So many people have complained that it is asking too much of abled people to stop using words they consider trivial: crazy, insane, lunatic, idiot, moron, dumb, blind, etc.

I beg to differ.

You know what is really damn easy? Erasing these words from your vocabulary. All you have to do is stop saying them.

You know what is really hard?

Confronting people on their use of same language.

We aren’t even asking you to do the hard work. We aren’t asking you to tell other people to stop using that language. We aren’t asking you to confront other people on their use of that language. We aren’t asking you to explain why it is problematic, to answer people’s questions, to deal with their redirection tactics, or to handle the attacks on and harassment of the people negatively affected by that language that such confrontations always seem to draw.

You don’t have to take the brunt of it. You don’t have to deal with the negative consequences. You don’t have to face employment discrimination, street harassment, caretaker abuse, and other people’s general cluelessness about our lives. You get to sit tight in your privilege, enjoying it without even realizing you’re doing it.

All you have to do is cut a few words out of your speaking and/or writing vocabulary. That’s it.

We’re the ones who are putting our safety on the line trying to change the cultural system that oppresses us.

Two seconds to reconsidering what you’re really trying to say? Easy.

Changing other people’s deep-seated attitudes? Really damn hard.

How do you think we feel when you complain that two seconds is just tooooo haaaaard for you to take on?

(Cross-posted at FWD.)

Part I: The Personal

Note: I’m going somewhere with this. Please keep your mind open as you read, because I will be coming back in Part II with a concept that may seem to conflict with your initial reading of Part I. Thanks.

Understanding my background is essential to understanding my understanding of these things. And so we go.

My brothers and sister, between them, share two diagnoses of bipolar disorder, one of schizophrenia, two of those with psychosis, and all three have severe depression and/or generalized anxiety disorder. That is only what has been diagnosed by mental health professionals — D* was only diagnosed by way of being taken to prison and has not seen a doctor otherwise in decades.

My mother never saw a mental health professional and never will, but she shares most of the symptoms my siblings display, and my own mental health professionals have agreed with me that if there is a diagnosis to give her (with all requisite caveats), it would be borderline personality disorder.

1.

My brother D* had the worst situation of the family. He was the first to go to jail: when he was taken to court for some sort of licensing issue, he refused to give his name. Wouldn’t speak. And so they put him in jail. And he stayed there for eight months before relenting so that he could just go home.

How long would you stay in jail for a principle?

My family was religious, each member to varying degrees — but their idea of religiosity was, to say the least, a somewhat unique form of the faith practiced by their fellow churchgoers. D* was probably the least religious of any of us. But he still had his ideas.

According to him, the “self” is a thing, not a person. When you refer to your self, you are not referring to you the person, but a thing that the government created so that they could have control over you. Because in Genesis, God gave man dominion over all things of the earth, but not over man. So the government devised the “self” so that they could claim control over people.

According to him, the reason we have a “driver license” instead of a “drivers license” is because in actuality there is only one person, and we are all franchised out from that person, which the government created sometime in the nineteenth century and none of us has been a person ever since. This is called “novation.”

Also, we are all “resident aliens,” because the state owns all land, meaning we are not residents but aliens on the very land we reside on.

Also, when you write your name in all capital letters, that is representative of the “self” that the government owns. Which is why names are printed in all-capitals on our birth certificates, so that the government has official control over you. So never, ever print your name in all capitals, because that means you are officially giving your “self” over to the government, and this may even be the Mark of the Beast.

It was that latter that probably got him in trouble with the court.

These were regular topics of conversation at family gatherings. I remember the Thanksgiving dinner when he gave me my first lecture on novation. I was seven or eight years old, I think. He grabbed a piece of copy paper and drew a diagram for me. I don’t know what else to say but that the diagram showed the inner workings of a mind that works in a completely different way. It wasn’t nonsense. It had logic to it, but it was its own logic — not the logic most of you are used to using.

These ideas were not a hobby for D*; they were his world view, they were primary, his truest beliefs, and he lived his life according to them.

2.

My oldest brother, G*, was born in the late 1950s, when my mother was sixteen. She was publicly kicked out of her church and her parents became hostile, leaving her with one person to rely on — her boyfriend, the father of her child. He became my mother’s first husband. Thus began her adult life. D* would come along a few years later, then my sister, whom I called Sissie.

Her husband was extremely abusive. He had very sketchy friends and apparently some involvement in certain anti-government movements in Canada. He would drug my mother and invite his friends over. He beat her to near-death a couple of times — then went into the children’s rooms, where they were aware something bad was going wrong, and calmly informed them that if they tried to help their mother, he would kill them.

My brothers have related to me the time that D* chased G* down in the back yard with a butcher’s knife — angrily — with full intent to kill him — he had feelings of inferiority under his brother. Their father broke it up when D* was on top of G*, gave them both a good beating and a good threat or two. This is how my siblings grew up.

When my brothers were in their teenage years, he died in a motorcycle crash. My sister was a bit younger, and she has recalled crying in class when the news was brought to her. But all three of them agree now that they’re glad it happened. It freed the family.

I would come along much later, by a different father, who gave my mother the choice of getting an abortion or hitting the road. She hit the road, had me at age 43, and went on to raise me alone.

3.

I grew up in a toxic family dynamic. That may be the most respectful way to describe it.

