Rupturing Concepts of Disability and Inclusion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INTRODUCTION Considering ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ suggests the notion of space, and, in particular, spatial differentiation. I contend that whilst inclusion and exclusion in the context of intellectual disability, have been explored in socio-historical and socio-political spaces, there has been little attention applied to socio-ethical spaces that have constructed the concepts. However, caution is called for in the use of the metaphorical expression ‘space’, a common metaphor for such explorations. In suggesting the existence of ‘spaces’, I do not want to imply that these areas are self-sustaining, separate domains. Rather, they are interconnected, interconstructed, and interdependent. For this reason, a more appropriate metaphor is necessary. Therefore, in this research, I will use the metaphor of a textile ‘weave’ to represent a spatial configuration to describe the intersection of conceptual dimensions. I propose, then, that certain socio-historical, socio-political and socio-ethical aspects are integrated within the weaves of Western Judeo-Christian social fabrics which enfold notions of inclusion and exclusion for people with intellectual disability. Although these are usually calendered fabrics, I intend to wipe away the calendering to identify the structure of the fabrics. 9 I assert that these are fabrics constructed by visible interlacing threads which I see as the warps of disability theories and the wefts of social practices of disability. As in the art of sculpture, the holes, that is, the spaces between the threads are as important as the visible material in creating form. It is in these holes in the weave that ubiquitous assumptions and values are created and that particular ethical constructions though present, are most often concealed. However, these are bounded fabrics. Significantly, whether one is ‘in’ or ‘out’ implies boundaries. According to Martha Minow, boundaries and categories within society are inevitable, for she describes how categories, being “humanly made and mutable,” identify and emphasise difference as “expressions of ourselves and our values.” 10 Boundaries can be points of connection and solidarity as in seams; but they also provide the unspoken and powerful media of negative categorisation, definition and containment as in selvedges of fabric. Boundaries demarcate, and thus define, what is denied and “who is rendered invisible and unacceptable.” 11 These are most often the boundaries which impact on the lives of people with intellectual disability. Minow states, “Legal rules in Western societies have historically drawn a boundary between normal and abnormal, or competent or incompetent people.” 12 In doing so, she concludes: “Law has treated as marginal, inferior, and different any person who does not fit the normal model of autonomous, competent individual.” 13 Therefore, I contend that the ethical significance of inclusion and exclusion in the context of intellectual disability, lies not in the concepts themselves, but is defined and perpetuated by expressions of a particular socio-symbolic order. Feminist theologian, Rebecca Chopp uses a similar phrase ‘social-symbolic order’, which she states: ... calls attention, in linguistic fashion, to how a dominant ordering operates in subjectivity, language and politics. …the phrase “the social-symbolic order” underscores the structural as well as the symbolic perspectives of language. This ordering is an economy, a patterning of certain values and principles establishing often anonymous rules that run through discourses about different arenas and different discourses about one arena of social life. 3
CHAPTER 1 4 The qualifier social-symbolic indicates that this ordering, though dominant in a particular historical period or era, is nonetheless a historical construct, and thus open to change and transformation. ... Around the social-symbolic order are margins and fissures that allow language and thus the social-symbolic order to be corrected, changed, subverted, interrupted, and transformed. 14 Such an order which silently, yet definitively, excludes certain people to the margins and beyond, is contained by constructed boundaries which legitimate the hegemonic centre of society. This is a socio-symbolic order co-configured by patriarchy and kyriarchy, for it privileges and protects the subjectivity of rational, white, propertied males by inferiorising ‘Others’. As Chopp eloquently states, the voices of the subjects “who suffer history and the subjects who control history are interwoven, forming the warp of our lives, the weft of our history.” 15 A socio-symbolic order, derived from patriarchal monotheism in the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, uses God the Father as a ruling sovereign to separate, divide and exclude. 16 As well as the sovereignty of masculinity, the traditional socio-symbolic order of Western Judeo-Christian society is also dominated by the sovereignty of reason and rationality. Mark Johnson highlights this claim from both theological and non-theological viewpoints. He states theologically: Among the animals, we alone have duties to obey God’s will, because we alone are able to discern rationally what is required of us, both in our relations with others, who, like ourselves, are made in God’s image, and also in our dealings with non-rational creation... 17 Drawing from the work of Immanuel Kant, he states a non-theological view, describing that: Kant’s project was to provide a rational foundation for the non-theological part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, … the part that sees moral laws as coming out of a universal human reason, independent of divine reason. 18 Therefore, male humanity, self-ascribed with the superiority of reason and rationality, assumes authority to represent the omnipotent God as head of the social order in Western Judeo-Christian society. According to Bryan Turner, the masculine character of God and Christ in New Testament Christianity created a social system of hierarchical and patriarchal power in which women and others with embodied difference to the patriarchal priesthood were assigned to and inscribed in inferior positions. 19 However, these positions have not been differentiated by gender alone, for as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza highlights, axes of power structures and domination are linked with notions of race, class, culture and religion - to which I add ability. 20 Boundaries are formed to intentionally and oppressively exclude those who are deemed different or anomalous. The weave of these boundaries, being dense and occluding, provide a definitive edge. For the purposes of this research, I will call these ‘Selvedges of Definition’ for their function to recognise or reject, accept or ignore, proclaim or prohibit, authenticate or illegitimate. 21 Chopp issues a challenge:
Page 2 and 3: A Transformatory Ethic of Inclusion
Page 4 and 5: A Transformatory Ethic of Inclusion
Page 6: DEDICATIONS This book is dedicated
Page 9 and 10: TABLE OF CONTENTS viii 3.3.1 A Soci
Page 11 and 12: TABLE OF CONTENTS x 6.4.1 A Context
Page 14 and 15: FOREWORD Over the past decade socia
Page 16 and 17: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I came to this tas
Page 18 and 19: She cries. Her blue eyes squint. He
Page 20 and 21: THE QUILTER’S JOURNAL The hospita
Page 22 and 23: THE QUILTER’S JOURNAL Relational
Page 24 and 25: THE QUILTER’S JOURNAL offspring o
Page 26 and 27: THE QUILTER’S JOURNAL the bed in
Page 28 and 29: THE QUILTER’S JOURNAL stated how
Page 30 and 31: PART ONE: OPENING THE ‘SCRAPBAG
Page 34 and 35: INTRODUCTION It is no longer enough
Page 36 and 37: INTRODUCTION habitat. Dwelling is b
Page 38 and 39: INTRODUCTION their site of origin o
Page 40 and 41: INTRODUCTION - To consider and conc
Page 42 and 43: CHAPTER 2 CONCEIVING A QUILT: CREAT
Page 44 and 45: CONCEIVING A QUILT: CREATING A METH
Page 64 and 65: 2.5.4 Constructing A ‘Research Qu
Page 66 and 67: PART TWO: CONFIGURING THE WEAVE OF

Rupturing Concepts of Disability and Inclusion

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?