Ableism is the privileging of ability and results in the oppression of disabled people based upon real or perceived impairments. It “others" disabilities, chronic illnesses, and neurological or mental illness. Campbell (2009) defines ableism as:
“a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as perfect and species-typical, and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then is cast as a diminished state of being human” (p. 5).
Ableism has deep roots in capitalism in determining whose lives are valued based on the forms of labour they can contribute to or produce. Disability justice activist, Mingus, writes, "Ableism is connected to all of our struggles because it undergirds notions of whose bodies are considered valuable, desirable and disposable” (2011, Finding home, para. 4). Ableist logics mirror market logics in privileging certain forms of autonomy, self-sufficiency, capacity, and independence, which “ties individual and national progress to self-determination and, by virtue of this, associates happiness with self-reliance” (Goodley, 2018, p. 6).
Ableism has bolstered both historic and current eugenic practices. Historically, the eugenics movement linked disability and defiant behaviour to defective biology (Parekh, 2014). Dr. MacMurchy was a central figure in the eugenics movement in Ontario and Canada, testing, identifying, and classifying people based on perceived intellectual abilities, segregating those outside the “norm” from mainstream society, and ultimately campaigning for genetic cleansing (Parekh, 2014). Today, disability activists point to ongoing eugenic practices such as prenatal genetic screening for particular disorders, the ongoing struggle for reproductive rights, and rights to life saving medical intervention for disabled people.
The work of activists and scholars in Critical Disability Studies and Mad Studies illuminates the ways in which the medical model has categorized a group of people “as a collection of chemical imbalances needing to be corrected in a capitalist system that prizes bourgeois conformity” (LeFrancois et al., 2013, p. 2). Critical Disability Studies examines the ways that institutions and societies 'dis-able' people environmentally, systemically and socially, and advocates for a human rights model of disability that centers the ‘social determinants of disability’ (Rioux & Valentine, 2006). Mad Studies historicizes and contextualizes mental health and well-being and utilizes holistic, social, and collectivist approaches to understanding the experiences and rights of those who are labelled by the society as “mentally ill” (LeFrancois et al., 2013). Continuing the work of Mel Starkman, the Mad Studies movement contributes to the culture of change in how society labels neuro-diverse and differently abled individuals and challenges capitalistic and colonial notions of ability (LeFrancois et al., 2013). Specifically, the modern capitalist society demands labour and production from people while not willing to adequately support people in their struggles, leading to individuals increasingly being pathologized and psychologically oppressed.
Therefore, ableism positions disability outside a predefined "norm". For instance, a person may have an impairment which may impede their sight or mobility, but they are disabled by the attitudinal or environmental barriers that limit their participation (e.g., expectations and assumptions around capacity or access to academic opportunities in school, when seeking employment, when attending social events, when engaging in civic activities, etc.). As Annamma, Connor, & Ferri (2013) share:
Although it is perhaps easier to conceptualize dis/abilities that are ‘clinically determined’ (i.e., based on professional judgement) as subjective, all dis/ability categories, whether physical, cognitive, or sensory, are also subjective. In other words, societal interpretations of and responses to specific differences from the normed body are what signify a dis/ability. (p. 2)
Ableist frameworks also seek to create monolithic experiences for all disabled individuals, promoting universal and essentializing identities and experiences. Disability is often treated as a singular or isolated experience failing to capture the ways in which other systems of oppression, such as racism, classism, colonialism, capitalism, and heteronormativity, reinforce, and are reinforced by ableism. Therefore, it is critical to consider disability through an intersectional lens.
We also acknowledge the tensions that have resulted in how we speak about those who live with disabilities. Some people advocate for People-first language (i.e., a person living with disability), while many disability activists advocate for identity-first language (i.e., a disabled person). As Baglieri & Shapiro (2017) share, “To describe someone as a ‘person with a disability’ locates the disability as an attribute belonging to an individual. In contrast, placing ‘disabled’ before ‘person’ is read, grammatically, to indicate a position of being dis-abled, or made not-able” (p. 30). We offer that the choice in language should be at the discretion of each member of disabled communities to avoid perpetuating the myth of monolithic experience for individuals within any community.
In critiquing the logics of ableism, we consider the following:
1) “Normal” and “natural”: Ableism shapes what is understood as natural and normal constructing anything beyond this as inconvenient, deviant, criminal, unnatural, and absurd, requiring rehabilitation, intervention, and pity. Ableist language that associates disabilities with inferiority are also normalized in everyday relations. How often do you hear ableist and sanist terms like “lame”, “idiot”, “nuts” or “crazy” pop up in your discussions?
2) An idealized marker of successful citizenship: Disabled people are often seen as a burden, a problem, a drain on the system, because an individual’s worth is determined solely based on their productivity and economic and civic contribution. For example, Canada’s own immigration policies excludes disabled people and families with disabled children from attaining immigration/citizenship status.
3) Self-autonomy and self-reliance: Connected to the logics of capitalism and paternalism, individuals that are self-autonomous and self-reliant are deemed more worthy. This ignores and undermines our inherent interdependence and interconnectedness, which are highlighted in movements and projects for collective care.
4) Forced separation: Those deemed “outside the norm” must be separated and excluded from “the norm”. Examples include the long, and continued history of institutionalization and incarceration of disabled people in segregated schools, psychiatric institutions, group homes and long-term care institutions. It is important to note that ageism related to the systemic discrimination of elderly populations is largely a result of ableism and reduced human value aligned with notions of reduced economic value.
By disrupting ableist approaches to leadership, we consider several questions:
- How might leadership uphold the belief that all bodies are both unique and essential and that impairment is natural to the human experience?
- How do notions of disposability, brokenness, and undesirability construct students, families, and educators, and how does leadership reinforce these orientations?
- How might leadership center collective care and the caretaking of one another?
- How might leadership model the disruption of deficit narratives and the acknowledgment of the gifts that individuals bring to communities?
- How might leaders reflect on their own relationship to ableist perspectives to further reflect on how society limits understandings and embodiments of difference?
References
Annamma, S.A., Connor, D. & Ferri, B. (2013) Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1-31.
Baglieri, S. & Shapiro, A. (2012). Perspectives on disability. In S. Baglieri & A. Shapiro (Eds.), Disability studies and the inclusive classroom (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-32). Routledge.
Campbell, F.K. (2001). Inciting legal fictions: Disability’s date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review, 10, 42–62.
Campbell (2012). Stalking ableism: Using disability to expose ‘abled’ narcissism. In D. Goodley, B. Hughes, & L. Davis (Eds.) Disability and social theory: New developments and directions (pp. 212-230). Palgrave.
Goodley, D. (2018). The dis/ability complex. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 5(1), 5-22.
LeFrancois, B.A., Menzies, R.J., & Reaume, G. (Eds). (2013). Mad Matters: a critical reader in Canadian mad studies. Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Mingus. M. (2011, February 11). Changing the framework: Disability justice. Leaving Evidence. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/changing-the-framework-disability-justice/
Parekh, G. G. (2014). Social citizenship and disability: Identity, belonging, and the structural organization of education [Doctoral dissertation, York University]. YorkSpace. https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/d457695a-7424-4a14-85a6-e2b54fd115b7
Reynolds, J. (2019). The meaning of ability and disability. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 33(3), 434-447.
Rioux, M., & Valentine, F. (2006). Does theory matter?: Exploring the nexus between disability, Human Rights and Public Policy. In D. Pothier & R. Devlin (Eds.). Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy and law, (pp. 112- 142), University of Washington Press.