I could write a novel’s worth about my relationship with my mother. It was one of extreme emotional dependence — both ways when I was a young child — only one way when I grew older and tried to stake out small bits of independence. The more independent I became, the more intense her emotional stronghold on me, the more insidious her tactics to keep me in the reins.

My relationship with my mother was quite happy until, maybe, age twelve or so. She was sweet and caring and supportive. She encouraged me in my talents, gave me plenty of hugs and kisses, shared laughter with me… I could relate with her, I could talk with her, I could play and have fun with her.

But when I approached that age — when I began to explore my own identity, when I pulled away from her a mere inch — suddenly I felt the grip tighten — and that hug became a hold. And there was less playing, less fun. Suddenly — in very subtle ways — she began to turn on me.

4.

There may have been a time when my relationship with my mother was one of friends. But my relationship with my siblings has always been one of enemies.

My siblings were all a generation older than I, married, with children. G* and D* lived with their respective families in the two towns I grew up in, in the Central Valley. My sister lived on the northern border of Oregon, near Portland — where my mother was living when I was conceived. We didn’t get to see her family very often; once a year when we were lucky.

I was always the outsider. My brothers and sister grew up together. In a totally different world. They were decades older. Different life stages. They had come a long way, and I was just arriving on the scene.

A toxic dynamic developed, where I was the young, stupid, spoiled, care-free little thing that was getting off too easy in life. And this threatened them. They went through hell as children, but here they were, struggling, but making a life for themselves. And I was their little sister. But my life was totally divorced from theirs, a totally different realm. One they feared was rising above them.

So they had to tear me down.

And that’s what I experienced growing up. As young as I can remember. I would be trying to disappear into the couch at G*’s house as my brothers and mother commiserated about how totally wrong I was, lectured me on how things really were, agreed that I was just too young and I would come to think of things their way when I got older.

Or they would tease me about my body.

Or they would respond to a positive development in my life — an award or good grade at school, for example — by admonishing me in all the ways I was failing now or could fail in the future.

Or I would be subject to general teasing — the kind that probably goes on in most families — but with a sharp edge, a hostility to it. A tone that made me perpetually uneasy, self-conscious, doubtful and critical of myself.

Whatever it was, ultimately, there was something wrong with me.

These were my authority figures. They weren’t just casually distrusting me. They were engaging in a coordinated campaign to make sure I understood that my own thoughts, opinions, and experiences didn’t matter, weren’t trustworthy, weren’t reasonable; that I would eventually become just like them, regardless what I thought or felt right then; that I was ultimately unimportant and unlovable, that I was a nobody, that I would go nowhere in life.

They loved me. I know they did. But they also hated me. There is simply no way around it. I was devastated when I first really came to terms with that. My own brothers and sister hated me.

And all the while, they were telling me: This is love. And this is the only love you’re ever going to get.

What do you think that’s going to do to a child?

5.

My mother’s social life followed a regular, recognizable pattern.

She would make some friends. At church, doing Avon, whatever. Then over the next couple years (sometimes months), she would grow gradually closer to them — just like any ol’ person does.

But then she would hit a certain point, when those friends were approaching a closeness, when they were moving from casual friends to intimate friends.

And once they hit that point, her attitudes spun a complete 180. She began to regard them with suspicion. She would identify all these little ways, all of a sudden, that the very things she appreciated before, were signs of something sinister. If she missed a few church services and someone checked in to see how she was doing — it wasn’t a caring friend trying to help out someone sie cared about — it was a conspiracy of some sort; they were trying to dig information, to squeeze their way in, to find some way to ruin her life. If she misplaced some item at home, those people must have broken in while she was gone and taken it — anything from a garage key to a dish to a piece of scrap paper.

She became hostile. She became… resentful. She thought that these people were getting together to make her life difficult. The conspiracy would begin to grow, become more complicated by the day.

She’d begin to retreat. Stop going places. Avoid people as much as possible. No sense of trust anymore. Everyone is a potential conspirator. Everyone is an enemy.

And then — the final stage — she would move. Claim to have been “run out of town.” She would find somewhere new, where she wasn’t known — and start over.

And the whole process would begin again.

6.

It was five or six years after D*’s ordeal in prison that G* began to take an interest in the same stuff. He started reading, and reading, and reading. And the more he read, the more passionate he became about it all.

At the time, my brothers were getting into this thing about “copyrighting” your name. I think they saw it as a way to take back possession of that “self” that the government owns. I would argue to no avail.

They decided to “copyright” their names. They each placed a classified ad in the local paper declaring their rights to their names. Declaring that this name now belonged to them, and any violation of their copyright would be punishable by some amount of money. They did some more reading, and decided each violation was worth $50,000.

A little while later, G*’s name ran in the local paper for some innocuous reason I can’t remember. Just a mention, like as a parent in a graduation or engagement announcement, or some sort of meaningless news brief.

G*’s idea of rectifying the situation meant going down to the courthouse and filing a form declaring that the District Attorney was in debt to him, to the tune of a quarter million dollars, for each of five mentions of his name in the newspaper, and placed a lien on her property.

This went unnoticed for some time, until the DA tried to sell her house and found this random man had placed a lien on the property. So she took him to court.

The court case was long and involved, because a buddy of his had tried the same thing and was being tried with him. There was investigation done into the groups and writings G* and his buddy were involved in. Second court systems that claimed to have authority over the government. The buddy was trying to sell cars without registrations because that was giving yourself over to the government. They accused him of being a terrorist. The prosecutor, in his closing statement, actually began to cry loudly in front of the jury, sniffed, then apologized, saying his son was in Fallujah right now and it’s because of these people (my brother and his buddy) that people like my son are dying for their country.

