“In a viable neighborhood, neighbors ask themselves what they can do or provide for one another, and they find answers that they and their place can afford. This, and nothing else, is the practice of neighborhood.”  Wendell Berry

This morning at breakfast, I rolled the hot boiled eggs out onto a dish towel on the table.  Then, when I  sat down beside them I was immediately captured by their beautiful egg-sense in the light of a November 1 morning.  Brown eggs they were…. from our neighbor.  A mighty-fine thank you for the use of our bush-hog.

Tonight, I’m drawn to Dr. Howard Zehr’s Restorative Justice Blog and his discussion of how ‘otherness’ is created and reinforced in research, photography, and justice.  I see similarities to this creation of “otherness” for people with disabilities especially through research and photography.

Zehr writes:

“Photography has a long history of othering……Notice how often we as photographers focus on the different, the bizarre.  Most of the time we are drawn to photograph people different from us, our social class or culture.  In doing so, our temptation is to emphasize this “otherness,” the exotic, mysterious and unknown.  But there are grave dangers here.

Perhaps the highest calling of photography is not to highlight otherness but to find human connections to that which seems foreign and unfathomable.  Photography can build community when it reminds us what we have in common with others.”

]]> http://candeebasford.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/photographs-can-remind-us-what-we-have-in-common/feed/ 4 Candee Basford http://candeebasford.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-labeled-brain-how-difference-grows-into-injustice/ http://candeebasford.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-labeled-brain-how-difference-grows-into-injustice/#comments Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:07:28 +0000 Candee Basford http://candeebasford.wordpress.com/?p=871 ]]>

In Sunday’s Washington Post I came across a review of a new book Pink Brain, Blue Brain, How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps — and What We Can Do About It by Lise Eliot. The book is a study of gender and the brain but as I read the review I couldn’t help but draw connections to perceptions about children with disabilities and how perceptions negatively and forever shape people’s lives.

The review of Pink Brain, Blue Brain begins with a study of mothers’ perceptions based on the gender of their babies:

“In one study documented in the book, mothers brought their 11-month-olds to a lab so the babies could crawl down a carpeted slope. The moms pushed a button to change the slope’s angle based on what they thought their children could handle. And then the babies were tested to see how steep a slope they could navigate.”

Girls and boys did equally well in navigating the slope but the moms underestimated their daughters’ “aptitude by a significant margin.”  The idea of gender differences are “sexy” – so sexy it seems that we begin to exaggerate them to the point that “Our assumptions crystallize into childrens’ self-perceptions and self-fulfilling prophecies.”

“Girls’ slightly lesser interest in puzzles and building toys is reinforced instead of challenged, and it turns into a gap in spatial skills and map reading. Parents and teachers see a boy lagging in reading and verbal skills and shrug it off with, “But of course, he’s a boy.”

While labels of disability are not often viewed as “sexy” in our culture (some of us are working on that) but difference for children with labels of disability is hugely exaggerated from the get go, leading to lifelong injustices and lost capacity for an entire society.  Instead of “But of course, he’s a boy”, it becomes “But of course, he has a disability.”

Trust me, those words change everything.

While the author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain points out the danger of groundless claims, exaggerations and assumptions around gender differences, who’s pointing out the groundless claims,  exaggerations and assumptions surrounding children with labels of disabilities?  One major hurdle is that aptitude, potential, and possibilities for children with disabilities is perceived as hard and fast SCIENCE rather than a RESULT of social conditioning, exclusion and self-fulfilling prophesies. How sad is that? These circumstances and the huge disability industrial complex that benefits make it all the more challenging (but not impossible) to by-pass exaggerations and assumptions in schools, homes, communities.

And that’s the catch-22. According to Eliot, the very places that children with labels of disability are excluded are the very places they must BE present to have any hope of breaking through socially imposed stereotypical assumptions and their resulting injustices.

