It's All in the Mind

As with poverty and diseases, we see disability as a private and individual problem. Both authors show how “disability is caused and maintained by the physical structure and social organization of society” (Wendell, 39). Wendell points out that most industrialized societies give non-disabled people more resources than the disabled because the help for each group is viewed differently; one as entitlement (non-disabled) and the other as an act of charity (the disabled). So then when helping a person who is either physically, emotionally, or economically disabled the bear minimum is all that is offered. If the individual takes steps to become more self-sufficient they lose the bare minimum support. Once again, the concept of extremes reappears. A person is either completely capable or self sufficient or they are completely disabled; there is not middle area or partial disability. This creates situation that does not allow for any change and feeds the stigma and misconceptions associated with any type of disability.
Wendell argues that people have come to see disabilities as devaluing a person’s humanity or life’s worth. Just as stereotypes of minorities benefits those in the white, ruling, boring class, The fear of disability benefits individuals deemed fit to be included in the normal category; who would have thunk it?! Those who are normal must maintain a certain (fast) pace in public and social facets that prevent the disabled from gaining entrance.
Almost every aspect of our lives is shaped by our understanding of what is normal or expected of us at different times. Though Davis takes the approach by analyzing the construction of normal, he also arrives at conclusions similar to Wendell’s. By manipulating statistical interpretations through language, the normal becomes the ideal which should describe the majority population. I was taken aback by how Quetelet used language to achieve his goals. The law of frequency of error/ error curve becomes the normal distribution curve and to justify the bias for one extreme, the way the curve should be interpreted is changed. Quetlet’s use of statistics to make the ideal normal and then proceed to argue for the reduction of the unwanted deviants shows how math and data can be used to support just about any opinion, something Eugenicists used to their great advantage. Something we also continue to see is that one mindset or perspective affects an area that may seem unrelated. Statistics affected eugenics which was exaggerated in the worst extreme in the works of Hitler and the Nazis.
What strikes me is that the things we study in retrospect may seem ludicrous but were not so at the time. Institutions that are highly esteemed and trusted once took part in such things as the Tuskegee Study (CDC) or approving the sterilizing of the disabled (Nature magazine). This just makes me think what other institutions which we hold to the highest esteem are doing now which people in the future will look at in disgust.
As we see, the power of a culture to construct a disability is revealed through language, cosmetic surgery, construction and redefinition of normalcy. Most non-disabled people have a fear having any type of disability and this also affects how disability is viewed. Both authors note that another major problem affecting disability its perception as unchangeable and unable to be adaptive and dare I say it, adaptive. This coupled with the egregious interpretation of evolution as a constant march of progress, creates a redefinition of normalcy that continuously narrows and limits those who are deemed to fit to be included.