He was found guilty of all charges, including a felony conspiracy charge, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison and five years probation. His buddy got a couple years in prison.

Once he got out of prison, G* decided to go to a doctor. This is when he was referred to a few specialists, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, GAD and major depression. He was given a couple medications, one for his fibromyalgia pain and one for his mental condition. He tried them. But he came off them soon after — maybe a couple weeks.

That is the only time either of my brothers tried to seek help for their conditions. Didn’t last long – G* was soon back to his old self — distrustful of the doctors, very resistant to treatment. He is the one, after all, who dropped a very heavy metal object on his toe, breaking it, splitting the toenail so bad it fell right off, and getting a nasty infection to go with it — and absolutely refused to go to the hospital or even a walk-in doctor.

Then again, D* is the one who passed several kidney stones without ever seeing a doctor. He looked on the internet and found several “alternative” health sites that told him which foods to eat to “flush it out.” He followed the instructions, bearing a few months of extreme pain before finally passing them. Would not see a doctor.

Never in my lifetime has he willingly seen a medical professional. He is by far the most paranoid and most distrustful of authority in my family — why would he ever trust a doctor? They might be passing along information to — well, anyone. Either way, they are a threat far more than a help, so it would be downright dangerous for him to ever step in a medical office.

Part II: The Political

Last week’s conversation in “Emails from my mother” saw many people with similar experiences. Many people who have family members with mental illness, and many people who experienced abuse from family members, and many who have experienced both.

There were, however, several disappointing turns the conversation took. And we really need to address those.

Mental illness is still widely misunderstood in our society. In popular conception, mental illness marks a person as dangerous, incommunicable, strange and weird, living in their own world, not a whole person, not the same kind of person. According to this conception, a mentally ill person has no control over their own thoughts. “The illness” controls them. Any unsavory actions are attributed to “the illness.”

There is also popular conception (which somewhat contradicts the above, but both are still commonly held together without second thought), that says that mental illness is a character flaw: that a person need only buck up, think positive, get some sun, stop being so negative, exercise, etc. and it will all just go away. The subtler, more “enlightened” form of this conception says that a mentally ill person just needs to attend therapy and get the right medication, and it will all just go away. As if it’s that easy.

As a society, we marginalize the mentally ill eagerly, without compunction. They’re scary, they’re dangerous, they’re just not like us, they need to be controlled, for their good and ours, because they are a threat to orderly society.

Except that we aren’t. People who are mentally ill are no more likely to commit violence than people who aren’t. The only factor which increased the risk of violence is substance abuse — a factor which also increases risk of violence in the non-mentally ill. And much stronger predictors of violence include being male, young, low income, recently unemployed and recently divorced or separated. For what stigma they still may face, do we assign anywhere near the same amount of “danger” to divorcees and the unemployed as we do to the mentally ill? And yet….

And yet: people with mental illness are twice as likely to be the victims of violence. Does anyone even pretend to pay attention to that?

And why might that be? Well, when people associate mentall illness with violence, they are

significantly more likely to report attitudes related to fear and dangerousness, to endorse services that coerced persons into treatment and treated them in segregated areas, to avoid persons with mental illness in social situations, and to be reluctant to help persons with mental illness.

Huh. Imagine that. People who are told that already-marginalized people are a danger to them and all that they hold dear will begin to have ideas that those marginalized folk need to be controlled, avoided, medicated, segregated…

And this attitude, this automatic assumption that mental illness makes a person violent and dangerous, is so pervasive across our society, and so deeply-held — and yet so wrong, so not true.

Don’t you think, perhaps, then, many of our other assumptions about mental illness — no matter how deeply-held, how widely-agreed-upon — might also be wrong?…

Like that they lack empathy or reasoning ability?

Or… that abuse and mental illness can be safely conflated?

I’m not even going to bother linking specific comments for that one, because there were so many, and I participated in it too. I made the same mistake. I had suffered abuse from someone with a mental illness, and I failed to realize that there were two things going on there, two different things, and that one is not an inevitable result of the other.

Try reading my stories above again. Do you see the distinction? I told stories of growing up as a family member of people with mental illness, and I told stories of growing up abused. Did you see the two different things going on when you first read them? Or did you think I was talking about the same thing the whole time?

I was called out on my next post for writing as though the mentally ill, and people with disabilities in general, were a separate group, off there, somewhere away from all of “us.”

As though people with mental health conditions are not scattered throughout the entire population. As though my best friends don’t have these conditions. As though I don’t have them! And I do!… And I even made a specific plea in that very post for people with conditions like mine to stop thinking of themselves as separate from the people the public thinks of when they hear the words “mentally ill”!

We are all subject to these attitudes, and they reach deep into the core of our world views. It takes careful, concerted effort to undo the damage done by bias, hostility and ignorance. And even with that effort, oftentimes these attitudes remain — they are woven so deeply we don’t even know that they’re there. Even when we’re looking for them.

So we need to keep a sharp eye.

One very popular idea about mental illness, which was shown throughout the “Emails” thread, is that one can separate out “the illness” from “the person” — and that any unsavory actions or behaviors can be attributed to “the illness.” That makes it OK, because it’s not the actual person inside making those decisions to act in those ways, but some vague, faceless, soulless thing that infects them.

