Disability has gone through a revolution over this last century. This is true of the medical treatments and the understanding of how physical and functional (mental / psychological) disabilities arise. Medical treatments also give rise to disabilities. This is sometimes as the unavoidable result life saving procedures, under emergency circumstance (amputation). Sometimes this because of accidental events during clinical treatments and procedures. There are risks in all activities of life, including being conceived, bourn, born and growing up. It is true of activities which are undertaken with the very best of intentions, for the purpose of going about our daily business and for the thrill of a challenging activity. Our knowledge of risk, genetic influences and the development of technology, have all contributed to a gradual improvement in reducing the incidents of some, and some of the effects of many disabilities. Ironically, knowledge, opportunity and technology have also contributed to an increase in some forms of disability, as life expectancies increase and as physical, emotional and social pressures upon us increase. There has also been some improved understanding (amongst some quarters) of the adaptation that people can show after 'disabling' effect, due to genetic, birth effects and injury. There have, of course, been substantial increases in sympathetic responses, due to mass media coverage of child misfortunes and injuries of war in particular, which have increased awareness of the mechanics of disability. What is mostly missing, however, is the more fundamental social-psychology of 'disability'. The 'sympathetic' responses are good to promote publicity but these same sympathies can be very insidiously dependency creating and disempowering. development of assistive technologies. These are available to all of us individually, to the managers of our institutions, and to the commercial sectors. As a consequence the demands and impacts upon us have also increased, rather than reduced, as was perhaps expected. Some of these additional impacts are in the increased effects of: disabilities of war, car accidents, alcohol, drug and tobacco abuses, repetitive strain injuries, anxiety and depressive conditions, neuroses, psychoses, and age related conditions (with longer life expectancy). It has also contributed to more sophisticated, and greater impact, of local and international criminal activity (and its disabling effects). Some technology induced risks are of low frequency but of high significance in terms of their effects. With the development of technology and knowledge is the increased risks we deliberately expose ourselves to. This is a human characteristic. Risks are part of life and we have always tended to take recreational risks of various kinds. Where the natural risks are reduced, so we tend to replace them with additional recreational risks. Many of these are calculated in some measure, some are known and ignored and some go largely unrecognised, or inadequately appreciated, till something unexpected happens. It is a somewhat sad but also a sobering fact (in my personal and professional experience), that there are often equal consequences for the effects of trauma which cause 'disability' and for the dramatic recovery, or resolution, of a longer term disability. That is; we initially recover, by compensating for the impact of trauma and live with the effects, only to have to adjust once more, if the original effects are reversed in some dramatic way. We are not always prepared for either consequences, even when they are known and calculated. Some times we even fear the recovery! Disability is a 'relative' concept in many ways, for many people. It is a 'relativistic' view that I believe is most useful, as your will see. Sometimes we are aware of this differential in some ways, sometimes we are not conscious of it and sometimes we have a prejudice. The obvious contrast is the comparison between the athlete and the common bar fly watching them on the TV. There may be no resentment either way, because each have their beneficial compensations and accept the significant impact of their limitations and the choices they have made to exploit their differential skills and abilities (and disabilities). For many, more especially in the past, this relative differential in skills and resources was not fully appreciated. People with a physical 'disability' were partially made disable people. The person themselves then typically became disabled. Expectations of the community were further reduced through clinical, religious and social education. The expectations for and by the individual were consequentially reduced. The 'obvious' deficits were then an adequate excuse for assuming limited benefit from the remaining 'competent' areas. Charitable support, largely unintentionally, tended to reinforce this rather restricted understanding. A similar pattern of attitudes and status was afforded people with deafness, learning difficulties, mental health problems and those with any kind of deviation from 'normal' expectations of the time. The attitude towards those who believed differently, looked and behaved differently, or thought and understood things differently, were all at risk of being ostracised in some way, if not worse. This was partly to do with ignorance, or distorted understanding, but it was also due to people maintaining the an artificial level of personal confidence, by seeing others as less capable (the pecking order). History of Welfare:During periods of urbanisation and industrialisation, classic Charitable, Church and State institutions take on this 'problem' and there is even a belief, sometimes, that disability is an infliction due to the immorality of parents and of the person themselves. Remnants of these beliefs and, more importantly, the social attitudes and prejudices they generate, still remain within some of the institutions of our society and are still thriving in some cultures throughout the world. Relative ignorance plays its part. A kind of slave labour developed (s), whereby the increasing (recognition of the) skills and abilities of 'disabled people' were utilised to the benefit of the institution, or the professionals within them. As recognition of the skills and competences of 'disabled people' improved, so there developed a wider market for this low cost, captive labour. This was, in a way, returning to an earlier form of utilising people with disabilities, evident within local communities, one that was (in the simpler, agrarian times) perhaps more respectful and rewarding. The biggest revolution, however, has been in terms of how people who have some impaired mobility, senses, or cognition view themselves and how they insist that others view them. The consequence of this is that social perceptions are beginning to change, sometimes with considerable reluctance and some antagonism. This attitude towards disability also reflected the general attitude towards poorly educated people, unskilled people in industrial settings and those who remained more disposed towards agricultural activities and ways of thinking. The circumstances of ordinary people were not much better than that of those who had an identified disability, and in some ways was much worse. The explanations for the ordinary (able bodied) person's incompetence and lack of enterprise was often morally mocking and prejudiced. Some of us may have relatively limited intellectual and social skills and/or inadequate practical, psychological, emotional, or social resources and opportunities, to express what skills we do have. In these circumstances we can expect to become frustrated, possibly resentful and may resort to argument, strikes, spanners in the works, social disruption, anti-social behaviour, criminality and revolution. NOTE Psycho-Social Rule: If competences are not given appropriate and legitimate expression in a society, with the personal empowerment necessary, they will find alternative mechanisms, methods, or contexts, for the expression of these competences. Some will be destructive to self and some destructive to others. My own operational research has shown this to be the case, as has the research of BIOSS and other social research organisations. If it were not self evident, as a logical understanding of human nature, the evidence is more than adequate to explain the social disorder that arises at times of great injustice, or financial crisis. At these times, it is those with the greatest (if unappreciated) competences, the most energy, the greatest frustration, or resentment, and least legitimate opportunity to express this frustration, who lead and support radical and more disruptive actions. This can include criminal behaviour, if legitimate opportunities, (of a type that fit the individual) are not made available. Where does this lead us: If we are avoid escalation and even reduce the incidents of criminal and other forms of disruptive behaviour, we need to Avoid any prejudice, enable and promote informed choice and expression, allow true representation, value and appreciate all constructive perspectives, recognise and understand all alternative expressions of ideas and personality, including those distorted perspectives that have a negative social impact. (To be continued) | disABILITY Information and Resources:
http://www.makoa.org/index.htmAbilityHub: http://abilityhub.com/ Assistive Technology Solutions:
www.assistivetechnologysolutions.com/ CODI Cornucopia of Disability Information: http://codi.buffalo.edu/ BIOSS: Brunel University Institute of Organisational & Social Studies. NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
