Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome back.
Now we're going to start segment three of today's lesson
on defining and perceiving disabilities.
And we're going to focus
in this segment on societal perspectives.
But before we get into any of the meat of this,
what I would like you to do, much like at the beginning
of this lesson, I would like you to pause for just a moment
and write down, think about, reflect for a moment what does
your culture or what were your experiences with your family,
how were people with disabilities described?
What was the rationale for why a person might have a
disability or not?
Was there any sense of that?
So just take a moment,
if you would, and reflect on that question.
We won't review that in any detail as far as one group
versus another, because certainly there are differences
among men versus women, certain races versus others,
socioeconomic classes versus others.
But we also know that there's a lot of variability
for how people look at and think about disability.
We will, however, as we move forward with this,
present three models of talking about disability.
What's considered the moral model,
the medical model and the social model.
And we'll hit each of those in a few moments.
When we think about disability in the U.S.
particularly, there's a strong emphasis
on the visible aspect of it.
That as a society, we're fine with looking at somebody
who has a visible disability.
And there's much less stigma associated with them,
there's much more believability with them.
And so there is the sense that visible disabilities are,
in fact, going to be perceived and treated differently
than people with invisible disabilities.
And it's the attitudes that people
with invisible disabilities, as well as all,
face that really in many cases
present the biggest barriers to this overall population.
What I would like to do now is present kind of
an overall framework for how we might think about disabilities.
Now, I understand that there are multiple ways that people
could look at this.
There are other alternatives in terms of explanation.
But from our point, I have found that it's helpful to
really think about it as across three basic kinds of models,
if you will.
The social construct idea.
That disability is what you make of it.
I can appreciate aspects of all three models.
The moral model is the oldest. Been around for a long time.
There are certainly references in the Bible
and other religious books that talk about disability
or reference disability.
It can be, you know, very helpful in many ways
from the standpoint of something happens,
whether you have a child with a disability,
perhaps you acquire a disability.
But often times there's a question of, well, why me?
Why did this happen?
And other than the obvious, well, why not you,
we still look at, well, maybe there's some bigger picture.
Maybe there's some bigger reason to this.
That's moral model thinking, if you will.
Moral model thinking also can be interpreted
as a test of faith, if you will.
That a disability is a challenge.
It's a hardship, whether it's for you as an individual
or your family.
And so how do you -- how do you respond to this?
It may give you a sense of purpose.
You know, I have this experience and therefore
this is something that I want to do.
Or, again, the idea that it helps
make sense of difficult times.
You know, we all want reasons.
We all want to understand things.
And yet when it comes right down to it,
many things are unexplainable.
So a moral model perspective on disability
gives you that chance to, if you will, make sense.
For example, approximately ten years ago
I was just recently remarried.
My wife has a son, and he's still with us, who has autism.
And he lives with us.
And, oh, the day after we got back from our honeymoon,
I got a phone call from my mother who said,
hey, by the way, your brother David,
we really can't have him where he's at right now,
so I'm going to take you up on your offer
and have him come live with you and Lori.
So from my standpoint, I've got a new wife,
a new stepson who has autism and my brother who's two years older
than I am who is deaf and multiply disabled
and we're all living in a rented apartment.
It was a challenge.
And so to get through that, was I stressed?
Absolutely.
Did I wish for hope or wish for some strength
beyond what I might normally have?
You bet.
Is that moral model thinking?
Absolutely.
On the other hand, one of the downsides of the moral model
is that there's a sense that disability is caused.
It's not just a random event
but there's some reason for disability.
It's a sense that perhaps it's due to a moral lapse
or it's due to some divine retribution that somehow you or
a family member did something that deserves punishment.
And so disability is often equated with something
negative, something wrong, something bad, if you will.
It serves as a warning to other people.
And with this kind of sense, there's this strong tie to what
in other areas we refer to as the just world hypothesis.
And the just world hypothesis is the idea
that you get what you deserve.
So good things happen to good people.
Bad things happen to bad people.
Now, again, certainly it's not my view,
but there's a broader sense of, well,
disability as not being necessarily a good thing.
And so if it's a bad thing, then somebody must
have deserved something to do this because,
of course, we all get what we deserve.
Needless to say, the just world hypothesis isn't one
that I subscribe to, but it is a nice --
it's a convenient thing for people to believe in.
Because if I believe this way and I act in a good way,
then I'm immune from any bad things happening;
right? If only that were the case.
