Casey French
In the beginning of class, Professor Barry asked us "how do you define happiness and how do you reach it?" and I don't think anyone answered this question. I mentioned that it is more individualistic in a sense that positive-thinking and inner peace is the true route to happiness. However, society has a way to criticize your actions and judge you whether you know it or not. I feel like the purpose of this question (before we ran out of time) was to put ourselves in the place of the "disabled". That's what I did and it was a real eye-opener. Sociologists like to categorize people into groups. They like to analyze the culture behind certain disabilities and the identities that might be associated with it. When Professor Barry drew a spectrum from high to low 'disability', I was unsettled by the placing certain 'disabilities' based on the severity. As seen by the clip in class, the media often reinforces this idea that the disabled are unfortunate, helpless people. The role of the disability is the behavior expected of someone who holds a particular status. In the readings, there was a woman who had an 'invisible' disability and could not be seen based solely on appearance. As a society, the expected role is challenged, and people have this idea of handicapped based on physical representation - a wheelchair, a cane, hearing aid, etc. When someone has no evidence of their disability such as mental or internal disabilities based on appearance, it contradicts what one is accustomed to. I was not shocked when I read that people assumed that she was joking about her condition. Even though I felt terrible about how people treated her, I think our society has always had negative connotations with disabled people. We always assume that disability is an achieved status and that the decisions one has made established their disability. It's disheartening.
I personally would agree with the alternative, holistic method in which you look at the character of a person rather than focus on their disability. The spectrum approach is only relevant for agencies in order to consider what is covered under health plans and how to accommodate them. Everybody has issues. There is variability among the "abled" category, but why divide ourselves from the "disabled"? We're all fighting the same battle. The solidification of looking at society as a whole is more appropriate and considerate of those who have disadvantages.
| Michael Scott: | Can I ask you all a question? Do you know what it''s like to be disabled? |
| Phyllis: | I had scoliosis as a girl |
| Michael Scott: | Never heard of it. No, a real disability, not a woman's trouble. |
| Creed: | When I was a teenager, I was in an iron-lung. |
| Michael Scott: | Wha? How- how old are you? The point is: I am the only one here who has a legitimate disability. Although I am sure Stanley has had his fair share of obstacles. |
| Stanley: | I'm not disabled and neither are you. |
Sadly my media source is unavailable unless you have Netflix. The Office has an episode called "The Injury" when Michael Scott accidentally burns his foot on a George Foreman grill. He wants sympathy from his coworkers so he brings in the building manager who has been in a wheelchair his whole life. Michael likes to bring in guest speakers to prove a point that usually doesn't go in his favorite. Ultimately, Michael addresses the common stereotypical assumptions of handicapped people and it would have been a great media source to share...
I took a look at this episode; Michael Scott says many things throughout the episode that exemplify how society should not view people with disabilities. Roughly 3 and a half minutes into the episode Michael says "I just want to be treated normally," even though he spends the rest of the episode seeking special attention and treatment from everyone at the office. This implicitly suggests that in general people with disabilities may also seek special treatment or attention.
ReplyDeleteWhen Michael brings in the building manager, who is in a wheelchair, he attempts to bring to light the idea that the building manager can't live a healthy and productive life due to that fact that he's in a wheelchair. Specifically, when the manger--Billy Merchant--says that he had been meaning to stop by for some time, Michael says "But it's hard for right? Because you're in a wheelchair." Michael assumes that people in wheelchairs want sympathy because they can't walk; however, Billy Merchant manages several buildings and "just climbs on in" to his wheelchair every morning without any trouble at all.
Of course Michael is trying to paint this picture of sympathy in order to gain the sympathy of his employees; some of his ignorance reminds me of the survey questions that were featured in the first part of the Rossenblum and Travis reading: "Disability Definitions: The Politics of Meaning" by Michael Oliver. In the reading, a survey issued by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) asked questions such as "How hard is it to get about your immediate neighborhood on your own?" Oliver suggests a question like this could be rephrased as follows: "What environmental constraints make it difficult for you to get about your immediate neighborhood?" Discussing a persons disabilities in terms of why society and the environment in which they live don't necessarily promote their well-being reduces the stigmatization that is exemplified in the ignorance of Michael Scott. This same stigmatization is demonstrated in asking questions phrased in a way that targets the person with a given disability.
I guess I'm also supposed to ask a question. Why do you think people (Michael Scott for example) assume that a person in a wheel chair wants to be treated differently? Here's a sort of analogy (maybe):If you're in a bad mood, would you want to be treated differently? If there was some tragedy in your life would you want everyone around you to be sympathetic towards you?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a valid point about drawing lines and placing people into categories when it doesn't need to happen. It really is a shame that the video couldn't be used, as I've seen that episode before and it really does a great job of illustrating the point of how strangely our society tends to treat disabled individuals.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a bit about being in favor of the the spectrum view and said something about where the line between abled and disabled was without even thinking about it until making it through your reading. The part where you said "There is variability among the "abled" category, but why divide ourselves from the "disabled"?", grabbed my attention. I thought about how the whole point of the spectrum was to eliminate things like 'disabled' or 'abled' which is why I liked it in the first place but yet I still asked the question of where is the line? I tried looking at disability as degrees of inconvience in functioning in our current world as it's setup. This made me realize that with so much variation in people's abilities, and their personal demands of life, it seems kind of usless to say, they're 'this' or 'that'.
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing that.