This, of course, is a tactic to remove agency from the mentally ill person. A family member may latch onto this idea as a form of comfort, a way to identify with “the real person” inside their loved one’s body, which is separate from “the illness” which is what did things that harmed them.

But this idea exists for a purpose, and its purpose is not comfort to those of us who struggle with our families. Its purpose is to aid control of the mentally ill population. Because when their agency is removed, it makes it much easier to impose things on them, to coerce them into things, which we would never tolerate on the healthy population.

When agency is removed from a person, it makes us less likely to identify with that person as a fellow human being. We are less likely to consider how something may affect them as a human being, with a family and a community and a life of their own, which might be affected in so many ways by this restriction or that proposal.

When agency is removed, we feel much safer making decisions for someone else.

But persons with mental illness still have agency. They are whole persons, not diminished by their difference. Their illness is not simply a disruptive module overlaid on a “normal” person’s brain. It is their brain. It simply works in a way that a normal person’s brain doesn’t.

A circle is not a square with the corners cut off. It’s an entirely different shape.

And this difference is not inherently detrimental. I know a lot of people really had trouble with this concept in the “Language” thread. And it is such an alien concept to most of the world that I know people will continue to have trouble with it. But the fact remains: Difference is not inherently bad. A different body, a different brain (which, really, is a part of the body) — these things are not inherently bad just because they do not conform to the established social norm.

Please make note, there, of the key word “inherently.” Because a particular difference in body or mind might make that person’s life difficult in certain ways. Many of these are attributable not to the person and their difference itself, but to the fact that society fails to prepare itself for this difference. Many, however, are not. Some things are just shitty to experience. As I said, I have a chronic pain condition. Pain is, to say the least, unpleasant. There just isn’t any getting past that. But, as I said in the “Emails” thread,

There may still be issues with this condition that make life genuinely hard, that cause pain and hurt to that person, and we must acknowledge that…. [But] the pain and hurt is not the whole story. A thing can be both good and bad, benefit and harm at the same time. “Normalness” is such a thing, surely, as well!

Mental illness undoubtedly has negative effect on many people who live with it. Right now it is very hard to separate out how much of that is due to the illness and how much of that is because we restrict access to understanding and affirmative health care and equal access to society to such a point that almost everyone with mental illness is going to go through some shitty stuff because of it, even if their difference from the norm is relatively slight, and the effect on their life relatively light.

The focus in making their life easier, then, should not be in training the illness out of the person to make them more like “normal.” It should be identifying ways that life is hard for that person, and figuring out how to make it not-hard. That means identifying the true cause of the problem, rather than always assuming the cause is the person’s failure to conform to “normal.”

The true cause might be that the person’s brain regulates its chemicals in a way that makes life hard on the person, and so we try to modify things to bring the brain closer to a place the person will be happy with. This is a very different thing than assuming the cause is the brain regulating chemicals in a not-”normal” way, and therefore the solution is to force the brain to regulate things the “normal” way.

Then again, the true cause might be that the person doesn’t have prescription coverage, that they have trouble finding employment and therefore can’t afford the medicine they need, that there isn’t any support for living independently in their community, that people have weird ideas about them and treat them differently in social situations in such a way as to make their life very difficult.

All of these situations have different solutions, and they aren’t “make the person more like normal or else keep them away from the rest of us by whatever means possible.” Which is, unfortunately, the default solution given how we approach mental illness right now.

And this solution is only possible given that we assume things like “the illness is separable from the person.”

The thing is, many of us with mental illness would beg to differ. Our conditions are not a separate animal; they are not a “disruptive module overlaid on a normal brain;” they are us and we are them. That does not mean that one particular condition must be the single most defining thing in our lives — but it does mean that it is, however large or small, simply one aspect of our selves, one of the many things that make us, each individual person, who we are.

abbyjean put it particularly well in a private email (quoted with permission):

so i’ve been mulling about [the practice of] drawing a distinction between “things a person does of their own agency” and “things a person does because of their illness.” [...]

in my mind, that’s not a meaningful distinction, because the idea of “things i do of my own agency without influence from my illness” is a null set. i cannot separate myself or my thoughts or my motivation from my illness. the illness is so much a part of me, so much a part of my brain, that the idea of me without the illness just doesn’t make sense. imagining how i might think about or react to specific facts and situations had i never become ill, never been diagnosed, never gone through treatment, never relapsed, never been suicidal, etc, is so remote and hypothetical as to be meaningless. how might i react to a situation had i been born and raised in canada by moose hunters? i don’t know. it’s equally remote from my life and experiences, and equally irrelevant to my actual actions and thoughts and reactions.

A circle is not a square with the corners cut off. It is an entirely different shape. And both the shapes are of equal value.

Neither the circle nor the square is any better or worse, more valuable or less valuable, more whole or less whole than the other. They are both whole, they are both legitimate, they are both worthy, they both are. They just are, they are what they are, and you cannot define one in terms of the other.

This, this is what we don’t get in our discussion of any physical or mental difference, is that we cannot define that difference in terms of the “normal” default! The fact that most of the world, and even most social justice activism communities don’t realize the inherent problem with doing this, is indicative of exactly how much we have to break down here — more than I, just one person in all her imperfections, can try to encompass in one blog post.

