(32) Paper from Disability class Psychology 350 (CSULB)

The collection of internalized parts that make up society at the intersections of race, class, gender, and dis/ability are often associations made between its members in comparison to mythical norm. An experience that comes to mind is being part of a patriarchy is not always easy, sure others have it much worse, but members of society often look through their own lens of judgement rather than through a lens of empathy to understand others. The social constructs and social markers created by these associations of others based on abnormal/not accepted, and normal/accepted are culturally based values, justified ideological beliefs. One system of ideologies that has been prevalent is eugenics logic which labeled people as feebleminded; a biological illness that need not be reproduced in future generations. This ideological belief was socially constructed, and like other categories of analysis that have been constructed throughout history were transduced to others through the roots of discrimination. Although like most prejudiced stereotypical labels the categorical label feebleminded was generalized to many others societal issues (i.e., alcoholic, prostitute, homosexual, disabled, unemployment, poverty, criminality, physical disability) also as a biological impaired people seen as defective, and not reconcilable in society. Eugenics was an ideological belief that was correlated through social relations and reinforced through laws and policies, therefore even though one is endowed with freewill I find relevance that it is important not to let prejudiced ideologies get to the level that we can discard others based off another person's own ideological belief’s. Taken for granted understandings of ability are motivated by hegemonic (ruling, dominate class) ordinate vs. subordinate thinking that does not fit a mythical norm, so social constructs of inequality are often based on the normative vs. inferior often persist thinking patterns.

An emotional reaction of surprise that came about me was finding in chapter 6 (beliefs about social change pg. 242). The social political model presents disability stigma as a social construct rooted in discrimination and access barriers in the environment. This means that policies can be used to marginalize members of society as someone may see fit. My experience is that it may make a difference in being accepted or not depending on leadership styles in correlation to which model (bio-medical or social) that they ascribe to. This paper correlates how the use of the bio and social model in accordance to phenomena of social interacting can manifest a positive or negative experience that promotes ablism or not.

Looking into some of the variables of ableism, and how it manifests between the social interactions disabled and non-disabled people experience may be revealed through the context of positive and negative situational factors based on which one of these models that they ascribe too. Social constructs that are used through the lens of the biomedical model to marginalize members of society are often ideological personalized beliefs through the emphasis of nature, but often lack any kind of empirically based premises. This is a hasty generalization fallacy when social constructions are used to promote/support a label that is feared to be biologically based, but actually lacks the scientific reasoning of being so. This extreme view lacks tolerance of accepting the individuality of a person that in turn is seen and treated as having a biological impairment through a socially constructed view. I find relevance that the is how ableism manifests, and even though the biomedical model is outdated many prescribe to this more negative type of thinking and close-minded view of disability.

One thing unique is looking into how prejudice evolves between individuals at the interpersonal and intergroup level. People define themselves in the social relations between the members of the groups that they belong too. Disability status is often structured at the intersections of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and dis/ability, and views are often ranked and manifested according to preference from those in a hierarchal position. These identities are important motivating factors, thus an area where ableism persists in these interactions is having one’s identity threatened. For example, being a labeled as a member of a disadvantaged group one could experience a stereotype or a social identity threat. A sensitivity to stress often occurs due to chronic exposure to prejudice and discrimination, and a “threat in the air” (fear of being discriminated against) could linger as internalized ableism sets into the individual’s psychological makeup. As an individual is singled out in society a phenomenon called “tokenism” may appear if the person is isolated and there are no other members to the group in which one may be labeled. I have experienced being ostracized at this level, and it can mimic issues of health problems like being stigmatized at a high level. The interactions between social relations (advantaged, disadvantaged groups) are reciprocal, moreover they are also like the bio- medical and social model; two sides of the same coin by contrast in their mechanistic values. It is worth taking a look at the contrasting styles, because categorical analysis of groups in the past has identified generalizations towards many individuals that have been placed in a group and discriminated against. Moreover, disability prejudice that has evolved in these instants have been very condemning, oppressive, which has caused a lot of unnecessary hardship for many.

The biomedical model uses a considerably unhealthy negative approach (defective, non- defective) that is more authoritative in its perception towards disability, which promotes ableism in an uncaring and non- validating (either or thinking) demeanor in its ideological framework. The socio-political model uses a more flexible transformational approach in its perception towards disability, which prevents ideological style thinking and ableism by promoting healthy, caring, and self-reflecting views. I find relevance that the social model promotes healthy relations, and counters negative aspects like close minded negative approach of the bio- medical model. Lowering social inequality like eugenics style thinking and stereotypes that conflict and limit positive relations between others can really be curbed by meeting in the middle of these two models this may be the balancing point society needs to preserve the viability at the intersections of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and dis/ability.

