http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/04/opinion/perry-garner-disability-race-intersection/index.html

That's a really terrible argument.

The argument seems simple and valid. I <3 you semck so I'll try to be as logical as possible

Disabled defined as extra ordinary difficulty performing tasks
-Example tasks would be shopping, running, going up stairs, etc

The ease and accessibility of these tasks are largely defined and influenced by the infrastructure physically and socially
-Examples would be whether roads and sidewalks are sufficiently cleared of snow (this is a current problem in the city I live in where sidewalks are only cleared enough for people walking, and not people in wheelchairs, even though the wheelchairs could fit just fine with no snow), or if a city provides ample elevators in buildings (hence why we have laws that address this very concern specifically)

Especially with less severe disabilities than full blindness or full inability to walk, the severity or even existence of disability can be drastically different in different societies, cities, classes.

Maybe you can specify to what you take umbrage with?

Valis,

Let us imagine a primitive society, existing at subsistence level, and with no physical infrastructure to speak of. Their environment is simply nature. They are hunter-gatherers.

Let us suppose somebody is born into this society blind. Will he be "disabled" (in the sense of being unable to perform certain activities that people in his people group generically can?) Yes. He will not be able to run through the woods. He will not be able to effectively hunt many types of prey; he will be more at risk for death by predation, unless protected.

None of these things is imposed on him by society in any way. They are imposed by nature. They have nothing to do with how his society is set up, and they most certainly are not "inflicted on him" by society. (Depending on its ethics and social structure, the society may or may not try to alleviate the impacts of these things on him).

So there is nothing fundamentally social or infrastructure-induced about disability. Disabled people already have problems getting around, for example, before there is any infrastructure at all -- on the bare brown earth, they still have more trouble getting around. (Depending, obviously, on the disability, but I'm using ora's example now).

Having grasped this simple point that disability is not *inherently* a socially imposed condition, it is fairly trivial to grasp the further point that many or most of the effects of disability in the modern world are likewise natural, and not socially imposed. Society does not "impair you by preventing you from getting around," for example; there is a natural difficulty in getting around. Society may accomodate it to varying degrees.

Even let's take your example, valis, of snow on sidewalks. Undoubtedly it's true that too much snow on sidewalks is terrible for the disabled; but too much snow or ice at all is. Civilization may fail sometimes to ameliorate that as much as would be possible, and it may sometimes aggravate it; it does not create it.

Your other examples, and some of ora's, highlight once again the fact that society can *fail to ameliorate* a disability, leaving it in as bad a state as it would naturally have been; and it can even relieve some hardships for most people, but not for those with the disability. None of these constitutes disability being socially defined.

" Especially with less severe disabilities than full blindness or full inability to walk, the severity or even existence of disability can be drastically different in different societies, cities, classes."

This, of course -- minus the word "existence" -- is true. What is false is the claim that society *creates* disabilities. It is not only false, but quite silly.

I don't think "existence" should be out of the conversation at all. Dyslexia would not be a disability in a society that doesn't require reading. Being unable to lift heavy objects would not be a disability in a society that doesn't require the person to lift heavy objects.

I'll object that when the conversation explicitly talks about how society creates the context for whether something is a disability we ignore society (even you can't get out it when you must include "his people group generically can"), but let's go back to the savannah.

Humans can't fly. At one or more times this will lead them to be in disadvantageous situations, whether unable to escape a lion, unable to transverse a path, etc. But we wouldn't call that a disability would we? Even though it would be more advantageous not to have that limitation. Because we're not expected to be able to fly. It goes back to expectation and norms.

To make sure everyone at home is following:
The argument isn't that society somehow induces physical impairment.
The argument is that whether and how much that physical impairment is a disability is influenced by the context of the society the person is living in.

Frankly it seems silly to disagree, but, clearly, some intelligent people do =)

Valis,

Your point that we don't term things that no human can do disabilities, but rather inabilities, is true. That is an interesting point about the meaning of the two words. It still does not mean, however, that disabilities are socially imposed. Rather, they are defined with respect to the normal abilities of the human species.

