When it comes to discussing what should account for our attitude towards disabled people, it is important to understand that there are two types of disabilities which can be generally referred to as ‘mechanic’ and ‘genetic’. Mechanic disabilities occur as a result of physical injuries.
Genetic disabilities, on the other hand, come as a result of a developing embryo being affected by genetic mutations, while in the womb.
The foremost difference between these two disabilities is that whereas, a majority of ‘mechanically’ disabled people are nevertheless quite capable of continuing to act as society’s productive members, ‘genetically’ disabled individuals represent nothing more than a society’s burden.
It is due to the fact that it is not only that their continuous sustenance costs taxpayers dearly, but also, as practice indicates, these people often end up passing their genetic disabilities to the representatives of next generations. The earlier suggestion provides us with the insight into how we should perceive the very notion of disability.
First, it can be questioned whether any form of physical or mental disability can be referred to as something that deserves to be ‘celebrated’, as the promoters of political correctness want us to believe. The reason for this is simple – the term ‘disability’ is synonymous to the notion of suffering.
It is namely the fact that it now has become a common practice on the part of politically correct but utterly ignorant individuals, to refer to disabled people’s suffering in euphemistic terms, which makes this suffering even worse.
As it was pointed out by Mairs: “I am a cripple. I choose this word to name me. I choose from among several possibilities, the most common of which are ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’… ‘Cripple’ seems to me a clean word, straightforward and precise” (1).
Considering the fact that many disabled people never cease experiencing an acute physical pain throughout the course of their lives, it is utterly preposterous to think that they might be sensitive enough to feel insulted upon being called ‘cripples’.
The term ‘disabled’ appears semantically adequate as well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the term ‘uniquely abled’ – clearly the byproduct of its inventors’ perceptional ignorance.
Second, the fact that there is nothing to gain out of being crippled does not mean that some disabled individuals should not be looked upon as ‘role models’. The validity of this statement can be well explored in regards to those individuals who sustained crippling injuries during socially beneficial but dangerous duties, such as disabled soldiers, police officers, firefighters, etc.
These people sacrificed their physical adequacy for the sake of ensuring society’s integrity. In return, society has to make sure that they are being treated with utter respect and that they never suffer from the loss of dignity.
There are also quite a few disabled individuals who proved themselves to be courageous enough to refrain from succumbing to depression because of having sustained accidental injuries. Just as it is being the case with disabled soldiers, police officers and firefighters, these people also deserve to be praised for the sheer strength of their willpower.
Nevertheless, it is utterly inappropriate to suggest that disabling physical deficiencies should be celebrated as ‘thing in itself’:
I’d walk among them – the fat women, the short – statured men commonly called dwarfs and midgets, the folks without legs, the supposed half men/half women, the conjoined twins… I am looking for teachers and heroes to show me the way toward new pride (Clare 226).
Apparently, it never occurred to the author that it is not only that disability cannot be ‘taught’, but also that even attempting to ‘teach’ disability accounts for highly immoral act. The same can be said about some authors’ tendency to try to convince readers to adopt positive attitude towards disabling emanations of people’s mental inadequacy.
For example, as for today, such genetically predetermined form of mental illness as autism is being increasingly discussed in terms of ‘neurodiversity’.
Thus, as students in Western countries are taught that diversity is necessarily a ‘good thing’, “a growing and vocal set of autistic activists – under the banner of ‘neurodiversity’ – are demanding that autism be accepted and respected not as a disorder, but as a variation in ‘brain wiring” (Jurecic 423).
Nevertheless, it does not take overly bright individual to realize the sheer absurdity of such claims. The reason for this is quite apparent – these claims stand in striking opposition to the most basic laws of nature that enable survival of the fittest.
Just as it continues to be the case with plants and animals, people never cease being fully subjected to these laws. Biologists, however, know perfectly well that the violation of laws of nature necessarily leads to degradation and death.
Therefore, it does not come as a particular surprise that today autism, as well as other forms of mental illnesses, in Western countries has long ago attained the subtleties of an epidemic, which threatens society’s very foundations. After all, if genetically predetermined physical/mental illnesses are not the source of suffering but the source of ‘pride’.
Why then should there be a need to resist the spreading of these disabling illnesses? This is exactly the reason why, as contemporary realities indicate, more and more genetically disabled people grow convinced that there is nothing wrong with them trying to conceive as many potentially deficient babies as possible.
It simply could not be otherwise, given the fact that the mainstream Medias (especially popular TV talk-shows) continue to popularize the idea that society will only win from nourishing as many physically deformed and mentally impaired citizens as possible.
After all, the more disabled imbeciles, mental retards, and paralytics are in wheel chairs, the more ‘diversity’ is there. As a result, we now have large populations of essentially useless ‘mouths’ which do not only suffer, but also cause people around them to suffer as well.
If such situation continues to have place in the future, it would only be the matter of time before Western societies crumble under the weight of social deficits – there are indications that it begins to happen as we speak.
Therefore, it must be reinstated again that whereas, ‘mechanically’ disabled people should be provided with an opportunity to lead normal lives (especially if the loss of their physical adequacy occurred on the line of duty), it is socially irresponsible to be turning their disability into some sort of fetish.
As it was shown earlier, many of such people do not like being subjected to the emotional ‘care-taking’ on the part of hypersensitive advocates of political correctness.
In regards to people with genetically predetermined disabilities, we can only say that it is not only that they cannot be referred to as ‘heroes’ or ‘role models’ (they are nothing but victims of their parents’ sexual irresponsibleness), but that they should, in fact be sterilized, in order to prevent them from being able to proliferate their genetic defectiveness.
Works Cited
Clare, Eli “Gawking, Gaping, Staring.” Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson, Brenda Jo Brueggemann, Jay Dolmage. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 225-228. Print.
Jurecic, Ann “Neurodiversity.” College English, 69.5 (2007): 421-442, Print.
Mairs, Nancy “On Being a Cripple.” San Francisco State University, 2010. Web.