“Our brains are works in progress. They change based on experience, especially in early childhood. So a child’s environment matters in terms of the skills and interests he or she develops.”

p.s. Maybe we need a book titled “The Labeled Brain, How Differences Grow into Injustice”

Responses to Diversity (Kunc and Van der Klift)

Excerpt:

RESPONSES TO DIVERSITY — FROM MARGINALIZATION TO VALUING

Conformity and uniformity are highly valued in today’s society. In general, we are uncomfortable with those who are different. However, rather than admit this, our discomfort is often masked by rationalization. We cover our fears by asserting that our actions toward those with disabilities are for their own good. “It’s a dangerous world,” we say. “Those who are different must be protected from the potential evils of the world”. Then, without any apparent sense of contradiction, we go on to say, “Differences are potentially dangerous. We must protect society from those who are different.”

Isolation in the name of safety is a double-lock on the door of community. It effectively prevents those relegated to the outer circle from entering and belonging, while still allowing those within to feel that lofty moral imperatives have been well served. We know that good intentions based on unacknowledged fears can result in oppression. Some of the cruelest actions committed by humanity upon its members have been the result of so-called “good intentions.”

The act of forcible segregation for those seen as different is not reserved for those with disabilities alone. Throughout history, the dominant cultures have avoided, marginalized and even aggressed against so-called minority groups. For those with disabilities, avoidance and marginalization usually occur under the auspices of “protection”. The result, however, is still systematic removal from regular society. Institutionalization and segregation in special schools and work environments have been the means of enforcement.

In the past two decades, more attention has been paid to the injustices and inherent problems created by segregation. As a society, we are beginning to examine some of the underlying motives, and are finding that our actions lack justification. But even as some of the more blatant forms of marginalization and discrimination are changed or eliminated, other hurdles are raised for those labeled different.

We have gone on to say, “You can be with us but you must first be like us.” In other words, if you can reform and reduce the evidence of your disability, look and behave “normally”, then you can come back into society.

Read Hell-Bent on Helping

Will Babies with Down Syndrome Slowly Disappear?

Authored by Brian Skotko, MD, MPP, clinical genetics fellow at Children’s Hospital Boston, the article shows a steady decrease in the number of babies being born with Down syndrome since the introduction of prenatal testing and poses the question: “As new tests become available, will babies with Down syndrome slowly disappear?”

Research reviewed by Skotko showed a 15% decrease in births of babies with Down syndrome between 1989 and 2005 in the United States. In the absence of prenatal testing, researchers would have anticipated the opposite – a 34% increase in births – due to the trend of women waiting longer to have children; known to increase the chances of having a baby with Down syndrome.

Read more

What beliefs about people with Down syndrome are creating this trend? What beliefs about ourselves are creating this trend? What are the implications?

Disability, Feminism and Eugenics: Who has the right to decide who should or should not inhabit the world?

A paper written and presented by Joan Hume at the Women’s Electoral Lobby National Conference, University of Technology, Sydney, 26th January 1996. Copyright 1996.

The subtitle of this paper is the rephrasing of a question asked by Hannah Arendt in her book about Adolf Eichmann and the Nazi extermination programme.

Excerpt:

“The message about disability is loud and clear: the prospect of having a disabled child is not acceptable for many prospective parents. The message to all women is equally clear: it is neither socially acceptable nor responsible to carry to full term a foetus with a disabling condition. With the emphasis on “perfect babies” the message of the new technologies is that disabilities can and must be weeded out by eliminating foetuses with certain defective traits. This is clearly a modern version of the earlier eugenics perception that disability is inherently bad. Given the continuing widespread discrimination against people with disabilities, for a woman to give birth to anything less than a perfect baby is not only socially and economically undesirable but irresponsible.”

Full article at http://www.wwda.org.au/eugen.htm

Challenge the Myths

The “No Myths” PSA offers a refreshingly positive and optimistic view about life with autism. And it was written and performed by people who should know–individuals who are on the autism spectrum themselves. The purpose of the PSA is to tell society that, with the right supports, people with autism can do anything anybody else can do, even if it isn’t in the same way.  Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, leads a cast that includes {in order of appearance} Dena Gassner, Ben Liske, and Jacob Pratt.

Another curious example of a small thing to change the world.

