Stalking Ableism: Using Disability to Expose ‘Abled' Narcissism
Meaning of terms in the context of the chapter
One of the key terms in Chapter 13 is the ableism. According to Campbell (2012, p.213), ableism is defined as "denoting an attitude that devalues or differentiates disability through the valuation of able-bodiedness equated to normalcy." Alternatively, ableism is used in the perspective of able-bodiedness to mean "a way of being" (Campbell, 2012). In other words, according to the chapter, ableism can be defined as processes, beliefs, and processes that generate a particular perception of body and self, which is reflected as species-typical and perfect. Therefore, ableism is significant and makes the human full hence devaluing disability as a diminished state of human being. Consequently, the disablism can be used to mean an approach to treating social policy and disabled people adversely.
Campbell, (2012) argues that from an ableist and democratic perspective, disabled people toleration should be the main determinant of treating disabled people fairly. However, such statement does not mean that disability is an acceptable and reasonable form of diversity. Therefore, disability regardless of degree and type can be perceived as unacceptable and should not be celebrated because it "is harmful and ‘inter alia' a form of harm." (Campbell, 2012) The author's point of view on disability is that it is both tentative and provisional because it can be eradicated if solutions such as elimination, correction, or cure are applied.
In the contemporary world, the approach of ableism is used to enhance social prejudice or discrimination against people with disability. Campbell (2012), argues, "there is pressure in modern societies, particularly in developing economies for us to show we [abled] are always productive and contributing." As a result, this perception emerges to show that disabled people does not contribute to the society, but often viewed as a social burden and problem. Therefore, the understanding of ableism portrays how people who fail to make grades are somehow unfit, and not fully human.
Campbell (2012) also provides insight on the concept of ableist narcissism to determine the relationship between disability and narcissism. Psychology of narcissism suggests that disabled people can be considered as exemplary narcissists because when disability is not eliminated or cured they develop an approach of self-gratification. This contradicts with the experiences of internalized ableism and disabled people, which suggests that abled people develop high degrees of unevenness on self-approval. Campbell (2012) also defines geo-disability knowledge as an approach for how people think about disability and influence the flow of consciousness around vitality.
Reflection
The information about ableism and disablism fits in my way of thinking and conforms to my ideas that the concepts produce a discriminatory approach of ‘us' against ‘other.' In which ‘other' refers to disabled people, while ‘us' refers to normal people. However, the information has added to my ideas that disability equates suffering in which disabled people suffers not because of issues such as belongingness and support but the pain associated with impairment. Contrary, I disagree with the understanding of ableism suggesting that disabled people are a social burden and problem because there are disabled people who contribute to the society such as disabled professors.
Chapter 2: Civilizing Modernity and the Ontological Invalidation of Disabled People
Meaning of terms in the context of the chapter
The main argument of this chapter is that the way people or ableist are treating disabled people in the contemporary period is a barbarous sideshow in the move towards the civilizing process. In the modern social environment, there is a perception that disabled people are ontologically invalid, or they are uncivilized. This is because the processes that involve psychogenesis of disability underpin the social responses to impairment. Such processes included the intolerances of impairment and emotional aversions that are extracted from the civilizing process. Therefore, civilizing process undermines the impairment (Hughes, 2012). Hughes argues that the modernity has significantly produced new challenges for people with disability in the world due to new technologies and manners that gradually re-adjust Western self-consciousness. However, Hughes (2012) argues that the development of medicine "in the nineteenth century, replaced this carnival of normalization and dehumanization to sustain the ontological boundaries that kept disabled and non-disabled people compartmentalized." In addition, the modern Western citizenship has ruined the understanding of disability and has also broken the humanity.
Hughes (2012), defines ableism as "a network of beliefs, process, and practices that produce a particular kind of self and body that is projected as perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human." In other words, the body that claims to have ableism is a proper and clean body, which is definitive and invulnerable. Therefore, ableism consists of human perfectibility as psychological or physical standards, which involves curious negation of mortality and variation (Hughes, 2012). Consequently, this perspective creates a discriminatory perspective of disability, which is considered as the opposite of the perfect or ideal body. Disability is the opposite of the proper and clean body and hence can be omitted from the mainstream ‘psychic habitus' (Hughes, 2012). The understanding of disability illustrates how the civilizing process has promoted repugnance and shame. It is through ableism that modernity has categorized disability as uncivilized and an exterior part of humanity. Hughes (2012) argues that ableism encourages individuals to live in an illusion that they cannot die or suffer, adopt invulnerability and view disability as repressive woes of mortality rather than an existential foundation for communication and community. Therefore, modernity has created an adverse environment for people with disabilities.
