War, Rehabilitation, and Disability Rights Activism

This week’s readings offer a more specific inspection of the progression we are now well familiar with, the movement from medicalized definitions of disability to gradual acceptance of the social model alongside more tangible developments in legislation that attempt to lend equal rights to disabled members of society. While we may be well informed in regard to the process or exchange that has occurred, Nielsen and Albrecht outline the exact interactions and events by which this movement was rendered, examining a period of time we have not yet discussed. 

I’d like to begin my discussion with the Albrecht document as its brevity offers more widespread and immediate implications. From the outset, Albrecht discusses how rehabilitatory efforts in the past focused entirely on “disability as an individual characteristic…medically defined…[and] subject to therapeutic interventions,” while more current efforts intend to transform “the expectations and structures of the society and the community as a whole,” understanding “disability as a condition imposed by existing social and physical barriers” (148-149). This transition reaffirms our own understanding of the movement to usage of the social model and also offers a general lens to view the more specific progression Nielsen offers.

Alongside burgeoning changes in “legislation, architectural design, and social programs,” it is interesting to note that rather than being eliminated, medical rehabilitation has been qualified, “outcome-oriented” and using the “Functional Index measure, which measures basic activities of daily living such as eating, dressing, and locomotion” (149-150). While still interacting with disabled persons on a physical, surgical level, medical rehabilitation has deviated from attempts to enforce ostensible “normality,” instead aiming to lend increased agency and independence. 

In regard to A Disability History of the United States, Nielsen offers a compelling chronological narration of this progression; however, I think it is most apt to formulate my discussion in terms of labor, intersectionality, and community to elucidate the most significant points of the Nielsen article.

In regard to labor, Nielsen offers that during the Great Depression disabled people were “automatically rejected…from work relief programs-[categorized]…as unemployable” (132). In many ways, this rejection perfectly crystallizes perceptions towards disabled people’s ability to work since the poverty brought on by the depression fully prevents the charity we have seen in past weeks, making perceptions of the disabled as inefficient and unproductive thoroughly clear. This outright refusal also reiterates the illogical, incongruent rulings of immigration committees we have discussed in prior weeks, further solidifying our understanding of these widespread notions. 

During WWII, another time of unrest, Nielsen details how employment of disabled people “rose from 28,000 in 1940 to 300,000 in 1945…placements numbered almost 2 million” (148). Nielsen also references a concurrent article that claimed that disabled people “must be prepared to take the places of those called for active military service” (148). While the employment of so many disabled people is certainly a positive achievement, the requirement for able-bodied citizens to be absent only reaffirms the perception of disabled people as inferior. It is also important to note that considerations of the invalidity of the disabled spanned into the world of academia as well, with dreams of attending college often categorized as delusional (141-142). 

Alongside the continuing difficulties in finding employment, hierarchies within the disabled community created by intersectionality with race and gender disadvantaged some groups further. Nielsen describes the particular disadvantage disabled african americans received from dilapidated, underfunded education systems, far less sophisticated medical treatment, often causing disability itself, and wholesale rejection from treatment programs such as Warm Springs (137, 138, 140). Nielsen also recounts how disabled women who were victims of rape struggled to effectively prosecute their assailant through laws that require proof of physical resistance (178). The increased difficulty for individuals who have a dual-identity within two oppressed groups reveals the necessity for the later widespread collaboration between movements supporting different but similarly subaltern individuals. 

