Your Source for Feminist Discourse

Is Ableism Invisible?

Many of us quite literally walk through life without having to think about the world from a disabled person’s point of view. It is a privilege we don’t need to think about until we happen upon a person with a disability, or perhaps a handicapped parking space that we can’t park in. Most of the time, though, we are able to live without considering what the world would look like if our body didn’t function in the precise way that we expect a body to function.

In fact, when you think about it, the notion that we expect each person’s body to function the same way seems a bit silly. Bodies come in all shapes and sizes, with different strengths and weaknesses. Yet we have constructed a dichotomous world, not between those who can and those who cannot – disability does not mean that a person can’t function – but between those who can and those who have to overcome the structure of society.

If you think about it, our entire world is constructed for a person with a particular ability level, and anyone who doesn’t have that particular ability must work a little harder. For example, we have created a world in which most ceilings are well over 6 feet high. But if instead we made ceilings 5 and a half feet tall, anyone 5’6” or higher would be considered disabled because they couldn’t walk in our world without having to stoop. In this way, we socially construct the idea of disability based on our idea of the perfectly-abled body and the world we have built to accommodate it. In the same way that we accommodate people of a certain height, we also choose to use stairs instead of ramps or elevators as our main means of ascension, accommodating only those of us who can use stairs. But how can we assume that everyone should be able to use their bodies in the same way when we know how different bodies can be from one another.

A person in a wheelchair is racing on a track.

Is “disabled” the right term for someone who would put me to shame in a race?

For that matter, is calling a person “disabled” really even fair? Firstly, it makes the person’s ability status their defining feature, instead of for instance using the term “person with a disability,” which first and foremost acknowledges the personhood of the individual. And what about the word “disability”? Is it fair to assume that a person whose body works differently is inherently “unable,” instead of just differently-abled? Of course, just as is the case for any group of people, it is impossible to find one answer that all people of different ability levels will agree upon. However, that doesn’t preclude the need to have a conversation about it.

Having conversations about the words we use and the way we use them is perhaps the first step in understanding the way we as a society think about and treat each other. But how can we find the answers if we ignore the discussion? From the time we are little, we are encouraged not to look at or ask questions about people with disabilities out of fear of being rude. How does that translate to our adult ability to talk to, with, and about those of us who navigate our carefully constructed world with a little more difficulty? And how do we begin the discussion when we are so afraid of insulting the community that we are trying to better understand?

6 Responses to “Is Ableism Invisible?”

  1. bauerjc

    Great post. I was in a class where we were talking about this issue and someone mentioned that when they encounter someone differently-abled they ask them how they refer to themselves or would prefer others to refer to them. This creates an opportunity for conversation about difference that usually remains taboo.

    Reply
    • FemOnFire

      I think this is a great way to approach a conversation! That way everyone understands that their feelings and autonomy are important and worth discussing.

      Reply
  2. Questioner

    There are some good questions this leads to, such as “given different circumstances, what would you then consider “normal” and what would your attitude then be towards other ability levels?” While this is a question good for understanding, the rest of this article seems to unnecessarily criticize.

    “We have constructed a dichotomous world”

    > Not all things we see wrong in the world have been socially engineered. Some things are naturally dichotomous. In fact, it is the process to alleviate such polarization and dichotomies which is societal.

    “If you think about it, our entire world is constructed for a person with a particular ability level, and anyone who doesn’t have that particular ability must work a little harder.”

    > This is really a non-issue. The root of it all is in consensus – taking into consideration what comprises of the majority. We can clearly see what is normal in every category of living being. When it comes to ability/ functionability level, there is no doubt that there already exists a standard by which we consider a human’s ability to be normal. Again, we discover such a standard through consensus of what already occurs naturally.

    “Is it fair to assume that a person whose body works differently is inherently ‘unable'”

    > The term “disabled” is associated with inability to perform the way a normal person could. Most people either wonder or inquire what particularly disability the person has. If he is in a wheelchair, his disability is that he is unable to walk. Not being able to walk is a disability. Furthermore, calling someone “disabled” strips them of their personhood no more than calling someone a “feminist,” “misogynist,” “ableist,” etc strips them of their personhood.

    “our adult ability to talk to, with, and about those of us who navigate our carefully constructed world with a little more difficulty?”

    > As unfortunate as it is to point out, some adults with mental deficiencies cannot function the way you claimed what can be done in the realm of adult capability, namely discerning wrong and right approaches to human differences. This article (http://www.ucanews.com/news/researchers-establish-link-between-intolerance-racism-and-stupidity/41572) brings light to the assertion that people with low cognitive levels are more susceptible to prejudices than those of higher cognitive levels. This therefore suggests, that those with prejudices are not “normal,” and “normal” people have higher cognitive recognition and ability. This is indeed true.

    Thanks for reading.

    Reply
  3. Michael Strasser

    I think it is a disservice to people to pretend they are not something which they clearly are.

    Reply
  4. Jean

    This is a very timely post. Wondering…can you suggest websites or organizations whose goal is to stimulate conversation on Ablesim?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: