Redefining Disability: The Case Against the Term

Introduction

The concept of disability continues to confound our society. Whether it is Barnes and Mercer (2010) constructing a critique that frames all of Western society as uniformly hostile to difference, or government and business seeking reasonable, compassionate solutions to a complex social issue, disability is something that we collectively struggle to understand. It seems that even though numerous definitions already exist, the need for a better one remains. This essay attempts to seek out such a definition by examining what exactly a disability is.

The paper begins with a brief overview of some of the issues that challenge us when seeking a definition of disability. Some of these issues are objections to current frameworks, while others simply reflect the many different lenses through which disability can be examined. The paper then presents a proposed definition of disability that aims to be workable and an improvement over current definitions. The subsequent section outlines why this definition will be useful for society, followed by a concluding summary.

Challenges in Defining Disability

There are a number of perspectives that help frame the definitions of disability that society currently works with. Davis (2013) argues that we "live in a world of norms," and that anything beyond these norms is termed a disability. This is not entirely accurate, because exceptional ability is never categorized as a disability — even when that exceptional ability is itself disabling. A genius or artist who struggles to relate to other human beings, for example, may fail in one aspect of life, yet that failure is ignored because of their exceptional contributions in others. The term "disabled," as Davis understands it, seems reserved for those whose differences challenge them — a deviation from the norm in a specifically negative context. Even then, not all negative contexts are included: the intellectually limited individual may be called many things, but "disabled" is rarely one of them. This illustrates the problem with the very word, because many things hinder people from functioning fully, yet only a select few are singled out by this negative label, while other negative traits escape the same scrutiny.

As such, the term disability carries stigma. Someone labelled "disabled" — and it is usually an externally applied label — is ultimately seen as inferior in some way, and in need of extra care and accommodation from society. The stigma need not apply, however. We can accommodate others without stigma at all. We help elderly people cross the road without attaching any stigma to their frailties, and we apply no formal label to them. This raises the question: why do we need a label for those whose bodies and minds function differently from our own, even when those differences make it harder for them to contribute productively to society?

I propose to eliminate the use of the word "disability." The reasoning is divided into two parts. The first is that disability as a concept makes no sense given that Davis is wrong about norms. The second is that the word "disability," by its very construction, biases us toward the negative, and no definition can change the way we think about it because of how the word is built. Once these two arguments are understood, the case against the word becomes clear, and the need for a new definition of disability becomes moot.

Davis understands disability as a deviation from the norm, but there are no universal norms. Aside from identical twins, no two humans are the same. We are all different — shorter or taller, brighter or dimmer, thinner or stockier — and in that diversity there is no fixed norm from which one can deviate. As a society we perceive a range of normality, but that perception is not always accurate, and not everyone who seems to fit within it actually does. The reality is that we are all different. It makes no sense to label a blind person as disabled while avoiding that same label for, say, a person whose deep-seated prejudices hold them back socially and professionally. Both conditions reflect an individual held back by something they may not fully control. We all have abilities and limitations; none of us is without imperfection. In that light, it makes no real sense to single out some people for stigma while treating others as simply "normal."

Conclusion

Gibson, O. (2012). Drop the word 'disabled' from Games coverage, demands Paralympics committee president. The Guardian. Retrieved October 18, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/26/paralympics-philip-craven-disabled-disability