In regard to the communal interactions taking place during this time period, Nielsen reiterates points we have discussed in previous weeks when noting how schools for the deaf, polio wards, and Warm Springs allowed many disabled people to momentarily feel comfortable in their disability and acted as structures for social involvement (134, 138). However, the greater significance of this communal interaction is the formation of a multiplicity of associations advocating for different groups of disabled people preceding the amalgamation of these organizations into a more collaborative whole. Nielsen notes how after such organizations as the BVA recognized “embracing hierarchy based on another form of physical difference…made organizing less effective,” groups began to consider their cause as a “cross-disability” movement as in the case of the UHF which “brought together nineteen state organizations… for people with disabilities…, reflecting the broad differences and shared experience among people with disabilities (156, 174). Nielsen reveals that the universal quality of these organizations allowed people with disabilities to more strongly express themselves, take power, and effect the changes sought (179). Doubtless, many of the major improvements in the condition of disable people arise from centuries of advocacy and shifts in perceptions, but it is important to note how an organization unified by the shared experience of millions may specifically combat the labor and intersectional prejudices outlined previously by way of its universality and magnitude of advocacy.  

As I don’t feel I have enough space to discuss the following points in full, I would like to briefly draw attention to the collaboration between the disability movement and other social movements as well as the disabled and non-disabled composition of the BLA (169, 160). Along these lines, a particularly interesting analysis of the interaction between the disability and feminist movements can be found here (especially on pages 36-38). I urge everyone to consider these interactions alongside any other points they wish to make in their own posts. 

A rally protesting on behalf of the Rehabilitation Act. Notice the usage of language of "rights and discrimination" that Nielsen notes populated much of the discourse employed by disability rights organizations (133, 152, 160).  

A protest of the discriminatory hiring practices of the WPA during the Great Depression. 

A party for the guests at Warm Springs. The composition of the guests shown above reinforces Nielsen's point regarding the disadvantage of those disabled people occupying intersectional statuses.

Questions to Consider: 

-How are the alliances between disabled groups and other groups representing oppressed individuals expected (i.e. what similarities exist between the two)? Are there any interactions that seem surprising? How might these be resolved?

-Are there any segments of the Albrecht or Nielsen readings you would consider problematic? 

-Are there any incongruities between the legislation FDR’s administration enacted and FDR’s own condition? How might these be resolved and accounted for? 

-While the aggregation of many different disability organizations into a “cross-disability” whole certainly has granted the entire community more power, are there any identities that are not suitably represented as a result? 

- Are there any interactions between the Nielsen and Albrecht readings and those of previous weeks that are important to our understanding of this time period or the disability movement as a whole? 

-Nielsen discusses the recurrent inefficacy and blatant discrimination of government action as well as the continuing battle to preserve the potency of the ADA. What can this interaction elucidate about the disability rights movement and how well can it model the positions of the population as a whole?

-What qualities of black lung disease and the mining community in its entirety facilitated the unique composition of the BLA?  

Disability History-focused Podcast: "The Backstory"

Just this morning Dr. Halloran sent me an email to a podcast from "The Backstory," whose most recent episode focuses on a number of aspects of disability history that we've studied this semester: "freak shows," immigration, deaf education and the struggle between oralism vs. manualism, and the intersection of slavery and disability.

In those segments you'll hear from some prominent scholars we've read this semester, notably Douglas Baynton and Dea Boster.

The podcast also has some segments on topics we've not talked about, such as the Gallaudet University protests that led that institution to appoints its first ever deaf president, as well as pre-ADA protests in San Francisco that helped pave the way for disability rights legislation on the federal level.

You can listen to the whole thing here:


If you'd like to check out this episode's individual segments, transcripts, and other materials, you can find them here.

Eugenics

This week, our readings were centered on the relationship between eugenics and disability. Both the Levine and Bashford and the Baynton articles highlighted the essential idea of eugenics that “some human life was of more value–to the state, the nation, the race, future generations–than other human life” (3-4). They both discussed the now controversial topic of eugenics and what the movement determined made lives more or less valuable.

