Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

65
Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006

Transcript of Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Page 1: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach

University of MichiganSeptember 29, 2006

Page 2: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Stephen Gilson, Ph.D.Elizabeth DePoy, Ph.D.

The University of Maine Center for Community Inclusion and Disability

Studieswww.umaine.edu/cci1-800-203-6957 v/tty

Page 3: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Maine

Page 4: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Three Interrelated Areas• Diversity• Disability• Bodies in Art, Literature, Technology

Page 5: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Diversity

Page 6: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

What does diversity have to do with disability?

• Basis in inter-group relations which links to concepts of groups as “inferior” or “superior”

• Emergence of the concept of the “normal body” rendered atypical or unusual bodies outsiders (e.g., immigrants, disabled people)

Page 7: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Looking Backward

Page 8: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Diversity History in Brief

• Historically, discrimination and oppression have been conceptualized as population specific marginalization with a particular focus on race, class, ethnicity, and gender, and more recently, sexual orientation, disability, and age.

Page 9: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Contribution of Nomothetic Inquiry

• Assumes homogeneity of members beyond membership criteria

• Criteria defining groups and their membership are dynamic & influenced by contextual factors

• Category studies tend to examine inequality• Category studies are frequently referred to as “Diversity Studies”

Page 10: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

The Normal Curve: Normal Man

Page 11: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Pluralism emerges

• As movement away from the “single truth” associated with positivism occurred, room was made for the constructs of multiple realities and diversity

Page 12: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Multiculturalism began to be equivalent to diversity theory and provided a framework for examination of group membership and power relationships.

Page 13: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Three approaches to multiculturalism

Assimilationist You can join usYou should join usTo join us, you need to be like us

Integrationist We can all live together on our worldCome and join us- We will help you “others” come into the mainstream, but you do not have to be like us

Incorporationist We will transform each other for the betterment of all.

Page 14: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Return to the Current Context

New theory

Page 15: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Why Another Theory?

• Failure of current diversity work to distinguish descriptive from explanatory definitions and to illuminate the essential value dimension that places diversity descriptions and explanations in categories.

Page 16: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Why Another Theory?

Failure of current diversity theory to reach incorporationist goals.

Page 17: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Explanatory Legitimacy Theory

• A contemporary theoretical approach to analyzing, clarifying, and responding to human diversity.

Page 18: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Diversity is comprised of the three interactive

elements:•Description•Explanation•Legitimacy

Page 19: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Description

• The full range of human activity (what people do and do not do and how they do what they do) appearance, and experience.

Page 20: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Explanation

• Why people do what they do, appear as they appear, and experience what they experience.

Page 21: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Legitimacy

• Judgment - value assessments about the consistency of explanations for category description with criteria for membership.

• Responses-actions (both negative and positive) that are deemed appropriate by those rendering the value judgments.

Page 22: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Disability

Page 23: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Why does disability belong within a progressive diversity

dialog?• It is currently conceptualized as a binary

•Normal=non-disabled•Not normal=Disabled

Page 24: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Description, Explanation, and Legitimacy applied to

disability

Page 25: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Two intersecting dimensions of Description

• Typical /Atypical • Observable/Reportable

Page 26: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Typical

• Activity, appearance, and experience as most frequently occurring and expected in a specified context.

Page 27: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Atypical

• Activity, appearance, and experience outside of what is considered to be typical in a specified context.

• The disability locus of concern lies here.

Page 28: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Explanation

• Why people do, appear, and experience atypically (medical-diagnostic; constructed).

Page 29: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Medical Diagnostic•Locates disability within humans and defines it as an anomalous medical condition of long-term or permanent duration.

Page 30: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Constructed•Disability is a condition that results from limitations imposed on individuals (with or even without diagnosed medical conditions) from external factors.

Page 31: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Legitimacy• Judgment - value assessments about the consistency of explanations for atypical description with criteria for membership.

• Responses-actions (both negative and positive) that are deemed appropriate by those rendering the value judgments.

Page 32: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Example #1• Description: Jimmy cannot hear the lecture

• Explanation: Jimmy is heard of hearing

• Legitimacy: Jimmy is disabled and qualifies for disabled student services and accommodations-

Page 33: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Example #2• Description: Jimmy cannot hear the lecture

• Explanation: Lecture hall acoustics are not good

• Legitimacy: All students are disabled and responses need to consider all (e.g., C-Print, lectures posted on-line).

Page 34: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Bodies in Art, Literature, and Technology

A Reciprocal Arrangement

Page 35: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Over the course of history, the human body has been both object and subject of diversity, legitimacy, worth, and response.

