A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Etheses - Queen Margaret ...

Upon these choices may depend whether tensions present in current situations are resolved
here and now, or at some point in the future, or never at all. It is not, however, the individual
who determines when these choices shall appear.
17
They are prescribed and limited by the specific structure of his society and the nature
of the functions people exercise within it. And whatever opportunity he seizes, his
deed becomes interwoven with those of others; it unleashes further chains of actions,
the direction and provisional outcome of which depend not on him but on the
distribution of power and the structure of tensions within this mobile human network
(Elias, 2001:49).
This discussion of Elias‟ thought can be related to my thesis in a number of ways.
Firstly, the systematic exclusion of people with impairments from the social mainstream can
be related to the privatisation of what have become perceived as shameful, embarrassing or
fearful aspects of life and their removal from public view. It is
socially instilled fear in the form of shame and embarrassment, for example, which
causes the individual to feel that „inside‟ himself he exists as something that is quite
alone, without relations to other people (Elias, 2001:27).
Elias‟ argument is similar to Barnes‟ cited above, that the removal of people with
impairments from the social mainstream needs to be considered in the context of developing
disciplinary practices. People with impairments are excluded from the social stage to make
more easily forgettable those parts of life that society comes increasingly to regard as
objectionable.
Secondly, normalising processes and expectations of conformity, together with the elevation
of individual identity above group or social identity, make it unlikely that people with
impairments will regard impairment and „impairment effects‟ as positive characteristics upon
which to build identity (Thomas, 1999:156). Positive identification as disabled will be
unusual and will depend on being presented with choices that are heavily contingent.
Closely linked to this is the dehumanisation of people with impairments who have been
identified, until comparatively recently, in terms of a homogenous mass as „the
handicapped‟, „the disabled‟, „the blind‟, „the deaf‟, „the lame‟, „the mad‟. With this
oppressive situation as the backdrop the assertion of individuality becomes seen as being of
primary importance. Positive change is recognised as involving the increasing validation of
individuality.