The Fallacy of Disability

who's disabled here?

left : Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's unfortunately 'back' in prominence
right : Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest minds in his field and impacting significantly on the course of human history in myriad ways.
left-click on the pictures to learn more

"1. The term "disabled person" means any person unable to ensure by himself or herself, wholly or partly, the necessities of a normal individual and/or social life, as a result of deficiency, either congenital or not, in his or her physical or mental capabilities."

The above is the first item on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights regarding the rights of the Disabled.
~ The full declaration may be found here

Argument 1

1. While the UN ought to be applauded for attempting to promote the rights of the disabled via the Declaration of the Rights of the Disabled, they inadvertently and simultaneously forward and legitimise the notion that the 'disabled' are in fact deserving of the generic category of 'disabled'.

2. To legitimise the view that they are disabled 'generically', the UN will have to show that they are indeed 'generically' disabled.

3. To show that they are 'generically' disabled, as the title 'disabled' implies, the UN will have to prove their 'disability' in all the dimensions of the human persona.

4. To argue that the disability of the 'disabled' is significant, the UN will have to show that the aspects in which they are not disabled would not significantly impact or benefit their own lives, the lives of others or all sentient society in general.

5. The UN will also have to ensure that any deficiency that they may exhibit in their non-disabled potentials is not due to the differentiated or discriminative treatment they might have received due to the biases that may accompany the view of these persons as disabled. This distinguishes between disabilities and socially-motivated disabilities.

6. It is not enough to argue that it is due to the flawed perception of their being disabled that the UN finds it necessary to emphasise the rights of the disabled.

7. It has to be understood that the starting point of discrimination lies in the recognition, and legitimisation, of the validity of various differences as being a significant indicator of variance in ability.

- Ability here has to be understood as a composite of the act and the output. Disability in the former does not necessarily entail disability or inferiority in the latter.

8. By viewing the 'disabled' as disabled, the UN validates the sectocentric critieria against which they are judged to be disabled. (sectocentric - from the perspective of a sector of society)

9. This is acceptable if the criteria against which the 'disabled' are judged is firstly proven to be valid.

10. For this criteria to be proven valid, it has to be shown that it is representative of, or takes into consideration, the entirety of human capabilities, discovered or yet to be discovered, and its relevance to the entirety of circumstances, experienced or yet to be experienced, that has or may present itself for resolution by humanity, and that these circumstances may not draw upon the unique experiences of the allegedly 'disabled'.

11. Crucial to this point is the assumption that unique experiences arising from the physical or mental (which is the 'agent' counterpart of the 'social' - physical/mental=agent, cultural=social) idiosyncracies (mistakenly known as 'disabilities') of individuals generally give rise to intellectual, perceptual and psychological propensities that enables one to impact in varying ways on problematic phenomena.

12. The second point that is pertinent to this is that the abilities, inclinations and propensities arising out of the stated idiosyncracies, but are devalued within one cultural space or time, may, in another cultural space or time, be valued in ways that the 'able' persons of the former cultural space or time were disabled from recognising.

13. If points 9 and 10 are to be taken as true, plausible or probable, then this in effect serves as an argument for the 'disabled' to be perceived, not as equal to the 'enabled', but as potentially 'enabled' in ways the rest of us 'non-disabled' persons are not.

14. This would in fact serve as evidence of the disability of the non-disabled.

15. In this sense, 'disability' may be seen as the shutting off of a valve that simultaneously enables a greater and more concentrated flow of energy in particular directions that the 'non-disabled' will not be able to effect.

16. In other words, enabling simultaneously disables and disabling simultaneously enables - in varying directions, intensities and proclivities.

SUM

• This article calls for the recognition of a more representative reality of disability that is cognisant of the fact that disability is simultaneously an indication of ability and vice versa.

• That it would be more accurate to term 'disability' as 'idiosyncrasy'.

• That the term 'idiosyncrasy' be utilised not as a referential term for the 'disabled' but as one requiring a prefix when applied to all persons. i.e. physical, mental, intellectual, perceptual, etc, idiosyncrasies.

• That these idiosyncrasies be viewed simultaneously as an indication of both ability and disability.

• This article recognises everyone as idiosyncratic but in various dimensions, degree and combinations with regards to the entirety of the human phenomenon.

• That the salience of the aid extended to another ought not to be indicative of disability. i.e., helping one in a mathematical problem is less salient than helping one up the steps. Both assume disability of the one in need of help.
  

(article first published in May 2005 in blogspot)