Page 36: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• What constitutes a body and the role of the body in determining legitimate membership in diverse human categories such as beautiful, disability, ethnicity, race, gender, social group, and so forth have been central to human experience and a major area for human inquiry.

Page 37: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Perspectives about what constitutes a body as well as what is an atypical body have shifted and changed, as depicted in, shaped by, and reflected in and influenced by the arts, literature, and technology.

Page 38: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Aztec Royalty

Page 39: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Moncliffe ------ Loren VFashion Models - laRage.com -2005

Page 40: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

L. Ferguson. (2004). Neural network #1 (blue web). From The Visible Skeleton Series.

Page 41: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Performing artists - ndaf.org

Page 42: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Victor Hugo. (1936). (original publication date 1831). The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. New York:

Dodd, Mead.• When this sort of Cyclops appeared on the threshold of the chapel, motionless, squat, almost as broad as high, [the] populace instantly recognized him by his coat, half red and half purple, sprinkled with silver bells, and, more especially, by the perfection of his ugliness, and cried out with one voice: "It is Quasimodo the bell-ringer! It is Quasimodo the hunchback of Notre-Dame! Quasimodo the one-eyed! Quasimodo the bandy-legged! Hurrah! Hurrah!" the poor devil, it seems, had plenty of surnames to choose among.

Page 43: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Atypical Bodies in Contemporary Literature and Film

• Captain Hook-Peter Pan

• Lennie-Of Mice and Men

• Nemo-Finding Nemo

• Shrek and Liona-Shrek

Page 44: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Prose - Poetry - nfad.orgmale in wheelchair with tattoos

Page 45: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Technology

• Blurring the boundaries of medium and body

• Technology, art, sales?

Page 46: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Chuck Close. Self-Portrait. 1997.Pixel style portrait

Page 47: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

2004 Ad for Colours Wheelchair Woman in designer wheelchair

Page 48: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Painter canvas genetic image of woman

www.CartoonStock.com

Page 49: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

So why look at art, literature and technology to inform disability?

• The boundaries of typical and acceptable bodies are contextual and dynamic.

• Symbols of the body depicted throughout history move closer to and further from representational images.

• Technology has located bodies beyond the physical.

• Celebration of embodied diversity is critical to global tolerance.

Page 50: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Why Change and to What?• Given the vast changes in our world (intellectual trends-postmodernism; global trends, technological trends; political trends; economic trends), it is incumbent upon us to rethink disability as diversity.

• We need a more expansive view that will allow us to be more responsive to the full range of diverse human needs.

Page 51: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Looking Forward, Not Backward

• Categorical responses to discrimination, oppression, and exclusion are necessary but should be temporary.

• Social justice must rely on democracy and equal opportunity for all.

Page 52: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Looking Forward, Not Backward

• Movement away from embodied diversity to diversity of ideas

Page 53: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Post-positivism and post-modernism provide the scaffold to reframe thinking about human diversity.

Page 54: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Medicalizing bodies through positivist thinking further serves to entrench concepts of normalcy and deviation

Page 55: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Medicalized and objectified bodies promote the acceptance of the “reality” of binaries such as normal and not normal, desirable, and undesirable.

Page 56: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Current responses—make atypical people typical

Page 57: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Our Vision

Page 58: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Flatten the Curve

Page 59: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

• Flattening the curve calls for moving beyond medicalized, positivist, and categorical conceptualizations of diversity.

Page 60: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Group symmetry• Group symmetry does not naively posit that all groups have equal opportunity and access to resources. Rather it is an ideal that refers to the equal value and contribution of disparate groups, and their subsequent reciprocal positive transformation of multicultural environments .

Page 61: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Inclusion• Inclusion, although used to denote multiple meanings in varied domains, in the model that we propose, means the relocation of diversity beyond category membership to the larger domain of diversity depth, or that of varied beliefs, ideas, and experiences that are part of human existence, thereby repositioning diversity as the foundation for tolerance, transformation, and incorporation.

Page 62: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Universal

• Equal application of judgment and response criteria to all.

• Flattens the Curve• Locates legitimate responses in the environment

• Reminds us to construct an inclusive, symmetrical world

Page 63: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Homme l’epee ( Swordman) as beauty

Picasso abstract painting

Page 64: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

The University of Maine Center for Community Inclusion and

Disability Studieswww.umaine.edu/cci

1-800-203-6957 v/tty

Page 65: Disability as Diversity: A Legitimacy Approach University of Michigan September 29, 2006.

Thank You

Stephen Gilson ([email protected])Elizabeth DePoy ([email protected])