So, again, I want to share some guest perspectives
on this, some guest speaker perspectives on the idea
that is it really a just world?
Do people get what they deserve?
How does this moral model kind of approach work?
So we're going to talk about that and let them
share their perspectives.
>>Sheila: a gentleman came up to me in a department store.
And this was a white gentleman.
I didn't have time to swing back and hit.
Not that that's a second nature.
But he came up to me and I'm standing in line with my goods
and he said you're in that chair
because you don't believe in God.
And I turned up and looked.
My first reaction would have been like that.
But this guy just came out of nowhere.
Also in some churches, there's been an experience where as soon
as you come in, the first thought of some people,
this is not indicative of all African-American churches,
it's that you need to be healed. And that they have the power.
To lay hands.
You know, Hallelujah.
Lay hands on you for you to be healed.
And that's not your thought, but that's the thought of others.
>>Staci: Unfortunately there's a stigma still attached
with it thinking that I'm possessed because my body
is convulsing and I have no control.
Typically your eyes roll back in your head
and you're not breathing. Sometimes you foam at the mouth.
So they think, oh, the demons are inside of her or something.
And that's not true at all.
I mean, having so many tests done
and seeing them on camera, it is scary.
I can completely understand that that's terrifying.
But also seeing it from a medical standpoint, you know,
it's totally proof when you're watching an EEG that there's
spiking in my brain going on. It's all medically explainable.
>>Sheila: For myself, of course another reason
I don't give the background on it, because when people think
of the situation of someone trying to take my life,
you know, they would say, oh, you know,
I'm glad if I had a chance like that, I would see that person,
I would destroy them right on the spot
or I would kill them right on the spot.
Well, you know, you have to think about
that in a lot of context.
What could you do to that person to change your present status.
You can hurt that person.
And the bad thing about it is you know how to do it.
You know how to do it.
You know how to do it
and you just have to make that decision not to.
That's a hard struggle to do.
But you have to think about it in the context of what
can I do that can allow me to live with myself.
Because we're constituted more
than what we see just body, bone -- body, bone and skin.
You know, we're made up about something much larger than that.
And you know, you have to think about it.
I am no - I am no paragon virtue whatever.
But the thing about it in order to retaliate
on the person that hurt me, I know how to do it.
I know how to do it with no problem.
But my conscious, my spiritual life
or my belief in God, however you want to call it,
it lets me to know that it's not necessary.
It's really not necessary.
>>Professor Long: I would also say one final thing
about the moral model.
And this may be a tad controversial, certainly,
but it is something to consider.
That moral model thinking from a societal basis can
create disadvantage to groups.
Think about certainly I'm of an age where the AIDS crisis
was just coming out in the mid 80s.
And the thought was at that time certainly that,
oh, it's a disease that has been brought to us by gay men.
And if you look back at the records, the initial overall
response to how we dealt with aids was pretty slow.
Right?
To me that's some moral model thinking.
Because if we're saying, well, this is a group, gay men,
who from a societal standpoint are acting
in a quote "immoral way", versus what if it were
little children who had just gotten some kind of a virus.
Would we have paid more attention?
Or as another way of thinking about how this
kind of thinking may create disadvantaged groups,
think about needle exchange programs.
All right.
Now, we certainly -- and I do not support in any way,
shape or form intravenous drug use recreationally,
but we do know there are people who engage in that behavior,
and there are certainly data out there
that would say if you use clean needles,
the risk of infection is significantly lower.
So from a public health standpoint, we know that
this is something that is beneficial.
On the other hand, from a public societal standpoint,
there is no support of the concept.
Because, again, people are acting in what would be
considered immoral ways, and so why should they
have any support.
So as we summarize this particular segment, we
really focused on the moral model of disability.
And as I mentioned, it's the oldest.
It has a number of both positive
and some negative features to it.
We look at it as often times providing people
with a sense of purpose, a sense of faith.
That idea of when you ask why me, well, why not you.
We also from somewhat of a negative standpoint
within the moral model, there's a tendency to equate disability
with something bad, something evil, something wrong,
so that there's a sense the disability
is caused so that it might be retribution for sin,
a test for the hereafter.
But there is that sense that disability is caused.
And if we look at it from that standpoint as we just
mentioned, then there are certainly opportunities
for groups to be disadvantaged.
Because as a society, we make judgments about people
who may engage in certain types of what would be considered
immoral behavior or are just associated with that.
So that's what I want to end up with in this segment.
And as we move to the next segment, we're going to talk
more specifically about the medical model.