This is from another paper I wrote for a social justice class:
At first blush it is difficult to differentiate whether able-ism is prejudice against a particular group – people with disabilities – or a preference for another group – those without disabilities. After all, no one wants to “kick someone while they are down,” so to speak, by not helping someone with an obvious impairment. After reflection, however, it becomes more apparent that this treatment is an actual prejudice instead of a mere preference. This kind of treatment does not extend towards every person who has a disability. It does not apply to those to do not appear to be disabled, to those who “pass.”
The social construction at work in this case is that people with disabilities are not as valuable as those with able bodies. They are not worth the time and the money necessary to include them. Perhaps people with disabilities are not as capable, they are not as intelligent, or they do not “get it.” Like other oppressed groups, people with disabilities are not counted. They are not viewed to be as valuable as other able-bodied people.
For many people, the reason that they exclude people with disabilities is a blithe ignorance. Again, no person wants to “kick someone when they’re down.” Furthermore, the luxury of having legs that work means that an elevator is a treat but not a necessity for most people. It is a simple matter of ignorance, and many people, once they become aware of others’ differences, they make a conscious effort to include them and accommodate their needs.
Another reason to exclude people with disabilities, especially at the macro level, like for businesses or companies, is that it is too much trouble and too much money to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Making the changes needed to provide equal service to physically impaired customers or consumers can be very expensive. Many companies decide that the value of the disabled person’s business is not enough to offset the expenses of accommodation.
The American social values of independence and self-sufficiency are instrumental in lending validity to the construction that people with disabilities are not as valuable as those without disabilities. Americans take pride in being able to care for themselves, and they respect others who can do the same. However, doing this is simply not possible for many people with disabilities. The reality for many people with disabilities is that they must depend upon other people to meet even the most basic needs, like bathing or eating.
The capitalist view of production is a formidable influence in American society, especially when disabilities are concerned. This perspective dictates that people are as valuable as the things they produce. People with disabilities frequently do not produce as much as able-bodied people and therefore, the work they do is not as valuable.
Part of the reasons these false ideas exist is the fact that people with disabilities are not forthcoming about their impairments if they don’t have to be, therefore, this issue is not in the “public eye” too much. The American with Disabilities Act, (ADA) passed within the last 20 years, has appeared to be a positive step towards validating the capabilities of people with disabilities. It is difficult to enforce, however, because it is difficult to prove. Furthermore, while trying to use the act to prove disability-related discrimination, the onus for proving it is on the person with the disability. In practical terms, they must garner the strength to place themselves and their limitations on display. As was mentioned earlier, Americans take pride in being able to take care of themselves, and so doing this goes in the face of this principle. While the individual does this, they must at the same time prove that they were victimized.
Another important fact of the ADA is that, while building owners are required to make changes to their buildings to make them more accessible, they are not required to do so until they see there is a need to make improvements or changes on the building. This places the importance of accommodating these people behind the priorities of the owner of the building. This sets a precedent that, while it’s important to accommodate to this population, it is MORE important to make it convenient for the other parties.
One facet of able-ism is the lesser acknowledged prejudice “lookism.” People who have disabilities do not have the social ideal of beauty. They may talk differently or strange scars. They may have bad breath, bad acne or misshapen bodies. People with disabilities can be uncomfortable to look upon, and it is easy for someone to merely exclude them, rather than addressing their discomfort.
It is interesting to note that all people on the planet, all human beings are mere seconds away from being “disabled.” Every person is vulnerable to this category, and I would wager that a good portion of American population fits into it. Furthermore, once someone becomes disabled, they cannot most themselves back into the “able category.” It’s a one-way street, so to speak.