Rise & Fall, an art exhibit that will feature art interpreting the theme ‘bringing down walls/breaking down barriers’ (both literally and symbolically). “Artists, from amateur to professional, are invited to submit digital versions of their art along with a short description of what ‘bringing down walls’ means to them – either as directly related to the Berlin Wall or on a more symbolic, personal, cultural or social level. The goal is to create an interactive environment that celebrates freedom without barriers and what that looks like to all kinds of people.” (from Artist’s Meeting Place)

The idea could be expanded to include all kinds of art*

*~~I like this idea~~*

What does a world without walls mean to you?

Here’s a curious story  from Idealist.org.

“Mysterious Letters is an independent project of Lenka Clayton and Michael Crowe, is an attempt at spreading global goodwill. Starting with the small Irish village of Cushendall, the two artists sent personal, handwritten letters to each of their 467 neighbors. The beautifully crafted letters were all different shapes, sizes and styles from retro postcards to hotel stationery, and the content ranged from the absurd to the sweet. One of my favorites is a letter that read, “We appreciate all the things you have done that no one has noticed. And we will think of them often.” The idea was to foster community by encouraging their neighbors to talk to one another more – even if suspicion was the guiding emotion at first. But it worked, and now Lenka and Michael have an ambitious plan to send a letter to every community in the world.”

The full inclusion of people with labels of disability in school, work and community living is moving at a snail’s pace.  Even though we can document some amazing and successful inclusive life experiences it seems as though powerful systems of segregation stay intact. Maybe it’s a good time to consider some theories of how change happens.

To start, I want to ponder some things with John Briggs. (1) Briggs is the co-author of The Seven Life Lessons of Chaos, an important book for anyone interested in understanding subtle influence or butterfly power. It starts with chaos, according to Briggs.  It always does, doesn’t it?  But chaos is more than a mess that evolves according to Briggs who describes chaos as a metaphor for understanding the ways in which our actions and interactions create feedback loops in human systems, loops that either reinforce systems of power or challenge systems of power.

In our western culture, we tend to think in terms of who has power and who does not. And, most of us would place ourselves in the powerless column. But, Briggs reminds us that the powerless actually have a great deal of power. It all depends on how we use it that matters.

Power structures, he says, are held together by small acquiesces on the part of thousands of individuals. To illustrate the point Briggs shared this story from Vaclav Havel about the grocer who displayed a slogan in the window of his store. Why did the grocer put the slogan in his store window?  Not because he believes in it but  “simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty.” (2)

The grocer just goes along, gives in, acquiesces. The grocer unthinkingly putting the slogan in his store window is, according to Briggs, an example of a feedback loop that holds systems of power in place.  It’s similar to feedback loops created by thousands of people who contribute to continued segregation by going along – not necessarily because they believe in it (although they might) but also because that’s the way it’s always been done; that’s the way it has to be; if they were to refuse, there could be trouble.

If giving in helps holds power in place what’s the reverse?   “The reverse is when people indicate in some small way that they is not going to acquiesce to the system.  The power they have is in doing the authentic thing. That doesn’t mean a grand rebellion (or confrontation). It means that they, in some small way, stop going along.”  They refuse to live a lie and choose instead to live in the truth. “Their actions, which may seem insignificant at the time, will cascade through the system. But, this time her action will challenge the system rather than reinforce it.”

And so, what strikes me now is this. Yes, when the powerless stop going along our actions have the potential to disturb power structures.  And, I think, something else happens at the same time. Our actions also weave their way through to more people on the ground – to the once-thought-of-as-powerless-but-now-we-understand-as-powerful people, informing, inspiring, “en-Courage-ing”. And, if that’s true, and I hope it is, then one way to ramp up social justice is to connect and expand our networks. And, within those networks, create multiple ways to share the small, inventive, authentic ways our actions challenge traditional power structures.

I’d love to know what do you think about all this.

What do you think it means to do the authentic thing?

When did you NOT go along? What happened?

What networks do you belong to that inspire and inform you?

1. From my personal notes of a 2004 audio interview with John
Briggs. Originally found at www.annonline.com
(no longer available)

2. Excerpt from The Power of the Powerless (1978)

John McKnight on Community Capacities and Community Necessities

Shared via AddThis