The two sided coin of inequality on one side and equality on the other it is the same coin of social interconnection at these intersections, just one side preserves their own ideologies through socialized process, which includes and excludes others (ableism), while the others try to preserve the whole, repair barriers and prevent the other negative social aspects that come about from disabling members in society. Bio-medical model limits possibilities and positive thinking which is exclusive in benefitting some at the expense of others. The power of thought, but thoughts can be misconstrued and lead a person to faulty thinking patterns and ideologies. If negative thoughts of hegemonic normativity become habitual then ableism may rise to higher level of extremity like eugenics style of logic. What can be learned can be unlearned, and no doubt labels are difficult to remove, but the negative generalizations of the eugenics movement did not hold up. Relearning faulty perceptions of others starts by controlling one’s own thinking patterns by becoming more self-aware, and to meet in the middle of models (bio medical, social) to prevent extreme thinking. Learning to appreciate others through understanding them for who they are; the individual that they are through the unique human condition and experience that is theirs. An experience I have to share is that drinking alcohol may become a habit. I started drinking when I had sustained a wrist injury rather than take pain medications, and then it became more of an altered identity sedating other pain or frustration, which included acting out of character. I have not drank for 25 years on the 22nd ofnext month, but this habit was unlearned, and thank goodness cause I sure like being me. We are human it is evident by how we feel a stereotype threat or a threat in the air because as people we are derived from one another. Eugenics logic would have seen my drinking as a biological impairment, and that this breed should not reproduce because I was defective. Reality speaking this was a human being in development stage working through positive and negative experienced to that point in their life on the road to maturing through always learning, a drive to be something better, which is always better in unity together. This is the human condition, we all have it we all experienced it, and it may be the two-sided coin in the specific pains, and it is through the pain that we have experienced in our own lives that we can empathize with and understand others through the pain that they experience in their own life.

Article

I chose this article because it goes into a deeper detail of the models of disability. It is understood the social model accepts functionality (environmental) aspects correlated to the human condition and disability. The bio-medical contrasts this looking at what needs to be fixed in a defective person in a more deterministic biologically impaired way. I see a transformational approach in the social model and an authoritarian approach in the biomedical approach.

Deciphering these two models (bio-medical, socio- politico) is important when we see variance in how disability is perceived and people are treated. These dynamics in thinking are seen in history in different types of thinking for example, eugenics logic that is based of stereotypes, and misinformed assumptions due to the lack of understanding of others which leads to a higher unacceptance rate and sensitivity to indifference. Implications in thinking can be understood by understanding differences in these two models, and the dynamics of the individuals (i.e., leadership style) so we can ascribe to the model of choice and understand why things happen when others choose to follow one of these specific model or not. I noticed discrepancies between transformational and authoritarian style leadership. so looking into the dynamics between the two styles of leadership helps to understand how individual motivations are correlated to who prescribes to which model or not. For example, when power dynamics are at play can motivations be revealed through an idealistic means based off leadership styles and correlated to these two models to distinguish whether motivations are a prejudiced form of social control that is biased and not open to interpretation as opposed to practice's that utilize an open mind and address a more positivist approach that accounts for all members in society?

In extremes (eugenic logic) the logic is see a biological impairment in a defective individual then socially construct an ableist position; stereotype and/or label. Then the social construct evolves as a social movement to push an agenda favored by the power and privileged. The sad dehumanizing part is that individuality of the individual is ignored, and never really seeing the person but utilizing a label as a method and at the expense of conformity to assume social control (i.e., authoritarian approach). There is discrepancy in this thinking, but hope is possible and profound when leadership style takes a less rigid and more flexible approach. It is the same coin just when logic and perception is flipped the same folks are fully capable to interpret (i.e, same the facilities of logic), but utilizing a different motivational approach. Understanding the individual from a different social aspect by not letting idealism get in the way therefore functionality between both parties doesn't override the nature of one person at the expense of the other. Here is a look at the two models that I previously described. I will now propose which two different leadership styles would ascribe to each of the models. Examining the description of the dynamics of each of the leadership styles exemplifies that the behaviors of the leadership styles correlate to and are specific to the types of views that each of the models ascribe to,

Biomedical Socio-political

Acts at the level -compliance internalization

Societal components- rules values

authoritarian leader transformational leader

Bio medical- insufficiently socialized their adherence to social norms depends on surveillance which makes them less reliable and more difficult to control. The socio-political excessively socialized from the point of view of agencies charged with social control. Questions everything, makes their own judgement about the validity of authoritative demands conformity is more conditioned. My take is the authoritarian leadership is more self- motivated bio-medical model based, while transformational leadership is motivated to help others and is driven by the socio-political model. The discrepancies in leadership style of control from an individual and which model each ascribes to from a societal, or organizational standpoint is that of polar opposites that are extreme in difference. Being aware of the differences of these models and self-aware of the differences in leadership styles and the cognition/emotion behind one's own thinking may help reveal conflicts in relationships in an effort to better understanding ourselves and others as a goal to reach compromise.

Every form of addiction is bad no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine, or idealism- Carl Rogers.

Do you think folks with an authoritative style leadership ascribe to the biomedical model and that people that practice a transformational style perspective to leadership ascribe to the socio-political model?

I see a discrepancy that individuals styles of people to the models they choose have high probability of clashing. It is so difficult when perceptions and problem- solving skills are so different, yet we all must function and grow together. Makes it seem compromise is so impossible. I hope to see more studies regarding individuality of character, especially regarding that of prejudice and practices that are leading to the polarization and division in this country today.