Levine and Bashford’s article focused on defining eugenics holistically; they discussed how eugenics prospered and differed throughout the world and how it was connected to different social constructions, such as race, class, gender, and disability. Levine and Bashford stressed that the concept of eugenics was rooted in science, especially Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, which detailed his theory of natural selection. The fact that the idea of eugenics was considered to be scientific was essential to its popularity. As was seen our discussion last week on freak shows and three weeks ago on citizenship and intelligence tests, the assumption that science, though by no means fully objective science, “proved” disability greatly influenced public acceptance of different theories and methods surrounding its management. This same phenomenon applies to eugenics. Another important point made in this article was that during the late 19^th and mid 20^th century, eugenicists believed themselves to be modernists. According to Levine and Bashford, “Eugenics was, in central ways, about modernity” (4). The combination of Eugenics being classified as scientific and modern greatly contributed to its popularity, and for many, outweighed the principles considered unethical today. The common opinion now, and one viewed by some during eugenics’ prime time, was that the practices of eugenics were unethical. Some of these practices were more radical than others; they ranged from preventing marriages between individuals with certain traits (for example the pivotal Loving vs. Virginia SCOTUS case) to sterilization of people with undesirable traits (sometimes without their consent) to euthanasia of disabled people.

Additionally, both Baynton and Levine and Bashford draw connections between disability, eugenics, and the ability to work. We have seen the connection between disability and inability before in previous class discussions, and its power is emphasized here. The generalization that disability, specifically deafness highlighted in Baynton’s article, insured dependency and inability to work prevailed regardless of contradicting information. Eugenics showed how this inability to work was even considered to be a hereditary trait, defined as the pauper class. Levine and Bashford discussed how in Britain, India, and other countries throughout the world, eugenics greatly influenced and was greatly influenced by caste prejudices.  They explained how, “When [western] eugenicists turned to the postwar global problem of the ‘Third World,’ they imagined a globalized pauper class whose advance demanded intervention, action, and expertise” (7). It is important to note that this intervention was not a direct aid to the poor but rather an attempted control of their reproductive lives. Baynton highlights that for immigration officials at Ellis Island “the routine definition of the category to which [disabled people] belonged overpowered the facts of their individual case” (406). He also explicitly explains, “Disability was seen as the major factor behind pauperism” (407).

I found many points of intersectionality between these articles and our previous discussions in addition to the relationship between disability and the ability to work. I found it interesting how although eugenics focused on preventing the spread of unfit hereditary traits during the late 19^th through the mid 20^th century, in the United States birth control was not widely available to women until the 1960s. Yet both articles subtly reveal that irresponsible sexual activity was a danger to eugenics because it could potentially lead to the passing on of undesired traits and because promiscuity itself was an undesired trait. The story of Helena Boer highlighted in Baynton’s article explains this phenomenon. Helena Boer made a fateful mistake when testifying for her two deaf parents to be accepted into the US; she revealed that she was pregnant by a deaf man who she was not yet married to. Baynton explains, “Pregnancy was explicitly considered a disability that made women ‘more likely to become a public charge’” and “for the daughter of a deaf parents to conceive a child with a deaf man would have been seen, at the height of the eugenics movement, as an act of reckless irresponsibility” (403). We saw a similar idea that promiscuity was a signal of disability in our discussions of institutionalization and citizenship/intelligence tests. Levine and Bashford revealed another connection to institutionalization in relation to eugenics, explaining how institutionalization was seen as a form of segregation, separating the genetically fit and unfit (9).

Many of the insights from both of these articles intertwined with many of our previous discussions, revealing the complexities of studying and defining disability. These articles broaden our understanding of the eugenics movement’s classifications of desirable and undesirable people.   

Here is a picture of a eugenics pedigree chart, which traces illegitimacy and feeblemindedness.

Here are two posters/propaganda that supported the eugenics movement.

Questions to think about for discussion:

-       Did the eugenics movement find a balance between scientific unfitness and social unfitness?

-       What role do you think historiography plays in the discussion of eugenics? Why do you think perspectives have changed so drastically?

-       Eugenics is often only associated with racism and the holocaust, how does this knowledge hinder or help our understanding of eugenics?

-       Do you think Baynton’s insights apply to all disabilities or just deafness? Can we use his insights in a broader discussion of disability, or are they too specific?

-       How did eugenics influence the agency of disabled people? Was it different for people with different disabilities?

