I recently wrote a guest post for the Inandem blog run by two very cool SLPs who are down with stuttering pride. Here is part of it, on the history of disability rights and what this has to do with stuttering:
"Gaining their momentum in the 70s, disability rights activists and theorists have insisted that what we understand as 'disability' is not primarily a medical but a political issue of inclusion and exclusion. Human traits are tremendously varied – eye and hair color, bone structure, height, physical and mental capabilities. So why, disability politics asks, are only particular forms of variation marked as “'abnormal'?
The short answer to this question is that the very process of categorizing bodies and human traits in terms of normal/abnormal or abled/disabled is deeply informed by cultural, economic, social, and political values. For example, despite progressive legislation we still erect inaccessible buildings and transportation systems that 'disable' wheelchair users and deaf or blind people. Architecture that excludes certain types of people is a reflection of what and who we value as a society. Disability activists and theorists thus argue that (to varying degrees depending on who you ask) disability is not an individual and biological condition, but is a complex interaction between bodies, cultural values, and social/economic structures. 'Abnormal/normal' and 'disabled/abled' are, therefore, first and foremost political categories used to construct our world in oppressive ways. Because of this, disability rights movements refuse to believe that disability is fundamentally a medical issue, and instead see it as a matter of civil rights and justice. We demand to be included in society as equal participants just as we are.
Yet up until late, there has been very little attention to stuttering and communication disabilities within disability studies and activism. . ."
Read the rest of the post here.
-Josh
"Gaining their momentum in the 70s, disability rights activists and theorists have insisted that what we understand as 'disability' is not primarily a medical but a political issue of inclusion and exclusion. Human traits are tremendously varied – eye and hair color, bone structure, height, physical and mental capabilities. So why, disability politics asks, are only particular forms of variation marked as “'abnormal'?
The short answer to this question is that the very process of categorizing bodies and human traits in terms of normal/abnormal or abled/disabled is deeply informed by cultural, economic, social, and political values. For example, despite progressive legislation we still erect inaccessible buildings and transportation systems that 'disable' wheelchair users and deaf or blind people. Architecture that excludes certain types of people is a reflection of what and who we value as a society. Disability activists and theorists thus argue that (to varying degrees depending on who you ask) disability is not an individual and biological condition, but is a complex interaction between bodies, cultural values, and social/economic structures. 'Abnormal/normal' and 'disabled/abled' are, therefore, first and foremost political categories used to construct our world in oppressive ways. Because of this, disability rights movements refuse to believe that disability is fundamentally a medical issue, and instead see it as a matter of civil rights and justice. We demand to be included in society as equal participants just as we are.
Yet up until late, there has been very little attention to stuttering and communication disabilities within disability studies and activism. . ."
Read the rest of the post here.
-Josh
RSS Feed