Part III: Where the personal gets political

There was a discussion, earlier this year sometime, on Feministe about the right of people with mental illness to refuse treatment. I couldn’t read the whole thing, it was so triggering for me. And I have no desire to search out the specific post and conversation and relive how awful that was.

But I will say this, as a child who grew up in a family that was never un-affected by mental illness, and as a child who grew up under abuse. A child who is still trying to sort out everything that means to her, and will be for the rest of her life.

As a child who watched her family start and struggle, who watched her brothers go through very personal court cases, prison and probation because they had mental illness and their world did not reconcile with society’s world. As a child who watched her brother and sister seek treatment stopping and startingly, watched how that treatment affected them. As a child who observed the differing conditions of her family members throughout periods of differing amounts of support and differing amounts of (pressure/trial/tribulation). As a child who suffered worse abuse during those periods of lesser support and greater (pressure).

I would never, ever force any of my loved ones to submit to treatment they were not willing to take.

It is not a mentally ill person’s responsibility to force hirself into a square box sie does not fit in, so that the rest of the square shapes won’t be unduly affected by hir difference.

It is never a mentally ill person’s responsibility to submit to treatment they do not want to undergo because otherwise they would be a danger to somebody else.

Did you read what I wrote up there? Mentally ill persons are no likelier to perpetrate violence than mentally “healthy” persons, and in fact are twice as likely to be the victims of violence.

The only time the rate of violence rises is — surprise, surprise — when substance abuse is present.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when the institutions that were supposed to be supporting them were instead working against them.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when the rest of the world was treating them with disdain for being different.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when they had no other options left, because society took them all away.

When people with mental illness are supported, when there is an affirmative environment where they can seek help for the problems they face participating in society and there are ways to address those problems in a way that respects their wholeness and humanity and agency — when the rest of the world is willing to be there with a supportive hand when they reach for one, not bearing down an iron fist against their wishes –

– then — guess what — mental illness doesn’t have to be a Big Scary Deal.

The term disability is not a static one but is the result of a person–environment interaction. The less supportive the physical and social environment, the greater the amount of disability. (source)

I know, it’s a radical idea:

Disability isn’t the result of individual defects, deviations from the able-bodied norm. Disability is the result of a society that fails to accommodate these differences.

What if we saw these differences as variation, not deviation? After all, we fully expect our children to be born with any number of different eye colors. Why is it any less when it comes to physical and mental abilities?

Can you shape a world in your mind where there is no norm? What does it look like? How does it differ from the world you live in today? What do you expect of people as a whole in order to support those currently disadvantaged?

The more I think, the more confused I become. It seems impossible to structure society so that everyone is brought to a similar level of ability across the board. But it does seem possible to structure society so that those fully-abled work to make up for those straightforwardly lacking, and everyone works with each other in full expectation of a wide range of ability across the populace, and all of this is seen not as hassling and burdensome, noble and heroic when someone takes it on—but as mundane, everyday, simply expected, no different from separating out your recyclables or driving on the right side of the road: something that everybody does, because it isn’t that hard to do, and it benefits yourself as well as those around you, so it’s stupid and even outright reprehensible not to.

That is the world I want to live in.

Instead, we have sober, reasonable discussions about whether or not mentally ill people are allowed to own their own minds and bodies. We have sober, reasonable discussions about whether their Obvious Danger To The Rest Of Us Important People is too great to bother respecting their personhood and bodily autonomy.

We have removed their agency, and thus feel comfortable making decisions for them.

When instead, maybe what we could do is — I don’t know, recognize the diversity in neural makeup? Recognize that people have different conceptions of The World and How It Works, have different approaches to dealing with that world they conceive? And that their approach isn’t inherently worse just because it ends up conflicting with the majority view — that maybe that conflict isn’t a sign of their difference having to be bad or wrong?

And let people have their damn differences, and when those conflicts come up, manage them. In a way that respects yes, the person is different from the norm. But guess what? The norm is different from them. The fact that there IS a difference does not bestow upon the different parties any particular worth or value. It just is. It just is.

***

We had a really good discussion about nondisability. It got derailed, a bit, because it depended on our ability to reasonably define disability. And it’s a subject that has come up in every discussion we’ve had these couple weeks. What is it?

I advocate an intentionally overbroad definition of disability. And I definitely see a tendency, with certain medical conditions, not to identify — on that inner level, what “feels right” — as disabled.

I support every person’s right to self-determination, to define their own experiences, and to identify however feels most right for them. I do not want to try to pressure people into identifying in a way they do not feel comfortable. But I do think that part of this tendency, this reticence, is rooted in a sort of ableism. Not ableism as in “internalized negative feelings about PWD” — but ableism as in “a certain understanding of how the world works and how society is/should be structured” … or, you might say, a certain model.

I want to explore a few things — explore our assumptions behind the word “disabled.”

1.

Think, for a minute: visualize a disabled person. Just a generic idea of a disabled person. What would you say are the requirements to qualify as disabled?

Do you have to be disabled — in a dictionary definition sort of way? Disabled, unable, incapable? Unable to work, or unable to participate in social activities, or unable to take care of oneself? Is there a certain level of un-able-ness one must reach to qualify as disabled?

If so, what do you call the people who don’t reach that level — but who share many, if not all of the exact same problems with accessibility in society, who face the same obstacles in their path, the same ignorance and hostility? The people who have the same condition, but face different accessibility problems because they are trying to navigate the workplace, living independently — who are able to do these things — but who still have to fight with the outside world to be able to live their life how they want to?

