Saturday, April 13, 2013
Relearning to be able & the outside view
I thought that our discussion about disability and whether an individual
is actually "disabled" after losing a limb was very interesting. Once
we see that a limb is missing or that an individual is not physically
matched up to what society deems normal, we assume they are less able or
unable to do everything on a daily basis, like cook, clean, dress,
write, exercise, among other daily practices. We don't take into
consideration that this individual, if they choose to use a prosthetic,
has to relearn how to use that part of their body. If they choose not
to use a prosthetic, then they have to learn how to function without
it. But we don't always think that they will be able to. What the
outsider thinks is not important because in many cases, the individual
will choose to function normally, unless circumstances do not allow for
such. Many athletes who take part in the Paralympics still manage to
compete in the activities they love, even though they may not look like
individuals usually do in their preferred sport. The role of the
outsider doesn't play a role in a person's ability to be able bodied
unless the individual allows it to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you say about when we someone missing a limb that we automatically assume that they are disadvantaged because society says so. But the question I raise has to deal with the second part of that sentence. You say that we deem that they are less able because of their missing limb, which I may agree with at times, but what is the definition of "able?" Does it fall into the same category as "normal" when we justify normality by social standards? I would think so. Who's to say that because I can button my shirt without assistance that I am able and that someone that needs help isn't? What about someone that can do that, but has to drive a modified vehicle? I believe the definition of "able" is arbitrary, especially due to the inconsistent nature of ability. Someone who is "normal and able" one day may lose a limb and become "disabled" the next. I severely injured my left arm and was unable to use to for much of anything for a good portion of six weeks. I would definitely have considered myself able but also in need of assistance with multiple tasks. To me, many of the concepts we discuss in class are arbitrary and open for debate.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that we as a society view loss of limb as a sign of weakness. On the contrary, I believe that losing a limb or having any sort of disability may even strengthen one's inner morals. It does not in any way make them less of a person. What society portrays as important focuses on the outer/physical appearance of others. My point being that we as society have to take a closer look at what we truly value, and what makes a person a person. To me, one's personal contributions to society is more important than any varying degree of physical appearance.
ReplyDeleteI think society most definitely judges a person initially on their appearance, so when we see a disabled person we first notice something different and then establish that this person must be at a disadvantage, when many times they may not be. I agree that that society doesn't truly know the value of defining a person, it's not all about looks, there's so much more to a person.
ReplyDelete