Hughes argues that one way of dealing with disability in the modern world is through sociogenesis as correlation. This involves "the anthropophagic strategy, the possibility of rescuing disability from the abyss of unacceptable difference, through correlation, through correlation, rehabilitation, through finding ways to conceal or heal the ‘ontological deficit" (Hughes, 2012). In other words, this approach makes the non-disability and disability identical, on altering the pathology into the normal. Through this approach, the disabled people can eliminate their difference through ‘passing as normal.' When the concealment of corporeal difference and social competence equate, the disabled people can trade in their personality for the rewards of assimilation. In this case, the approach of sociogenesis can be used to give the disabilities the new identity.
Reflection
Similar to the previous reading, this reading fit in what I think I know about ableism and disableism and conforms to my ideas. For instance, the reading illustrates that the understanding of ableism approach has contributed to the social prejudice and barbarous treatment of disabled people in the contemporary world. However, the information on the article has enhanced my knowledge on how to deal with the issue of disability in the modern times. The reading formulates that through sociogenesis as correlation, the disabled people can eliminate their difference through ‘passing as normal.' The chapter concludes that in modernity the effective response to disability is grounded on either the anthropophagic strategy of mitigating and correlating anomalies or anthropoemic strategy of basement/elimination.
Summary of the readings
The two readings focus on how the understanding of the ableism approach is used to understand the disableism, which is a notion that creates social prejudice and rejection of people with disability. The two articles tend to agree on the definition of ableism. On one hand, Campbell (2012) provides an approach to demonstrate the ableism and show how ableism facilitates the knowledge construction of disability. Campbell defines ableism as "denoting an attitude that devalues or differentiates disability through the valuation of able-bodiedness equated to normalcy." However, Campbell agrees with Hughes that ableism can be defined as processes, beliefs, and processes that generate a particular perception of body and self, which is reflected as species-typical and perfect. Two authors argue that people who qualify to be in the ableism have proper and clean, and they believe that they are fully human compared to disability, which is considered as diminished nature of human being. Therefore, disability regardless of degree and type can be perceived as unacceptable and should not be celebrated because it "is harmful and ‘inter alia' a form of harm." (Campbell, 2012; Hughes, 2012.
The two chapters also agree that the modernism has been the main predictor of social prejudice or discrimination against the disabled people. Campbell argues that the pressure in the contemporary society has created a channel to perceive that abled or non-disabled people are always contributing and productive. Therefore, disable people are seen as a social burden and problem because they do not contribute to the society. This is the notion that I have strongly disagreed. There many professional such as doctors, lectures, and managers who are disabled and are not only contributing to the social environment but also the economic one. Campbell also argues that disabled people are exemplary narcissists because when disability is not eliminated or cured, they develop an approach of self-gratification.
Similarly, Hughes (2012) argues that ableism is treating disabled people in the contemporary period is a barbarous sideshow in the move towards the civilizing process. His chapter argues that the modernity has created an environment that promotes discrimination against the people with disability. He argues that disabled people are considered as ontologically invalid or uncivilized in the modern world. In this case, disabled people in the modern world are not considered as a social burden but civilized individuals.
Both the chapters have provided ways in which people can deal with the issue of disability in the modern world. One way is through a geodisability knowledge that can shape how people think about disability and enhance the flow of consciousness around vitality. On the other hand, Hughes (2012) argues that another way of dealing with disability in the modern world is through sociogenesis as correlation. This approach is effective because it makes the non-disability and disability identical, on altering the pathology into the normal. In my personal reflection, I have found that the concepts in the two readings match with my ideas about disableism and ableism. However, although there are some disagreements on some issues, the reading has enhanced my knowledge on the perspectives of disableism and ableism in the modern world.
References
Campbell, F. K. (2012). Stalking ableism: using disability to expose ‘abled’narcissism. In Disability and Social Theory (pp. 212-230). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Hughes, B. (2012). Civilizing Modernity and the Ontological Invalidation of Disabled People. In Disability and social theory: New developments and directions. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
