The Politics of Ableism PDF 2008

Development, 2008, 51, (252–258) r 2008 Society for International Development 1011-6370/08 www.sidint.org/development...

Development, 2008, 51, (252–258) r 2008 Society for International Development 1011-6370/08 www.sidint.org/development Dialogue The Politics of Ableism GREGOR WOLBRING ABSTRACT Gregor Wolbring at the invitation of the Editor to continue the ideas of an earlier article published in volume 49 number 4 shares with Development readers his understanding of the concept of ableism. He argues that the term ability should not be used just in relation to disabled people but understood in a broader cultural perspective. He highlights different forms of ableism, the role of new and emerging technologies, the consequences of different forms of ableism and the importance of dealing with the concept of ableism on the policy level, and proposes the need for a field of ability studies that examine ableism. KEYWORDS sexism; racism; transhumanism; choice; policy; ability studies; ableism Introduction Ableism is a concept that is not well understood. It is most often used to describe the negative treatment of disabled people (Answers.com, 2007; Merriam-Webster, 2007). Its use in this case parallels the terms sexism, racism, ageism and other isms (Miller et al., 2004). However, I find the current use of ableism and disableism limited both in content and scope. Every ism has two components. Something we value and something we do not. The subject of the isms can be negative or positive. For example, ageism reflects the negative labelling and treatment of the elderly.We could equally call ageism youth- ism, which values the abilities of youth. Racism carries a double meaning: a value of one race over another and the discrimination against another race. Sexism describes (usually) the valuing of the male sex and the discrimination (usually) against the female sex. Ableism values certain abilities, which leads to disableism the discrimination against the ‘less able’. Ableism often confuses the valuing or obsession with ability with the term disableism. However besides confusing ableism with disableism speaking about ableism only in connection with the so-called ‘disabled people’ is also a problem. I use the terms ableism (Wolbring, 2006a, 2007a, b, c, d, e) and as a consequence disable- ism/disablism in a much broader sense than the current definitions. What is ableism? Ableism is a set of beliefs, processes and practices that produce ^ based on abilities one exhibits or values ^ a particular understanding of oneself, one’s body and one’s relationship Development (2008) 51, 252–258. doi:10.1057/dev.2008.17  Wolbring: The Politics of Ableism with others of humanity, other species and the nation against them as ‘less able’ and/or as environment, and includes how one is judged by ‘impaired’disabled people (Wolbring, 2004, 2005). others (Wolbring, 2006a, 2007a, b, c, d). Ableism This type of ableism is supported by the medical, reflects the sentiment of certain social groups deficiency, impairment categorization of disabled and social structures that value and promote people (medical model) (Wolbring, 2004, 2005). It certain abilities, for example, productivity and rejects the ‘variation of being’, biodiversity notion competitiveness, over others, such as empathy, and categorization of disabled people (social mod- compassion and kindness. This preference for cer- el). It leads to the focus on ‘fixing’ the person or tain abilities over others leads to a labelling of real preventing more of such people being born and or perceived deviations from or lack of ‘essential’ ignores the acceptance and accommodation of abilities as a diminished state of being, leading or such people in their variation of being (Wolbring, contributing to justifying various other isms 2005). Ableism has also long been used to justify (Wolbring, 2006a, 2007a, b, c, d). hierarchies of rights and discrimination between Ableism is an umbrella ism for other isms such other social groups, and to exclude people not as racism, sexism, casteism, ageism, speciesism, classified as ‘disabled people’. anti-environmentalism, gross domestic product Sexism is partly driven by a form of ableism that (GDP)-ism and consumerism. One can identify favours certain abilities, and the labelling of wo- many different forms of ableism such as biological men as not having those certain necessary abil- structure-based ableism (B), cognition-based ities is used to justify sexism and the dominance ableism (C), social structure-based ableism (S) of males over females. Similarly, racism and ethni- and ableism inherent to a given economic system cism are partly driven by forms of ableism, which (E). ABECS could be used as the ableism equiva- have two components. One favours one race or lent to the NBICS S&T convergence (Wolbring, ethnic group and discriminates against another. 