Dyslexia is an interesting example, and it goes to how I said that society "can even relieve some hardships for most people, but not for those with the disability." The invention of reading has been tremendously empowering for the human race, but somewhat less so on average for those with dyslexia. In this sense, that development has created a context where the disability is keenly felt (where it might not even be known otherwise). The disability itself, however, remains a thing of nature. Humans created a new activity; some people were (naturally) unable (easily) to engage in it.

As you said in your first post, and I agreed with, the severity and impact of a particular disability can be felt widely differently in different societies.

(I find your "heavy lifting" example less interesting and on-point than the dyslexia one, so won't address it separately).

I'm not sure if I follow this argument completely, but I'm starting to side with the OP's proposition. We are all born unable to fly, this isn't viewed as a disability and isn't a big deal. People with vertigo or fear of flying or agoraphobics aren't considered 'disabled' in a world where no one can fly. But when society develops so that we all have the opportunity of mechanically assisted flight, agoraphobics and people with fear of flying suddenly become disabled. Their personal situation hasn't changed, but society has.

I don't quite agree with Valis's characterization of the argument, incidentally. I think it's true that's what he's been arguing about, and I don't largely disagree with him -- we have perhaps some semantic quibbles. OP's claim was very broad, however, and I still think clearly wrong.

Yes semck, some people were not able to 'naturally' read; but that doesn't mean society should punish them by not allowing them to (for example) vote.

It is a question of whether a society discriminates against people or not.

In some cases (like the link i posted) you can see people get killed by police; and society blames their disability. Very much a case of victim blaming if ever i heard one.

' The disability itself, however, remains a thing of nature. ' - No, in this context i was using the word physical impairment (or mental impairment in the case of dyslexia) as in the sense you are using disability.

Before writing/reading existed dyslexia wasn't a disability. Therefore the disability didn't exist - even though the mental impairment was still there - the person was still able to do all the normal things society expected.

It really comes down to social norms and expectations, and how they are accomadated.

After reading the article, I have to disagree with their stance to some degree. Not completely, but to some degree. Here are my thoughts:

I work with students with disabilities on a regular basis. When they come into my classroom, I make accommodations for them to have a fair chance to excel, including permitting additional time on tests, giving notes sheets, writing and speaking directions, etc. Where that doesn't change is in my expectations for behavior. All students are held to the same level if behavior, and rightfully should be.

Now, where this pertains to the case, police cannot possibly know every individual and every disability they have as they enter the room. They have to treat each person that is violating the law the same way. It's often unfair to peg officers that use restraint on an individual and due to health reasons, the individual dies. It's also unfair to peg police officers in a negative light when someone with a weapon has a mental issue and gets shot when brandishing the weapon. Police do not know how an individual will behave in any situation. That said, if officers are called to a scene where they *are* aware of physical or mental issues that need to be taken into consideration, then care should be exercised appropriately. For example, if an officer knows someone has an emotional impairment, then they should approach the situation much calmer than normal instead of in a way that may heighten stress and induce violence.


Now, where I do think the article has a valid point is that in this circumstance, the perpetrator was unarmed and there were numerous officers available to contain the individual. I see that it was an extreme use of force to put the guy in a choke hold, especially after the guy was clearly giving up. I've seen enough episodes of Cops to know that there are better ways of handling the situation. I feel that the officer should have been charged with excessive use of force. Just because the officer used a technique that was available to him doesnt mean he chose the right method. There were clearly better options available. I can't say whether this was an issue of race or not, but I can say that I felt that justice was not served here.

The cops discussion and article I feel is a special case of the broader idea, compounded with cops and excessive force being a hot topic right now, I consciously chose not to address it, but good to hear your thoughts Tru.

orathaic,

I have already rebutted your points by showing that there are examples of impairments that would be disabilities (in the same sense) under any circumstance; including those that you mention in your OP (mobility, etc.)

Whether that example had a race factor in it doesn't reduce the fact that racism exists; IF you are more likely to be approached and subdued by police because of your race AND more likely to die because of the way the police subdues you combined with your medical condition, THEN the intersection of rascism and ableism is a place where society sucks at protecting your right to life.