-       Are there any other points of intersectionality that you believe are too significant to go undiscussed?

Freak Shows

Hello all, I hope everyone enjoyed this week’s reading. Both Bogdan’s and Gerber’s articles discussed the formation of freak shows in the United States and how exhibiting human beings impacted the “freaks” . I would like to focus on the clash between the two articles over the feelings the “freaks” had about their role in these freak shows.

Freak shows experienced their peak years from 1840 to 1940. They often displayed a group of people who had “physical, mental, or behavioral” differences (Bogdan, 23). These shows were not interpreted as offensive until the twentieth century. Freak shows offered an opportunity for employment that (as we saw last week) was not often available for “disabled” people. Bogdan argues the practice of freak shows continued until the “freaks” were seen as “sick”, which made people feel “freaks” belonged less in an exhibit and more in a treatment center.

Bogdan sets up his argument by asking: “What makes a freak?” He not only shows us that freaks can be separated into several classifications. These different groups are “born freaks”, which are people who have been born with something that makes them unusual; “made freaks”, which are people who have done something to themselves to make themselves unusual; and “novelty acts”, which are people who perform unimaginable acts to the public (Bogdan, 24). Also Bogdan uses the example of Jack Earl to show that people could have not been seen as a freak until they were put in an exhibit.

Bogdan also brings up the interesting point of the sense of community formed by the freaks. This community centered on the idea of taking advantage of their customers. Every show was trying to scam those attending the freak shows to increase profit. Performers developed a mindset that looked down upon their audience because the audience fell for the widespread misrepresentations embedded within freak shows.

To increase the audience freak shows often used fabricated stories to make the “freaks” more interesting. Brogdan split these strategies used to increase attendance at freak shows into two different categories: Exotic and Aggrandized. Exotic presentation often posed the “performer” of the freak show as a savage from a far away uncivilized land, which was popular due to the imperial actions being taken by governments in this period (Bogdan, 28-29). Aggrandized status often posed the performer as highly civilized with a very high social standing. Bogdan points out that the perfecting and mixing of these two categories had the goal of achieving the most profit for the freak show.

Bogdon uses the narrative structure and this collection of facts to suggest that due to the economic and deceitful nature behind the exhibition of “freaks,” “freaks” were unaffected by their position as a human exhibition, and being a “‘freak’ was a frame of mind” formed by a “stylized presentation” (Bogdan, 35). He sets this up by first showing that a “freak” wasn’t a specific person, but rather only defined by their performance. Second, freakshow performers only held a belief that they were taking advantage of their spectators because they had fallen for the falseness of their performance. Third and most important, freak shows were created to make money, so the “freaks” chose to be a member of these exhibits so this wasn’t taking away from their humanity because they had chosen to be in these shows.

Gerber’s article critiqued Bogdan by questioning whether or not consent had actually been achievable for “freaks”. Gerber starts by asking whether choice to being oppressed lead to the cessation any moral conundrums that might come with oppression.

Gerber questions whether or not Bogdan really considered the testimonies he used to support his point and give agency back to the disabled. To go about this Gerber first defines what free choice is. He defines this as “a free choice not only when one in uncoerced, but also when one has a significant range of meaningful choices” (Gerber, 42). Then, Gerber goes on to set up how the volition and valorization provide the basis to Bogdan’s argument.

To contradict the valorization of Freak shows, Gerber accepts that some “freaks” could be considered as performers. However, the majority of “freaks” had no sort of performance giving them no sort of legitimacy as a performer. This means that many “freaks” could not have seen themselves as performers due to the fact that all their exhibit consisted of was sitting there while the public gawked at them.