2007e). The book The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray, Ableism and preference of certain abilities has 1994) judged human beings on their ‘cognitive been rampant throughout history. Ableism abilities’ (their IQ). It promoted racism by claiming shaped and continues to shape areas such as hu- that certain ethnic groups are less cognitively able man security (Wolbring, 2006c), social cohesion than others. The ableist judgement related to cog- (Wolbring, 2007f), social policies, relationships nitive abilities continues justifying racist argu- among social groups, individuals and countries, ments. Casteism, like racism, is based on the humans and non-humans, and humans and their notion that socially defined groups of people have environment (Wolbring, 2007a, b, c). Ableism is inherent, natural qualities or ‘essences’that assign one of the most societally entrenched and them to social positions, make them fit for specific accepted isms. duties and occupations (Omvedt, 2001). The natur- Historically, ableism has been used by various al inherent qualities are ‘abilities’ that make them social groups to justify their elevated level of rights fit for specific duties and occupations. and status in relation to other groups (i.e. women were viewed as biologically fragile and emotional, Science and technology and changes in and thus incapable of bearing the responsibility ableism of voting, owning property and retaining custody of their own children (ableism leading to sexism; The direction and governance of science and Silvers et al.,1998; Wolbring, 2003). technology and ableism are becoming increasingly interrelated. Technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, cognitive Different forms of ableism science and synthetic biology (NBICS) have an Ableism against disabled people (Wolbring, impact on the usage and content of ableism 2007a, b, c) reflects a preference for species- and favour certain abilities, and how we judge and typical normative abilities leading to the discrimi- deal with abilities influences the direction 253 Development 51(2): Dialogue and governance of NBICS processes, products and diseases. This means that more and more ‘healthy’ research and development (Wolbring, 2006b). people feel ‘unhealthy, feel bad about their bodily The increased ability of science and technology structure and functioning’ (Wolbring, 2005). The to modify the appearance and functioning of the transhumanized version of ableism elevates the human body and the bodies of other species medicalization dynamic to its ultimate endpoint, beyond existing norms and species-typical namely, to see the enhancement beyond species- boundaries leads to a changed understanding of typical body structures and functioning as a ourselves, our bodies and our relationships with therapeutic intervention (transhumanization of humanity, other species and our environment. medicalization) (Wolbring, 2005). New forms of ableism (transhumanized forms of As more powerful, less invasive and more so- ableism and disablism) are appearing. phisticated enhancements become available, the market share and acceptance of enhancement products will grow. For any given enhancement Transhumanizations of ableism and product there will not be a bell curve distribution, disableism related to humans (Wolbring, but rather a distribution jump from the ‘have nots’ 2005, 2007a, b, c) to the ‘haves’, which will lead directly to an ability Up to this point in history a non-impaired person divide.What will change ^ depending on the social is someone whose body functioning is seen as per- reality such as GDP of the economy, income levels forming within acceptable species-typical para- and other parameters ^ is how many people end meters. This, however, is changing. The ability of up as ‘haves’or ‘non-haves’ (intrinsic and external NBICS products to modify the appearance of the techno-poor disabled). The ability divide will be human body and its functioning beyond existing complex between high- and low-income countries norms and species-typical boundaries allows for and between the poor and rich within every coun- a redefinition of what it means to be non-impaired try. Not everyone can afford enhancing one’s body, (Wolbring, 2005). and no society can afford to enhance everyone’s One transhumanized form of ableism is the body if everyone so wishes. Those deemed able by network of beliefs, processes and practices that most people today, but who cannot afford