ASSIGNMENT

Since the 1960s there have been various attempts to provide and develop a conceptual
schema to describe disability and its complex relationships with illness, impairment, disability
and handicap. However the concept of disability remains undefined, both in India and globally,
posing a significant challenge for individuals with disabilities. This lack of clarity hinders the
creation of effective laws and policies, leaving them with inadequate support and protection
(Oliver et al., 2017).

In 2016, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act expanded the recognized
categories of disabilities from 7 to 21, including conditions such as dwarfism, victims of acid
attacks, and speech and language disabilities, aiming to promote inclusivity and support.
However, a uniform definition of disability still awaits formulation.

But before going forward, we need to understand why we require a uniform definition.
Let's look at the headcounts of persons with disabilities in January 2001 Census reports in
contrast to 1991 Census reports and NSSO figures. The problems in defining disability has led to
differences in these estimates where stricter definitions have provided a lower estimate of 11.8
million in contrast to more lenient definitions.

As revealed by Krefting and Krefting (2002), there are still many ‘missing people’ in
developing countries due to definitional problems, inaccurate prevalence studies, concealment of
PwD and their premature deaths. However, all this points to a crucial issue of identification and
the measurement of disabled population in the definition of disability.

Definitational Riddles

It is crucial to articulate what we mean by disability since it has had different meanings
attached to it, over different time periods (Davis et al., 2013). The concept of able-bodiedness is
self understood however the term “disability” needs to be understood in a more nuanced manner.

Disability cannot be fully understood solely through the perspectives of scholars or

professionals who define it. Instead, it is essential to consider the experiences and insights of
Persons with Disabilities (PwD) themselves, who have lived with disability and can offer unique
and valuable perspectives on its impact and implications.

The concept of disability is itself based upon the concept of ability/alterity which
includes many different medical/health conditions with various concessions given to PwD (such
as tax breaks or special services, etc). However, if an individual completely bases his/her
understanding of disability on this then it can be perplexing and confusing.
 Furthermore, it is crucial to address the issue of having a uniform definition for disability
since the definition of the problem affects what solutions will be sought and how. For instance,
this can be seen in the striking down of Section 377 of IPC which penalizes any other sexual
orientation than the binaries, which aimed to address the diversity issues and underline its
importance.

To really understand disability, we need to look at the different ways it's been thought
about and defined, as well as understand the subtleties of these ideas, because it affects the lives
of people who are labeled as 'disabled'.

Different Understandings of Disability

Lot of arguments have been put forward about disability such as “we all are disabled to
some extent or degree” by individuals who have no lived experience of disability. This argument
is demeaning and does not have any positive implication for PwD, as per Ghai. Furthermore, it
fails to see that disability does not allow an individual to be a part of the society, in the first
place.

However, this can contest the fact that individuals can have configuration of both
disabled and abled self. For instance, some of us are good in psychology but really sucks in
mathematics, though we have this understanding we fail to think of disability as a part of human
diversity. There is a great chance that an individual with a similar kind of disability, does not
think of them disabled due to the stigma attached to it.

Although all scholars agree on the need for a uniform definition, it is a notoriously
complex task. Moreover, Oliver and Barnes (1998) further stated that the definition of disability
can be further divided into two groups, mainly the one given by the scholars and professionals
and the other which is developed by the people with lived experiences and affiliated
organizations. These definitions will impact the diagnosis, which will eventually determine the
consequences that labeling will have on the persons with disabilities.

Although this approach to disability is a bit fixed and rigid, there are scholars who have a
more flexible approach towards the notion of disability and thus take into account even those
who are on the periphery of it.

According to Degener (2006), disability is a complex and multifaceted concept,

encompassing various physical and mental conditions. This complexity blurs the lines between
disability and ability, making it challenging to define and understand. However, once an
individual's disability is acknowledged, it often leads to exclusionary behavior and
marginalization.
 Moreover, some sociologists in the field of medical sociology and chronic illness have
raised concerns about the dominance of the "social oppression theory" of disability. They argue
that this perspective, along with its associated research methodologies, has significant
implications for research in the chronic illness and disability fields (Bury, 1992). This critique
highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of disability and its intersections with
social structures and power dynamics.

The Role of Medical Professionals in Determining Disability

Medical professionals still yield the power to determine whether the individual is
disabled or not. As per Ghai, this labeling yields critical significance as it determines whether the
individual gets facilities or services from the government and eventually determines their life.
Since people are discriminated against due to their disability, it raises crucial questions with
respect to one’s personal, social and political life.