Are these people disabled? No? Are they abled, then? Are they privileged over the people who meet that level of un-able-ness?

Am I “temporarily able-bodied” because I can push myself enough to work full-time?
Because I can walk? Drive? Prepare meals? Go to sports events and concerts?
What about the fact that I still have to fight with my doctors over medication? That I still have to approach HR at work to tell them about everything I need to be able to work there?
What about the fact that without the drugs I am taking and my TENS machine and my access to health care and workplace accommodations and accessible parking, all of a sudden I wouldn’t be able to do those things anymore?

Is my disability about my inner feelings when I get home and slouch in pain — is it about what is going on in my body? Because I still have pain, whether I am well-treated and working or untreated and housebound. I still have fatigue. I still struggle when I stand up from a sitting position, still need help getting out of the car if I haven’t taken at least a few painkillers already that day. All that stuff is still there.

Or is it that my disability something beyond me — not having to do with me at all? Not defined by what is going on inside my body, but defined by whether society is working with my body or working against it?

2.

I’m going to let you in on a secret. A lot of us people who do fit the classic dictionary definition of “disabled” — don’t feel “disabled” either. We don’t always feel un-able. We feel like “just people.” Normal people living a normal life, just happen to have some sort of neurological or physiological difference, but that isn’t our defining characteristic or something that is always forefront in our minds, it’s just one part of us that doesn’t always make that big a difference in our life at all.

3.

Remember, briefly, the social and medical models of disability.

Under the medical model, a person must justify their claim to disability. A person must fit neatly into a narrow diagnosis with a Latin-based name. The person must be cleanly categorized. Their experiences must fit a prepared check list.

The medical model says that your body fails to be normal in this particular way: so we must devise a way to force it to be normal, and that will solve the problem.

Naturally, such an approach to disability will wind up excluding a good many people who don’t fit those boxes cleanly, who appear close to normal — and that just can’t be right; there must be a logical explanation, like that they are over-worrying, imagining things, that they like being sick and want the world to treat them with kid gloves. After all, there is no proof that they deviate from the normal — so they have failed to justify themselves as different.

The medical model, in this way, denies community and services to people who still face considerable obstacles to full participation in society because they have failed to prove that they deserve that “special treatment.” They have failed to prove themselves as disabled enough. They aren’t “other” enough to be Othered.

The medical model imposes strict and narrow definitions — which become boundaries which must be policed.

What do you do when you’re caught in the middle? Different, but not different enough to be Othered, but still needing services (benefits, accommodations) which are only given to Others.

4.

Informed by the social model, “disability” becomes a marker not for condition (mental or physical) — not for “what I feel inside, what I experience inside” — but instead for the fact that our condition is maligned or neglected (or both) by the rest of society.

Disability is not a matter of my condition, but a matter of the group I am assigned because of that condition.

Perhaps it could be said as such: Disability is not a condition, it is a status.

5.

The classic analogy to explain the social model is this:

Many sighted people have less-than-perfect sight. If assistive devices — glasses or contact lenses — were not so widely available and accessible, many of these people would be prevented from full participation in many aspects of society.

But because society sees fit to prioritize this assistance, to make sure glasses/contacts are widely available and accessible so that every less-than-perfect sighted person can have clearer vision — because society decided that no person should be blocked from access because of hir different vision — this condition is no longer a disability.

This is a useful thought experiment. But it is not a perfect analogy. Many blind people still face considerable access blocks. This only really applies to people who are sighted, but whose sight is not precisely “normal.” Perhaps because society can, for the most part, bring abnormally-sighted people to normal-sightedness, whereas it cannot do the same to blind folk.

There’s a lot to explore here.

6.

The word disability isn’t perfect. I don’t know that I would choose it, were we to start over with a blank slate. Nor do I know that most people who are active in the disability community would choose it.

What I do know is this: people who don’t feel, literal-dictionary-definition disabled, embrace the word and run with it. They can make it something all their own.

Queer is a less-than-perfect word when you consider its literal definition, too. Yet the queer community has decided that they’re gonna take this thing and make it into what they want it to be. And they’re making something pretty damn awesome.

I don’t feel dis-abled. I feel people-are-willfully-ignorant and access-to-good-care-is-restricted-in-unnecessary-ways and the-medical-industry-has-no-respect-for-me. Among other things.

And I’m sure other disabled folk feel why-isn’t-there-a-wheelchair-ramp-for-this-public-use-building and nobody-has-to-accommodate-my-needs-until-they-get-sued-why-don’t-we-have-an-oversight-board-that-makes-them-do-it-right-from-the-fucking-start and you-aren’t-providing-alternatives-so-I-can-access-your-lecture-even-though-I-can’t-[hear-what-you-speak/see-what-you-write/be-there-in-person-at-all]. Among other things.

People who identify as disabled (or are identified as such by society) don’t necessarily always think the dictionary definition of the word applies to them. There are disabled people in wheelchairs or braces who still work, still have families, still go to parties. There are disabled people who appear totally abled yet can’t work, can’t perform certain self-care, and so on.

The word “disability,” in the disability movement right now, already refers to a great variety of individual conditions, abilities, approaches…

And for the most part, when a person appears whose condition challenges the current boundaries of abled/disabled, the disability community is completely ready to revise their assumptions and welcome that person (and hir companions) into the movement.