or do perceives improving the human body and func- not want the technological enhancements tomor- tioning beyond species-typical boundaries as row will became the new class of ‘techno-poor essential. The transhumanized version of ableism disabled’. Billions of people, who today are seen as sees all bodies as limited, defective and in need of able, will become disabled not because their constant improvement beyond species-typical bodies have changed, but precisely because they boundaries. have not changed their bodies in accordance with This transhumanized version of ableism gives the transhumanist norm. preference to going beyond human species-typical Such a future will lead to a transhumanized abilities and sees humans as in a diminished state version of disableism where those who do not have of being if they are not enhanced beyond human or do not want certain enhancements (the intrin- species-typical abilities. sically techno-poor disabled) will be discrimi- The emerging field of enhancement medicine nated against, given negative labels and suffer pushes the boundaries of what is the human norm oppressive and abusive behaviour and other through genetic manipulation (genomic freedom) consequences. and biological bodies (morphological freedom) through surgery, pharmaceuticals, implants and Ableism and transhumanism related to other means (Sandberg, 2001;Wolbring, 2005). animals (Wolbring, 2007a, b, c) Such scientific endeavours fit well with the existing medicalization of the human body where Speciesism assigns different values and rights to more and more variations of human body struc- beings based on their abilities. Humans are seen 254 ture and functioning are labelled as deviations or as superior over other species because of their  Wolbring: The Politics of Ableism exhibition of ‘superior cognitive abilities’. Another whereby humans in the prebirth and early child- transhumanized version of ableism is the set of be- hood stages of development are seen as not having liefs, processes and practices that champions the full human rights due to lack of abilities. Lack cognitive enhancement of animal species beyond of certain cognitive abilities is also used as an species-typical boundaries, leading to cognitively argument to deny certain rights to ‘cognitively or otherwise ‘enabled species’. This is seen as a impaired humans’. Such ableism plays itself also way to alter the relationship between humans out towards artificial intelligence, which might and other species, and to change how non-human gain equal status to humans moving human species are judged and treated (Wolbring, 2007g). rights towards sentient rights. This version of ableism favours cognitive abil- ities, which might play itself out in other areas in NBICS, policy studies and ableism the future. If cognitive abilities can be generated in non-human life (artificial life, synbio life, non- The concept of ableism is everywhere and yet it is human biological life), human rights may very invisible within the context of science and tech- well become seen as an obsolete concept. Entities nology policy and governance discourse. that follow this form of ableism will not be based Upon searching the public domain search anymore on one being human but on one having engine Google, Google scholar and three academic certain cognitive abilities (sentience rights). clusters of databases (Ovid Cluster of Databases, The disregard for nature reflects another form Academic Search Premier and Cambridge Scienti- of ableism: humans are here to use nature as they fic Databases) to ascertain the visibility of ableism see fit, as they are superior to nature because of within the science and technology policy their abilities. Humans would treat nature with academic discourse, one finds (Tables 1 and 2): more respect if they understood the ensuing nega-  ‘Ableism’ results in very few hits if combined tive consequences for themselves. We might see a with the terms ‘science and technology studies’, climate change-driven appeal for a transhuman ‘policy studies’, ‘nanotechnology’, ‘biotechno- version of ableism, where transhumanization of logy’, inequality and inequity. humans is seen as a solution for coping with  ‘Ableism’receives a few hits if combined with the climate change. This could become especially terms ‘science and technology studies’, ‘policy popular if we reach a ‘point of no return’, where studies’, ‘nanotechnology’, ‘biotechnology’, severe climate change consequences can no long- synthetic biology, inequality and inequity than er be prevented. if racism or sexism are combined with these terms. Other isms supported by different forms  Ableism is invisible within the policy