“One Does Not Simply Define (Dis)ability” - Still Searching for Meaning

Two other authors in Disability Discourse  (1999), the text featured in this previous blog post, Swain and Cameron , were possibly the most influential in my understanding of the term (dis)ability. I truly had an epiphany when I read their contribution. They write, “The discourse is predominantly around the labeling of rather than by disabled people—that is, self-referent labeling—except when this is understood as an acceptance of labeling by others”  (p. 68). I realized that, for my whole life, I had been labeling individuals with words they had not chosen, titles I handpicked myself. They had no say in the matter. I am not a (dis)abled person, yet I felt entitled to label (dis)abled individuals as such. 

I felt that this self proclaimed privilege derived from my own social surroundings, as Corker and French (1999) previously explained. I had never asked my brother if he would prefer if I didn't call him “weird” after he exhibited any of the typical signs of his Autism, I never once interrogated any of my peers in primary school what they would like to be called when my friends whispered the word, “retarded” behind their backs, and I am sure administrators never once questioned students in special education programs whether they would like to be labeled “special.” The ones who are labeled hardly ever object; they simply “accept the labeling by others” (Swain & Cameron, p. 68).

Although, there has been a movement fostered by the social media model of (dis)ability that, “denies that any particular attributes or functioning of individual bodies should be thought to constitute a 'problem' or 'disadvantage' apart from the social environment within which the individuals live” (Corker & Shakespeare, 2002, p. xii). This denial of the problematic/disadvantaged definition created the postmodern spelling of (dis)ability or dis/ability. The separation within this word also further represents the wish for the (dis)abled identity to be seen as “multiple, fluid, and interactive” (Schaller, 2008, p. 5) . This new somewhat disjointed definition is inspired by the work of Hubert J.M. Hermans and his notion of the “dialogical self,” which stemmed from theories originated by William James, and Mikhail Bakhtin. Hermans (2006) creates an elaborate theater metaphor that led me to clarification. This image details actors placing their beings at different places, interacting with one another in several “forms of dialogue: agreement, disagreement, negotiation, opposition, and conflict” (Hermans, p. 148).

While somewhat confusing, this new definition, whether it be dis/ability of (dis)ability is a way for those with a (dis)ability to take ownership of a title that was created for them. Now, this terms is created by and for themselves and expresses many facets of their individuals not simply their difference.

This is why the (parentheses) are now included in some individuals' use of the word (dis)ability. I choose to use them for these reasons. Will you?

Works Cited

Corker, M. & Shakespeare, T. (2002). Foreword. In M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. xii-xiv). New York, NY: Continuum.

Cameron, C. & Swain, J. (1999). Unless otherwise stated: discourses of labeling and identity in coming out. In. M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability Discourse (pp. 1-12). Philadelphia, PA : Open University Press.

Hermans, H. J. M. (2006). The self as a theater of voices: disorganization and reorganization of a position repertoire. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 147-160.

Schaller, J. E. (2008). Reconfiguring dis/ability: multiple and narrative constructions of self. Pastoral Psychology, 57, 89-99.