Because, here’s the thing…

7.

The disability movement has a lot to offer to a lot of different people — not all of those people who may identify as disabled.

And this is part of why I do not want to pressure people to change their identification. They don’t have to identify as a disabled person, or a person with a disability, to still become a part of the disability movement, to benefit from it, to help move it forward.

What I am wanting to do is not change people’s minds about how they individually self-identify. What I want to do is explore the cultural phenomenon that is certain groups rejecting the label of disability.

Anyway: the disability movement is working hard to change the way we approach the world. From an approach that excludes non-normal people to an approach that stops INcluding by certain standards and starts just treating all persons as fundamentally human, period.

Under the current system, when a woman becomes pregnant and plans to keep the child, we expect the child to be free of disability. What’s that refrain from the supposedly-gender-enlightened? “I don’t care whether it’s a girl or a boy, as long as the baby comes out healthy!”

When we encounter a person, we expect that person to be abled. When we imagine a “person” — just a generic, default person — we imagine that person as able-normative.

Currently, things go like this: 1. World expects “normal.” 2. Non-normal people come along. 3. Oops!

What disabled people want is more like this: 1. World is prepared for any number of different things. 2. We come along. 3. Hey, we were expecting you!

This approach is what defines the disability movement. We want to change the world so that the world stops treating us as unexpected — and therefore a disappointment — and therefore has not prepared for us — and therefore we have to constantly fight with the world to make it change every little individual thing it has set up wrong.

This approach, applied broadly, has benefits for so many more people than only the classically, dictionary-definition disabled.

This is the world I want to live in (bold emphasis added)…

My body isn’t the enemy, I realized.

It’s not my physical self that creates all my problems.

It’s all the external expectations of it.

Disability isn’t the result of individual defects, deviations from the able-bodied norm. Disability is the result of a society that fails to accommodate these differences.

What if we saw these differences as variation, not deviation? After all, we fully expect our children to be born with any number of different eye colors. Why is it any less when it comes to physical and mental abilities?

Can you shape a world in your mind where there is no norm? What does it look like? How does it differ from the world you live in today? What do you expect of people as a whole in order to support those currently disadvantaged?

The more I think, the more confused I become. It seems impossible to structure society so that everyone is brought to a similar level of ability across the board. But it does seem possible to structure society so that those fully-abled work to make up for those straightforwardly lacking, and everyone works with each other in full expectation of a wide range of ability across the populace, and all of this is seen not as hassling and burdensome, noble and heroic when someone takes it on—but as mundane, everyday, simply expected, no different from separating out your recyclables or driving on the right side of the road: something that everybody does, because it isn’t that hard to do, and it benefits yourself as well as those around you, so it’s stupid and even outright reprehensible not to.

That is the world I want to live in.

[Reading back, I cringe at the use of the words "straightforwardly lacking." Proof that we are all still learning, still building.]

What if things did happen that way? What if we just rushed to give, knowing that those around us would rush to give back?

and in this POV, the centering of individualism falls apart — because that’s not what life is about. life is give and take, push and pull, you do this for me (that i don’t do well/don’t like to do, but that i want/need) and i’ll do this for you (that i do well/like to do, and you want/need).

disability, really, when you get down to it, is the ultimate unraveling of that ball of individualism — it FORCES you to look at all these little things that go into the living of a life, and realize that not all of them are yours to do or yours to control — and also to realize how many of those little things YOU affect for OTHER people’s lives — and to finally give up, and fall back into the arms of the community.

it means you have to stop looking at things as “mine, yours, this person’s, that person’s” etc. you have to stop keeping the damn tally — and just rush to give, knowing that those around you will rush to give back…

so many people are afraid to admit that ultimately, they DO depend on the people around them, and their accomplishments are not solely their own, and the things they do, affect people besides themselves. but it’s all true! and it’s not a bad thing, if you look at it the right way.

This is everything we are trying to change.

And when we are successful: it will be good for so many people. It will benefit a great many, people who might not consider themselves part of this movement, but who will see their life become substantially easier or better, because this movement has destroyed the system that puts obstacles in their path.

8.

There is a lot people can learn from the disability movement — even if they don’t consider themselves a part of it.

This is why I, and others, explicitly tie our disability activism to our feminism. Believe it or not, there are things that non-disabled feminists can learn from disabled ones about how to refine, how to better our (not their, OUR) feminist movement.

There are things the disability movement is accomplishing that the feminist movement has fallen short on. Things that disability activists are paying attention to that feminists have forgotten.

And it makes a difference in women’s lives.

9.

There are substantial immediate benefits to individuals, as well. Many of you who do not feel “disabled” nonetheless benefit directly from the Americans with Disabilities act and other non-discrimination legislation. And that’s only in the realm of the state (legal sense).

Consider the pharmaceutical industry. The alternative medicine industry. Consider protections on health insurance that prevent companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions or prevent them from denying certain treatments.

These are all things the disability movement has had part in. Often, the disability movement has been the sole force pushing for these things — when other movements fall short, and forget us.

And there is, therefore, substantial benefit to involving oneself in the disability movement. Because it is working for you. So it will do good for you and for us if you directly engage with it — help it refine its purpose — help direct its actions — help challenge preconceptions.

If you will stand with us, if you will be — a friend, or a family member — whatever role you feel comfortable taking, we will stand, sit, lean or lie beside you. We will be there with you, however you identify.