studies, of ableism the science and technology studies, and the nanotechnology and biotechnology discourse. The preference for productivity as a main growth measure of a society supports GDP-ism (Wolbring, How to address ableism and its 2007a, b, c). The NBIC report goal of human per- consequences formance enhancement is linked to increased pro- ductivity and GDP-ism. Consumerism (Wolbring, Ableism is one of the most socially entrenched and 2007a, b, c) is based on the desire to be able to con- accepted isms and one of the biggest enabler for sume. This is often linked to the right to choose, other isms (e.g. nationalism plays itself out and legally it is linked to a negative rights frame- through sports, speciesism, sexism, racism, work. This form of ableism has an influence on anti-environmentalismy). Ableism related to many other isms. productivity and economic competitiveness is Beside racism and speciesism, the preference the foundation of many societies and their and value given to cognitive abilities plays itself relationship with other societies, and is often seen out within the development stages of humans as a prerequisite for progress. 255 256 Development 51(2): Dialogue Table 1. Keyword search on ableism International Cambridge (2) bibliography of scientific databases Academic premier the social sciences Keyword Ovid (1) including IBSS search(3) Google scholar Google IBSS(4) Ableism 50/ 84/ 255/ 690/ 88,900/ 3 +/nano/bio/inequality/ 0/0/2/ 0/0/15/2/1/ 0/4/ 3/17/228/ +160/1,140/ inequity/ 2/1/1 1 68/36/2/2 91/2/54 11,900/ science and technology 539/13/1,880 0 studies/policy studies Sexism 5,201/0/ 13,510/ 16,174/ 57,500 9,670,000 603 +/nano/bio/inequality/ 8,281/88/ 2/30/ 16/110/29 83/575/ 24,300/70,000/ inequity/ 3/8 2,126/ 32/ 12,800, 476,000/ science and technology 215 1027/ 2,240 76,700 studies/policy studies 34/117 17/204 224/1,220 623/54,900 0 Racism 13,772/0 37,023/ 71,704/ 272,000 71,900,000 5919 +/nano/bio/inequality/ /29/790/ 6/119/ 42/384/94 290/2,2102 305,000/536,000 inequity/ 185/4/5 4,738/ 56/ 9,500/ / science and technology 1 452 2,988 5,450/ 2,850,000 studies/policy studies 57/544 41/942 441/5,150 278,000/16,300/ 26 315,000  Wolbring: The Politics of Ableism Judgement based on abilities is so ingrained in society that its use for exclusionary purposes is hardly ever questioned or even realized. To the 519/14,400/151/19 132,000/653,000/ 24,000/564,000/ contrary, groups who are marginalized due to 107,000,000/ 218,000,000/ 17,000/1,140 some form of ableism and disableism often use 73/773/12/2 1,460/160 312,000+ the sentiment to demand a change in status (we 562,000 Google are as able as you are; we can be as able as you are with accommodations). Ableism and disableism will become even more prevalent with the anticipated ability of NBICS:  to generate human bodily enhancements in all 54,500/257,000/ Academic premier search Google scholar shapes and forms with the accompanying abil- 82/280/13/3 215/420/6/2 553/2,090/ ity divide and the appearance of the external 6,720/690 791,000+ 82,700/+ 1/3/0/0/ and internal techno-poor disabled; 5,830+ 104/17 593+  to generate and modify ability and to enhance non-human life forms;  to separate cognitive functioning from the human body;  to modify humans to deal with the aftermath of 16,176,/71,751/ anti-environmentalism and with the appear- ance of molecular manufacturing and its im- 2,408/260 16/42/2/0 17/41/2/1 110/384/ pact on productivity and trade. 0/2/0/0 22/4 There is a need to address the nearly unconscious acceptance of ableism and the new emerging forms of ableism and disableism. There is a need Cambridge scientific to look in a coherent fashion at ableism and disableism. It is regrettable that the Convention 13,510/37,023/ for Biological Diversity (Secretariat of the 30/119/1/0 databases 34/57/3/0/ 366,575+ Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006) covers 2,140/84 14,580+ 1,804+ 2/6/0/0 0/0/0/0 only non-human diversities, missing the boat 111/ on an imminent threat related to NBICS Table 2. Keyword search on differentism and human diversity (ability and otherwise) (Wolbring, 2007h, i). We need to recognize that acceptance and sup- port for ‘ability diversity’ is as important as other 5,204/13,774/ diversities and that ableism is as limiting as and 3,737/50 8/29/0/0 190473 Nanotechnology+sexism/ 15,183/ often the foundation for other prejudice-isms. We 0/0/0/0 3/4/0/0 0/0/0/0 Ovid 209/ 251 have to look at the politics of ableism and disable- ism in a much more coherent open way. It is time Science and Technology to see ability not just within the context of Biotechnology+sexism/ Biology+sexism/racism/ Studies+Sexism/racism/ Sexism/racism, ageism, racism/ageism/ableism racism/ageism/ableism disabled people but to look at it from a broader cultural perspective. I propose the new field of ageism/ableism ageism/ableism ability studies (Wolbring, 2005), which would cover among others: Synthetic Keyword ableism  ‘traditional disabled people’;  ‘techno-poor disabled’; 257 Development 51(2): Dialogue  people who gain enhancements; Notes  other non-human targets for ability modifications; 1. http://www.ovid.com/site/index.jsp  new life forms; 2. http://www.csa.com/  other ableism-supported prejudices; 3. http://epnet.com/  ableism differences between cultures. 4. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/IBSS/ References Answers.com (2007) Ableism’, http://www.answers.com/topic/ableism. Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray (1994) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life, New York: Free Press. Merriam-Webster (2007) Ableism’, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ableism. Miller, Paul, Sophia Parker and Sarah Gillinson (2004) Disablism How toTackle the Last Prejudice, London, UK: Demos. Omvedt, Gail (2001) ‘The U.N., Racism and Caste ^ II Opinion’,The Hindu, 10 April. Sandberg, Anders (2001) ‘Morphological Freedom ^ WhyWe not just want it, but Need it’, Based on a talk given at the TransVision 2001 Conference, Berlin, 22^24 June. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2006) ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’, http://www. biodiv.org/default.shtml. Silvers, Anita, David Wasserman and Mary B. Mahowald (1998) Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspective on justice in bioethics and public policy (Point/Counterpoint: Philosophers debate contemporary issues), Landham, Bolder, NewYork, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Wolbring, Gregor (2003) ‘Science and Technology and the Triple D (Disease, Disability, Defect)’, in Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge (eds.) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, biotech- nology, information technology and cognitive science pp 232^43, Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub- lisher. Wolbring, Gregor (2004) ‘Solutions Follow Perceptions: NBIC and the concept of health, medicine, disability and disease’, Health Law Rev 12(3): 41^6, PM:15706707. Wolbring, Gregor (2005) ‘HTA Initiative #23 The Triangle of Enhancement Medicine, Disabled People, and the Concept of Health: A new challenge for HTA, health research, and health policy’, http://www.ihe.ca/documents/ hta/HTA-FR23.pdf. Wolbring, Gregor (2006a) ‘Ableism and NBICS’, http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours. 2006.08.15.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2006b) ‘Nanotechnology for Health and Development’, Development 49(4): 6^15. Wolbring, Gregor (2006c) ‘Human Security and NBICS’, http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/ choiceisyours.2006.12.30.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2007a) ‘NBICS, Other Convergences, Ableism and the Culture of Peace’, http://www. innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2007-04-15.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2007b) ‘New and Emerging Sciences and Technologies, Ableism, Transhumanism and Religion, Faith,Theology and Churches’, Madang; International Journal of Contextual Theology in East Asia 7:79^112. Wolbring, Gregor (2007c) ‘What Convergence is in the Cards for Future Scientists?’, http://www.bioethicsanddisability. org/convergence’, Conference presentation, Vienna, May 2007 hosted on International Center for Bioethics Culture and Disability. Wolbring, Gregor (2007d) ‘Glossary for the 21st Century’, http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/glossary.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2007e) ‘Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement?’, The European Journal of Social Science Research 21(1): 25^40. Wolbring, Gregor (2007f) ‘NBICS and Social Cohesion’, http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/ choiceisyours.2007.01.15.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2007g) ‘Enhancement of Animals’, http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/ choiceisyours-2007-03-15.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2007h) ‘NBICS and the Convention on Biological Diversity’, http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/ 2007-06-30.htm. Wolbring, Gregor (2007i) ‘NBICS, Cultural Identity and Diversity, and the CBD’, http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/ 2007-07-30.htm’, 2007,The Choice isYours biweekly column. 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.