Also to question the volition of the “freaks” and whether or not they had a choice to enter freak shows Gerber takes two approaches. In the first approach, Gerber questions the ability of Bogdon to use these testimonies in order to speak for all of the “freaks”. Gerber brings up many examples of groups who voice are unable to be heard such as Microcephalics and racial minorities. Second, he brings up that many “freaks” were forced to work in freak shows. One example is Otis Jordan who felt that he was unable to support himself in any other way and if he was to not work at the freak it would result with him “being on welfare” (Gerber, 49). This shows that Jordan had no ability to make a free choice in this decision and was forced to work in the freak show. Another reason performers were forced to work in freak shows was that many freakshow entrepreneurs held guardianship over a freak. An example being Charles Stratton who was given to P.T. Barnum at a young age and worked in a freak show. Barnum was the biggest influence on Stratton who became a performer and often wished he had been taken more seriously. Barnum’s guardianship over Stratton shows that Stratton had no free choice and was forced into the life of a human exhibit thanks to Barnum’s influence. These examples directly contradict Bogdon’s arguments on volition and free choice.

Both Bogdon and Gerber question a freak show's ability to be a representation of oppression onto the so called freaks. Both reach different conclusions however, with Bogdon concluding that the underlying economic goal made the “freaks” more performers than human exhibits. Gerber, however, sees freak shows as an oppressive force because of the lack of agency that the “freaks” possessed.

1. Were the Freak shows an oppressive force or did they offer an opportunity for economic success and a place of shelter where “freaks” could find a sense of community?
2. Did either the Exotic presentation or Aggrandized status offer a less degraded view of the “freaks”?
3. How does Dwarfism represent a different culture of disability compared to other “freaks”?
4. Was the formation of a “freak” mindset that separated themselves from the public on the basis that they knew about the fraud nature of freak shows lead to a healthy creation of a “freak” culture or further isolate them from society?
5. Were “freaks” able to have the capacity for agency in freak shows?

A picture of General Tom Thumb and his wife Lavinia Warren (both in the bottom left)

A carnival talker drawing interest to a freak show using images of an obese woman

An ad for a 1890 P.T. Barnum Circus

Industrial Revolution

Lead blog post for Industrialization and Disabilities

Hello all, I hope you had a fabulous Halloween and a good reading. This weeks reading of Sarah Rose’s chapter interesting touched on the intersectionality of disability and the role it had in shaping the occupational status of thousands. However, for this week, I would like to focus on the prominent effect the economy and legal system had on determining the value of a disabled worker.

              The ability to work has always been seen as a socially and economically significant factor in determining one’s social status and self-sufficiency; independence and power has always been directly related to one’s ability to labor. The Market Revolution, primed off of the idea of productivity and efficiency, continued the trend of workability into the later 19^th century and early 20^th of the Industrial Revolution.

            Rose breaks her chapter into three main sections regarding disabled individual's position in the work place: disabled people ability to work, the industrial company's paradigm shift, and Ford Motors rejection of the status quo.

            As an aside, I would like to point out one thing in the introduction. Rose makes an interesting claim referring to “a spectrum of productivity,” which she argues all workers are apart of over the course of their working career (2). What I find intriguing about this idea of work fluidity is that one’s position on the productivity graph is constantly fluctuating depending, theoretically, on his or her physical ability. People's productivity constantly changes, altering their value to society.

            Focusing on the first section of her chapter, the main claim centers around the idea that disabled people “continued to work after becoming disabled” (9). While many jobs at the time commonly resulted in work related injuries, those disabled often desired to return to their job in order to achieve economic independence and were successful in doing so, which closed the social barrier between normalcy and being a “cripple.” Although disabled people were not seen completely as incapable, they were never completely seen as normal. Looking back at previous readings, we understand that disabilities were common and detrimental – among African American, Women, and Immigrants – to marginalized groups, which often contributed to society’s predetermination of their work ability. Therefore, regardless of previous social status, a person would always be reduced to “a significantly lower standard of living” after becoming disabled (12). While they were still given jobs, the disability effectively devalued their skills forcing them into lower paying jobs often requiring less skill because “companies assumed that disabled workers could do little” (15).