We want more people to engage with us — on an honest, good-faith level.

Some of those people will find themselves beginning to identify as a part of this movement, as a person with a disability. Some people will not, but will remain our friend, our ally.

No matter which: we are happy to have you.

***

ETA: I really should have included a link to this post from Joel at NTs Are Weird — from the perspective of the autistic community. I ain’t the only one beating this drum! I remember reading this post a long while back, and it has informed my politics a great deal. And I think it is necessary reading for anyone engaging with the disability movement. And he does a great job wrapping up the many elements of this post! ;) Take it away (bold emphasis mine):

Welcome to the disability community! [...]

Yes, that’s right, you’re DISABLED. Yep, you can pick that word apart and tell me why you aren’t, but, trust me, you are. And, no, I don’t mean that you are less or more functional than anyone else. I mean that you are part of a community defined by society’s institutions and programs, a community formed because of our minority status and the fact that society expects certain strengths and weaknesses, and anyone who doesn’t have that same pattern of strengths and weaknesses is going to have trouble in this society.

Yep, that’s the social model. It’s not the “OH MY GOD, I AM SO BROKEN AND LIFE SUCKS AND I WANT TO BE NORMAL BECAUSE EVERYTHING WOULD BE WONDERFUL AND I WOULD HAVE LOTS OF MONEY AND A GIRLFRIEND AND A NICE CAR” view of disability. But it is recognition that we have trouble in society as it is currently set up. You’ll also notice that it is not a view that accepts society as a static, unchangeable, and morally good entity, but rather as an institution that can and should change – even when people have a hard time seeing how it could.

In addition to this, I want you to know that there is “nothing new under the sun.” You don’t need to reinvent disability theory [...]

One example – although the victory isn’t yet fully realized – find out why there public transit has to at least make *some* effort at accommodation in the US. Yep, I know it still sucks, and there are tons of problems – I’m not saying anything different. But I can assure you of this: Without good advocacy, there wouldn’t be a wheelchair lift on any bus except one owned by a nursing home – and even that one might not have one.

Find out why people with cerebral palsy can go to US schools today, even if their natural speech is hard to understand, thanks to assistive technology and good law. Sure, schools, technology, and law aren’t good enough yet, but they are way better than they were 40 years ago. Why?

Better yet, learn how you can make a bus in your city more accessible both to yourself and to someone with a different kind of disability. Learn about your schools and what can be done to help others with disability. Not just autistic people, but people with all types of disabilities. Do you know what you will find if you do this? You’ll find out quickly that it also helps you, even if that wasn’t the goal of the movement.

For those of you who are already doing these things – thanks! It’s good for us to stop reinventing the wheel once in a while.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

* normal, or non-marked identity: centering a certain body/mind as “normal” necessarily implies that any difference makes a person less than. It tends to imply that “normal” is accepted as good, whole, while non-normal is bad, wrong, diminishing.

* able-bodied, which seems to be the settled-upon term: excludes people with non-physical disabilities — and I have had so many people write me expressing that they feel their non-physical conditions didn’t “count” as disability, and it just makes my heart cry.

* temporarily-able-bodied: I love this term, because it makes clear: at any time in life, you may become disabled, due to age, injury, late-manifesting genetics, or social barriers. Your privilege will not always be with you, so pay attention, because you might find yourself on the other side of the fence at any point. But this still centers physical disability and excludes non-physical disability.

* neurotypical, physiotypyical: NT is a term used in the autistic community to describe persons whose neurological makeup conforms to the expected norm, but it doesn’t describe conditions which are not neurological in nature. Physiotypical might cover those conditions, but it requires using both terms, and still may not be truly comprehensive. I can’t come up with any good, comprehensive word to describe the range of disability (mental, physical, neither/both) to use as a prefix in place of “neuro-” and “physio-”.

* normative: I like this term because it emphasizes the social conformity rather than some inherent difference; think heteronormative. I just can’t find a good word to combine it with to describe the category of ability rather than heterosexuality.

* non-disabled: functional, but we tend to want a specific term to describe the privileged category — which is why trans community members came up with “cis” to describe people whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned gender.

* abled, fully-able: I have been leaning on these terms as the most neutral of the set of options, but they still just don’t seem to describe what we’re trying to describe — and referring to an able-privileged person as “fully able” may be inaccurate; ability is not a binary.

I think, though, I’ve finally settled on the term I’m comfortable with: Temporarily Non-Disabled.

This harnesses the power of temporarily able-bodied but without excluding non-physical disabilities. And it is a longer term but easily condensed to TND. We’ve got enough acronyms going, so why not? And I’m actually rather excited — this is a language quirk that has bothered me for some time, so having a term that seems to fit right is a considerable comfort to me.

Thoughts? People with disabilities — of any sort — please feel free to comment. Does TND seem like the best choice to you? Do you see any problems with it? Do you prefer something else? What makes the most sense to you?

ETA: Anna points out in comments that this is somewhat US-centric: UK disability advocates tend to use “disabled person” and “non-disabled person” as opposed to “person with a disability” or “person without a disability” (people-first language). And other countries may have different approaches as well. Something to keep in mind.

ETA 2: Many people in comments bring up the word “currently” in place of “temporary” and most people seem much more comfortable with this terminology. Currently Non-Disabled/Currently Able? It fits just as well for me – read through the comments to see what other people are saying. It’s a great thread so far.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)