(7) Recent Paper

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 that it 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 as well (i.e., alcoholic, prostitute, homosexual, disabled, unemployment, poverty, criminality, physical disability).The folks under these categories were seen as biologically impaired people labeled 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 on other people’s predetermined ideological beliefs. Taken for granted understandings of ability were motivated by hegemonic (ruling, dominate class) normativity that envisioned ordinate vs. subordinate social constructs of inequality. 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 will manifest a positive or negative experience that promotes ableism or not. Looking into some of the variables of ableism, and how it manifests between the social interactions that disabled and non-disabled people experience may be revealed through the context of positive and negative situational factors based on the model they choose. Social constructs that are used through the lens of the biomedical model to marginalize members of society are often ideological 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 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 is often ranked according to preference 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 similar to 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 into different groups and discriminated against. Moreover, disability prejudice that has evolved in these instants have been very condemning and oppressive, which has caused a lot of unnecessary hardship for many. The biomedical model uses a considerably unhealthy negative approach (defective vs. 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 begins on one side as equality, and on the other side it is the social interconnection of 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 labels are difficult to remove, although the negative generalizations of this eugenics movement did not hold up. It starts by controlling one’s own thinking patterns, and to meet in the middle of models (bio medical, social) to prevent extreme thinking. An experience I have to share is that drinking 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. Eugenics logic would have seen this drinking as a biological impairment, and the social model would seek understanding the individual and the environment. 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:

• SMART, J. F. The Power of Models of Disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, [s. l.], v. 75, n. 2, p. 3–11, 2009. Disponível em: https://search-ebscohost-com.csulb.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=41527258&site=ehost-live. Acesso em: 8 maio. 2021.

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 mode, and an authoritarian approach in the biomedical approach. Often we see how the disabled are affected, and knowing the dynamics is important, so we can ascribe to the model of choice and understand why things happen when others choose to follow a specific model or not. I noticed discrepancies between transformational and authoritarian which really tell us what we already know that there are a lot of power dynamics at play but knowing the discrepancies between the two different styles of helps to understand individual dispositions and motivations.

In extremes (eugenic logic) the logic is to see a biological impairment in a defective individual then socially construct an ableist position stereotype label. Thus, a social constrict evolves through a prejudiced ideology a subjectively based logic utilizing a label as a method to distinguish the individual. The discrepancy is this thinking is cognitively adequate just that it is a biased viewpoint that is discriminatory. If the logic and perception changed the same folks are cognitively capable to use the same faculties to interpret the individual logically (different motivation) through understanding the individual in a social aspect of functionality through the nature of the person rather than prejudiced based ideologies.

Biomedical Socio-political

Acts at the level: compliance internalization

Societal components: rules values

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 is bio and transformational is socio-politico. The discrepancies in style of control from an individual, societal, or organizational standpoint is that of polar opposites that are extreme in difference and being aware of these differences may help in understanding others as a goal to reach compromise. The class text says the solution to disability is to change attitudes and to change laws.

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

Questions:

Will mostly authoritative people ascribe to the biomedical model and transformational people ascribe to the socio-political model?

I see a discrepancy that individual’s 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. Makes it seem compromise is so impossible. I hope to see more studies regarding individuality of character in that of the dynamics of ableism and disability prejudice.