            The preconceptions that disability is inferior resulted in a conflict between employers and employees over the rehiring and pay wages for people disabled caused by a work "accident." In order to avoid lawsuits, company’s rehired them, but placed them in rudimentary and useless jobs as a “charity or pension” to help (15). Once again, the common theme of giving, helping, and donating to the worthy poor resurfaces as the abled-bodies supported the dependent “crippled,” which creates or strengthens the physical hierarchy in society, stigmatizing them all as unproductive and less efficient.

            This idea of charity and lawsuits perfectly transitions into Rose’s second section regarding the exclusion of disabled workers and the societal paradigm shift away from viewing disabled people as viable work options. While given lower pay and seen as inferior, disabled people were still capable of working and were fairly integrated within their communities, as a disability was an “expected aspect of working-class life” (21). However, with the industrialization of machines and desire for efficiency, disabled persons became seen/deemed as inefficient and “unproductive citizens” (22). The legal system and policies regarding factories heavily contributed to this mindset; workmen compensation laws and safety regulations persuaded employers to reject disabled workers. Interestingly, companies began using physical exams as a way to justify the exclusion of disabled people. The combination of laws and Capitalism’s progression towards “efficiency” once again marginalized disabled people from the work force.

            It was a result of society’s mindset placing disabled people in the doghouse, for disabled people did not all of a sudden become incapable of working when the 20^th century came rolling around. Disabled people didn’t change; society and its regulations did.

            However, Rose ends the chapter offering Ford Motor Company as a deviation from the norm, which resulted in a very prosperous company. Instead of simply deeming disabled able people as inferior, Ford believed that if disabled people were situated in the correct positions, they could be as “productive and efficient as their able-bodied counterparts” and avoid safety hazards and lawsuits at the same time (31). He held both able bodied and non-abled bodied person to the same expectations. Adjusting the jobs and not the personnel seemed to be the solution for the Ford Company. Due to this mindset, Ford did not view it as charity, for he viewed disabled people as efficient and productive eliminating the social barrier between t the two. He created a work environment where disability was not seen as different but as normal, which similar to Martha's Vineyard enabled disabled people to be successful because they were not looked down upon by others. Proving the point that when treated as "normal," disabled people can be equally productive as non-disabled people. 

            Capitalism and the drive for efficiency, effectively, marginalized disabled people from the work force. However, I would argue that even with the desire for profit and productivity, the main cause for the exclusion was the policies and legal reforms created by unionized protest attempting to protect workers from abuse. I believe the worker unions, while strengthening legal protection for the able body workers, detracted and harmed disabled people's ability to work. Unions, Capitalism, and machinery all contributed to the stigmatization and exclusion of disabled people from the working force during the industrialization period in America.

Capitalism is the economic system for maximum prosperity by eliminating the weak and allowing the most successful to rise. Companies viewed abled-bodies as the best way to achieve productivity.

Interesting enough, while history is often depicted as a movement towards progress, in reality, disability history seemingly has gone backwards. While the present is suppose to be better than the past, in reality, the discrepancy between the two has, in fact, worsened.

http://www.bespoken.me/profiles/blogs/disability-in-the-industrial-revolution?xg_source=activity

Here is a short article outlining the role disability had during the English Industrial Revolution from 1780 to 1830 ish.

Essential Question for the week:

1.     While much of what we have read focuses on the disabled people ability to act “normal,” what is the relationship between economic stability and normalcy? Can a disabled person ever, theoretically, be free of stereotypes or economic dependency?

2.     It seems that the movement towards helping one group often results in the harming of another; is there a connection between abled bodied people and disabled bodied people? In the work place? In the legal system?

3.     While in all of our reading the common theme that disabled people, when seen as “normal” (in the Vineyard, in schools, and in the workplace), have thrived, what about society changes that environment?

4.   The industrial revolution in both American and England are strikingly similar. Are the Industrial Revolutions responsible for the work disparities or are the revolutions results to common ideological beliefs we have previous looked at?

5.     Does the idea of a “spectrum of productivity” hold true today even with the increase of desk and office jobs?