Rosemarie Garland-Thomson

The Case for Conserving Disability

It is commonly believed that disability disqualifies people from full participation in or recognition by society. This view is rooted in eugenic logic, which tells us that our world would be a better place if disability could be eliminated. In opposition to this position, I argue that that disability is inherent in the human condition and consider the bioethical question of why we might want to conserve rather than eliminate disability from our shared world. To do so, I draw together an eclectic, rather than systematic, configuration of counter-eugenic arguments for conserving disability. The idea of preserving intact, keeping alive, and even encouraging to flourish denoted by conserve suggests that disabilities would be better understood as benefits rather than deficits. I present, then, a reading of disability as a potentially generative resource rather than unequivocally restrictive liability. In other words, what I consider here is the cultural and material contributions disability offers to the world.

Human biodiversity conservation: a consensual ethical principle.

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Disability Stigma in Rehabilitation

In the 26 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, we have seen changes in access, knowledge, and a move towards equity for people with disabilities; however, societal attitudes and implicit and explicit biases continue to impact the way that people with disabilities are viewed, represented, and treated. A simple definition of stigma from Merriam Webster is “a set of negative and often unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something” [1]. In his classic book, Stigma: On the Management of a Spoiled Identity [2], Erving Goffman, a sociologist by training, described and delineated the concept of stigma and how it impacts society. He described complex phenomena that include devaluation and marginalization. Although critiqued and refined over the years, the concept of stigma that Goffman described is a robust and important one to consider. Stigma, and more specifically disability stigma, is part of the social, psychological and ethical context in which physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) clinicians practice. This columnwill explore the concept of disability stigma and its impact on the practice of rehabilitation medicine. This idea for a column is based in large part on a course that I teach to undergraduates at Northwestern University called “Disability and Global Health,” in which we define, discuss, and consider disability stigma in various contexts around the world. We also discuss disability rights and disability ethics in the United States. One of the first reading assignments for the course is an article by Lerita Coleman, “Stigmadan enigma demystified” [3]. Coleman writes that stigma has at least 3 components:

Disability and social theory: new developments and directions

tion makes the book, particularly the first and final chapters, read like a work of advocacy rather than a historical record. This is not a criticism; the authors make clear that the core message of this book is that the voices of those who have survived the harm done by institutions must not be forgotten and that institutional care must become a thing of the past. As Keilty and Woodley remark in the closing lines of the final chapter, the abuse scandal at Winterbourne View in 2011 was evidence that such broken systems of care still exist within institutions in the present day and that much work remains to be done. No Going Back is valuable as a concise record of life in an institution and the impact it had on those who lived and worked there. I would particularly recommend this book to researchers and authors as an example of what accessible research outputs should look like. The friendly and engaging tone, the straightforward writing style, the layout and the use of images all serve to document an important period in the history of people with learning disabilities in a clear and appealing way. I would like to have seen the authors provide wider context by including details of the experiences at other institutions. I also feel the analysis could have benefitted from the inclusion of a broader examination of why institutional abuse occurs. However, the authors do not claim to have written a comprehensive tome on institutional care and broader analysis might well have diluted their central aim; to ensure that the voices of the storytellers of Prudhoe are not forgotten.

World Building, Citizenship, and Disability: The Strange World of Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go

A crucial challenge for critical disability studies is developing an argument for why disabled people should inhabit our democratic, shared public sphere. The ideological and material separation of citizens into worthy and unworthy based on physiological variations imagined as immutable differences is what I call eugenic world building. It is justified by the idea that social improvement and freedom of choice require eliminating devalued human traits in the interest of reducing human suffering, increasing life quality, and building a more desirable citizenry. I outline the logic of inclusive and eugenic world building, explain the role of the ‘normate’ in eugenic logic, and provide a critical disability studies reading of the 2005 novel Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro and its 2010 film adaptation. I argue that the ways of being in the world we think of as disabilities must be understood as the natural variations, abilities, and limitations inherent in human embodiment. When this happens, disability will be understood not as a problem to be eliminated but, rather, as a valid way of being in the world that must be accommodated through a sustaining and sustainable environment designed to afford access for a wide range of human variations.