deal with this well. Disablement is usually a get-out-free card for most contracts requiring physical performance, including many financial contracts. This is correct, in my view. We also make concessions for the disabled in most physical places we can do. Work to be done, to be sure, but I'm of the opinion we're doing pretty well in the developed world. I don't believe in inherent rights, so I'm always going to be a little off-piste with this topic.

One other interesting question: How to deal with people who are disabled as a result of their own ignorance, stupidity, recklessness or callousness? What's the social expectation there?

Is disability a social construction? Is there a coherent way to define disability at all? — Banno

So going along with this question -- I'm suggesting that "disability" is largely a social construct based around socially enforced expectations of what an adult ought do: work being the obvious bare-minimum whereby even if someone doesn't accept you you have the ability to tell them to fuck off because you can take care of yourself even if they remain ignorant about the facts of disability.

Those without such autarky are usually who are meant, and that's why pity is frequently offered -- even if it is not desired. (for instance I have no desire for anyone's pity, or any judgment for that matter; I'd much rather be able to take care of myself with reasonable accommodations)

Autarky and work and social expectations of adulthood all look like social structures to me -- so those who are un-able to fit within those molds are given accommodations as seen fit, but they have to argue that they are the exception based on this way of understanding.

Now the Americans with Disabilities Act requires certain things of public buildings like ramps and wheel-chair accessibility and such. So that requirement on others to accommodate isn't absent current practices. But I think it is still largely fought for on the basis of sympathy for the afflicted, and means-testing for the not-afflicted-enough-to-warrant-sympathy.

So I can see the desire to highlight the social practices around disability, regardless of the medical component of disability. Basically I could see still addressing abilities -- for those so distressed -- medically while acknowledging there is also a social dimension (and one that's much larger than the medical concept of disability -- with its norms of the body -- suggests)

Good post.

This has led to disability being seen as a gap between what a body is able to do and what it has been historically expected to be able to do, the gap between body and social expectation. — Banno

Its not the gap between body and social expectation, but physical expectations of basic human capabilities. Social expectations bring arbitrary subjective judgements and should not be used for objective analysis.

In general a physical disability is a physical state of being that does not allow you to function successfully in the physical expectation spectrum. Its physically expected that humans have two working legs, so most physically interactable designs are based around this. This is not subjective, but based around observed realities.

In general a mental disability is a mental state of being that does not allow you to function successfully in the mental expectation spectrum. Most people learn a language of some kind. Not being able to learn language is essential to interact with society without assistance, so would be a disability.

According to the social model, it’s not using a wheelchair that is disabling, but stairs that exclude certain individuals from some spaces. It’s not being unable to hear that disables, but the absence of suitable captions or signing. Disability is a choice made by societal expectations. — Banno

This is definitely backwards. If you aren't a designer or someone who builds for society, there are often many wants, demands, and desires while designing or building something. A good creator has a limit of time, money, and available materials to them, and part of the challenge of the job is creating a high quality product within these constraints. Designing to the statistical norms of biology is chosen for efficiency. There are 7 foot people walking around, but despite this most doors aren't that high. Taller doors necessitate more materials for the door, weight considerations of the door, and considerations of sturdy framing. So yes, most doors aren't 7 foot because of this.

This is why government has regulations. Because given the capability to do something cheaper and with less time and resources, most are going to choose that every time. As such we decide that society will bear the burden of extra time, resources and cost to keep certain minimum considerations when building things. This doesn't just apply to disabled people, but even everyday people.

More recent work has centred on the presumption that disability is inherently a bad thing. That rather than being inherently negative, having a disability is just one more way of being a human, not inherently a disadvantage or a negative, but treated as such by many in the community. — Banno

Of course its a bad thing. It diminishes your quality of life, capabilities, and increases your difficulties in society. No one given a cost free choice of, "Healthy legs" vs "Stumps that you can't feel or move" would and should take the prior every time. You're still human. You shouldn't be mistreated for it. But yes, you're diminished in capacity. This just sounds like people who don't want to admit they have problems, which is just immature. Accepting the fact you have issues, are less then others in some areas of life, or any other thing you're saddled with that no one rational would choose for themselves, is everyone's responsibility to learn to accept and live with.

So here’s a start. Is there a defensibly “normal” human body? — Banno

Yes, based off of the median and/or average of human biology and health. Its what all medical guidelines and construction are based on. If you cannot without outside assistance, meet this statistical norm, then you are deficient or disabled from the norm in some way.

The wheelchair user is also incapacitated by being unable to dance, and that can not be ameliorated. — J

Far from the same thing?

So here's another thing about disability: being told what is possible by the able-bodied. Presumption. As opposed to being allowed to explore what is possible; the capabilities approach.

Stairs take less space than ramps. Seems to be their sole advantage. The presumption is that the facilities at the top of the stair will only be used by the able bodied, or that it's up to the chair user to solve the problem.

Yes, that is a social response. an area is made unavailable to a group of people by choice.

Those who do not pay taxes are a burden?

Like these companies?

:wink:

It’s just a plain fact that one’s capacity is diminished by his disability, so in my mind the able-bodied ought not be blamed for it. — NOS4A2

Blamed?

Blamed? — Banno

Held accountable for something the individual believed they played no role in or otherwise a state of being or mind that would have been even if same "blamee" (person blamed) was never ever born. Perhaps. Is what the chap means. It's a common viewpoint, unfortunately. No reason not to try and understand the mindset of such in their own words, no?

I guess my question is what might you propose the best response to the disabled would be if there are some well intentioned faux pas occuring? — Hanover

To listen.

I don't understand why guilt is an appropriate response to some else's' disability. Looks to be another case of re-centring - making it about the able bodied instead of the disabled. Odd.

Well, it's not my belief but rather me interpreting others' stances and trying to put them into words. (I'd rather say -- from each according to their ability...)

I'm not sure it's the taxes that matter, at large, as much as people perceiving another person as somehow "contributing", whatever that entails. Having an income is seen as "responsible", and so is a marker for whether someone is really disabled vs. someone who can "tough it out" or is "too sensitive". The other marker usually being having a family and children.

...as much as people perceiving another person as somehow "contributing" — Moliere

Spot on!

And the presumption is, as often as not, that the disabled do not contribute.

But if you can't get up the stairs in order to pay your taxes... are you to blame?

An example. In “False Economy: The Economic Benefits of the NDIS and the Consequences of Government Cost-Cutting" the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the main support for folk with a disability Dow Nunder, the scheme was shown to have a multiplier effect of 2.25, meaning for every dollar spent on NDIS supports, about A$ 2.25 in economic value is generated across the economy.

Now the figure is disputed - but even if such a scheme only break even, should it not be implemented? Doesn't it make the nation better?

And let's question the presumption of deficit.

It's worth noting that the notion of "disability" as a class is relatively recent.

Osteological studies of Scottish soldiers from the Battle of Dunbar 1650, and The York 113, show that amongst the common soldiery were folk who would now be considered disabled. The presence of individuals with health stress or impairments did not exclude them from being enlisted or captured as soldiers; they were treated as ordinary foot-soldiers, and thrown into the same grave. Their impairment did not exclude them from participation in the social exercise of making war.

Disability is not a natural kind, but a social classification, perhaps a creation of the welfare state. The historical evidence indicates that impairment alone does not create disability. Treating disability as an economic category is a recent development. Disability is like property, citizenship and marriage.

What might stand is a re-focusing away from what is "normal" and towards accomodation, towards what folk are capable of. Variation is normal.

See Reframing disability