Similarly to valis, I thought there was too much breadth beteween the two issues and chose to focus on the points on one side that were being made. Tru's points are, indeed, interesting.

In the law of torts, there is a rule called the eggshell skull rule: if you hit somebody wrongly but gently, and it turns out that they have extremely fragile bones and you shattered their arm, you are responsible for the full damages: "you take your plaintiffs as you find them."

I think a similar rule would be reasonable in the police context, with the emphasis on *wrongly.* If the police follow a good procedure and it causes somebody to die because of a condition they couldn't reasonably have known, that is unfortunate but perhaps unavoidable. If the police follow an unnecessarily violent procedure, or one out of code, and it causes death, they should be liable (at least civilly; whether for death or something less, criminally, is I think a different and harder question).

@semck - then we do indeed get back to the point of what is appropriate police behaviour (the wrongness or morality rather than legality)

But the point in that article of commentators saying 'well he wouldn't have died if... he wasn't so obese'; by your point IF the police are in the wrong, it doesn't matter that he was obese, the police still killed him.

I'm not going to go into the question of morality, as it would be too broad, and has been/is being discussed elsewhere.

@ 'I have already rebutted your points by showing that there are examples of impairments that would be disabilities (in the same sense) under any circumstance;'

No, you pointed to circumstances without the social context i was talking about in my OP. A pre-social 'society' holds little meaning, and is rather irrelevant to our current existance.

We don't live in a 'primitive society, existing at subsistence level, and with no physical infrastructure to speak of.'

We live in a society where the infrastructure is created and designed for humans. Not the nature which we would find ourselves prey to otherwise.

The position is that society has chosen to create an environment (infrastructure) for us to live in, and has made an active choice to discriminate against some, thus DISABLING them. (i'm avoiding tlaking about roads, because they only empower car owners, which would lead to a broader conversation about wealth) In the example of snow on the sidewalk, it is again the natural environment (encroaching on our infrastructure) which we choose how to deal with - do we clear enough for wheelchair access?

Many people blame childhood obesity on the parents who feed kids unhealthy foods when quite frankly many of them can't afford or have a way of obtaining healthier options. This in a way is a disability

(if you want to go into obesity as a disability, please check out this expert (who despite sharing my surname, and giving a talk in a palce i used work, is in no way related to me): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrSlybLMB4

orathaic,

You are being perfectly ridiculous. If, in a state of nature, a given disabled person cannot walk, and then society decides to build sidewalks, it is not suddenly creating a disability by making an "active choice to discriminate against" him. It is creating an amenity that helps many, but leaves him just as poorly off as he was before -- due to his disability, not to any active choice. This is precisely the situation with a great many of the disabilities people face -- yes, even in our modern, industrial society. Your dream that we have advanced so far as to leave biology behind us is just that.

orathaic,

On the police point -- I agree, the same eggshell skull rule sould apply to the police as to everybody else. The "he wouldn't have died if he weren't obese" line is indeed irrelevant and wrong.

" then society decides to build sidewalks, it is not suddenly creating a disability"

Suddenly we have gone from a position where society was not responcible for the public space, to one where it was.

You could sue the city council for failure to properly keep the sidewalk safe - if they allowed it fall into disrepair and you tripped on a crack; you couldn't sue them for leaving it in a state of nature.

There is a difference in law there.

Government didn't plow my street today. I'm disabled.

If society provided universal wifi, nobody would be disabled.

Except Yellowjacket.

Seriously? "Reasonable accommodations" being applied to police?

Title III of the ADA wasn't intended to treat law enforcement as a public "service" which should be molded to accommodate anyone with a disability. Public *facilities* like courts, department of motor vehicles, general hospitals, libraries, parks and recreational facilities are the targets here.

I think a lot of police are a bit too aggressive when dealing with certain members of the public who obviously pose no threat to the LEOs, other people or themselves, but I don't think we need the police to become "special needs" cops either.

Cops should be trained to deal with the general public in a more positive and less confrontational manner. They shouldn't be trained to do field diagnoses of people with "disabilities."

Government didn't plow anybody's street today. Nobody is disabled.