This recognition of their disabilities does not challenge the notion of disabled people as
being passive clients who are victims of their own destiny. These facilities which are being
provided to the PwD are seen more as a social welfare deeds for the minority community.

Furthermore, as per Ghai, once the notion of disability is attached to an individual, it is

very difficult to change that since we do not have systems for cross examining the disability. It is
always believed that disability is fixed and therefore the disrespect and the demeaning behavior
that these individuals have to face is often invalidated or ignored by society.

As clearly summed up by Gergen and his colleagues, the diagnosis puts a label on
individuals and thus puts them in a black box which they cannot exit and thus acts as a challenge
to a more liberating definition. Thus, the medical label puts labels on the individuals which not
only stigmatize them but also creates more saturated stories with a hierarchical relationship
between the professional and the patient.

There are different views through which this can be viewed, one is that it unlocks various
facilities, thus acting as a double edged sword. The current diagnostic processes for determining
disability lack legitimacy, predictability, and confidence for both professionals and clients,
hindering effective support. Furthermore, this process of categorization also assumes greater
significance over other parts of identity.

Since the very definition of disability is itself ambiguous, it reasons out the slippery as
well as the subjective nature of this topic. This has been further supported by Meekosha (1998),
who notes that the concept of disability is itself a bit open-ended, as it includes impairments
pertaining to intellectual, sensory, physical, and psychiatric nature, which can be permanent or
temporary. Given that even able-bodiedness is not a permanent status, despite this, so-called
normal individuals enjoy their basic rights, which persons with disabilities (PwD) find difficult
to do, thanks to the societal and institutional mechanisms.

Furthermore, Ghai puts forward that the institutions which are made to look after the
welfare of the PwDs such as special education centers, rehabilitation councils, etc, propagate this
“othering” and fuels social exclusion. This focuses on the fact that individuals are sometimes not
disabled by their disabilities but by the castification process embedded in societal institutions for
rehabilitation and education and enforced by well meaning professionals, summarizing the
anthropological construct of castification which is rooted in a deterministic view of disability.

Within the disability literature, the concept of castification has been identified as a source
of stigma (Goffman, 1963), resulting in adverse social consequences (Gove, 1976) and
potentially hindering political mobilization and activism (Scotch, 1988).

As per Salifos-Rothschild (1976), the medical professionals interact with PwDs in a

stereotypical manner which results in major curtailment of their opportunities available to them.
Thus this reinforces a circular effect in which the disability of an individual results in making the
limit of acceptable behavior, hence forming a circular pattern. This contradicts the very fact that
they require additional facilities in order to live a more autonomous and self determined lives.
Instead of being considered as a human being on a par, disabled may be challenged by
able-bodied persons asserting a fight to decide what kinds of services they need.

The Impact of Language and Terminology

Mark Sherry's social model of disability distinguishes between impairment (biological,

cognitive, sensory, or psychiatric differences) and disability (negative societal responses). This
separation highlights how biological impairments are distinct from prejudice, stereotypes, and
discrimination.

Furthermore, Edward (1997) suggests that the concept of disability is influenced by

scholars' perspectives. Moreover, the concept of disability is inherently hierarchical because it's
rooted in ableism, which categorizes people into opposing groups, like emotional vs. rational or
rich vs. poor. In reality, these traits aren't mutually exclusive, but society currently treats them as
opposing forces, creating a hierarchical structure that ranks people based on their abilities.

Additionally, the use of the prefix 'dis' is also problematic for some, as it carries
connotations of loss, detachment, or hostility towards the concept it modifies. Linton (1998)
argues that this prefix creates a false divide, separating ability from disability and implying a
stark contrast between the two. Furthermore, cultural narratives and scriptures impose meanings
on bodies, leading to the stigmatization of disabilities as deviations from the norm, and
perpetuating exclusion through a complex web of societal factors.
 The language used to describe disability significantly influences societal attitudes
towards disabled individuals, thus shaping meanings and even creating realities (Oliver et al.,
2017). Despite various terms being used, such as "handicapped" or "differently abled," there has
been little critical examination of the terminology. Ghai argues that any language that empowers
disabled people, promoting pride and self-worth, should be embraced. Disabled individuals are
capable of reclaiming and redefining their identity, moving away from language that perpetuates
deviance and towards a language of power and self-assertion.