Research Definitions of Disability

Today, I discussed the types of definitions used for the UNCRPD and PwD Acts.
Several issues came up, the brief topics of these questions had to do with the following:

1. How language itself changes over a period and therefore it's effect on definitions
2. How various definitions and terms used are not devised by the people identified
3. How, many forms of disability are left out of the simple, classificatory definitions

In relation to #2, the most interesting point that was briefly discussed in the class was the Theory/ Philosophy of Justice of John Rawls and its later development. See one of my talks in this connection.

Continuing with the structure of definitions in general, I discussed the key features of any definitions which are its structure, its source, orientation (who does the definition talk about), and most importantly whether the definition makes a distinction between concepts about disability and empirical measures taken to ensure the rights of PwD/ DP. Further, it was mentioned that there are two main TYPES:
Type I: For Medical/ clinical, administrative purposes
Type II: For research purposes
Type II is clearly not easily acceptable and difficult to understand too. However, as I stressed that that is where the course is going, especially its insistence on the process of disability and the various personal accounts of disability which provide documented set of experiences and any definition arising out of investigating these are more worthwhile.
Here are the specific details:
Let me summarise most of what we discussed in the class today:
1. First slide is about the "key Features" of a definition, i.e., if the definition is a curry, what are its ingredients? Structure, Orientation and Source are most important. And within the last, there are two essentials types, (i) history of the definition, that is, how it came about, and (ii) who/ which group is the creator of the definition. So if we take this last meaning of source, and orientation, then we can say that it's important to know who makes the definition and for whom. As part of the structure, Himangshu pointed out that actually the PwD definition is structurally a list, whereas, the UNCRPD definition is not. Although this is essentially correct, it is also not the case that a list cannot be formed through a structure of paragraph, for example, it is possible to create a list through commas in a para also. The 4th point of the slide is very important, in fact, perhaps the most important issue that we are trying to understand in this course. It is this difference between disability as a concept and as observable, empirical facts. We discussed Rationalism and Empiricism in this regard and also talked about the social, economical perspectives of these as seen in the choice of careers, for example. I showed how "knowledge by indirect means", roughly Rationalism, is difficult to understand because it's not visible. Thus disability as a concept is much harder to understand. Anyhow, it was also pointed out that therefore this feature of definitions is harder to spot.
Wrt the next slide, it was pointed out that interpretablity between terms is important for communication between different groups associated with disability to take place. Then we looked at the two major types of definitions (recall that earlier we had seen the ways of defining disability but not types as such) where Type I is not only the most popular but also the most needed. The next slide pointed out when does the need to have a legal definition arise, it is needed when a particular benefit must reach a particular group in a just manner. Then we looked a the definition of disability as in US Dept of Health and recognised the wide coverage yet the preciseness of that definition. Finally, still within Type I (i.e., Administrative/ clinical), we looked at disability definition from public health perspective and discussed the importance of disability statistics for understanding the distribution of disability or epidemiology for the general public and also for specific groups who are the beneficiary of disability related acts.

Definitions - PART I

I discussed and highlighted the following three points with respect to definitions of disability:
(i) the need for a definition
(ii) the problems of definitions
(iii) the ways of definition

The need for a definition came out through discussion in the class and following three crucial parts were pointed out by the students:
(a) a knowledge of parts of anything
(b) awareness of the needs --> rights
(c) it stands for many ideas as a summary

The class also came up with the 'measurement' of disability as a way of defining disability. Well done!

With respect to (ii) and (iii), we started the discussion with the language of disability, well known in the literature but not at all known generally and especially in a country like India, where the official documents and the media continue to refer to DPs/ PwDs as 'Physically Challenged' -- which actually descended on us from the west about 15-20 years ago as, in fact, the politically correct term, little realising that this term clearly and surely locates disability back in the person. I also explained my own take on it: it gives me the image that the so-called non-disabled people are sitting there at one high platform and watching (may be even with concern) how a disabled person is climbing up the stairs to this so-called high platform, how they are facing the challenge and 'winning' against all adversity. It's a terrible image.

I also discussed how these four ways are usually employed in defining disability, namely, simple statements, theoretical models, classification schemes and measurement.

1.

Goals of Disability and Human Rights course

I have added some new stuff in the 'Plan' handout used for the Disability and Human Rights (DHR) class at the EOC this semester. The new stuff is the 'Goal' section, the 5 goals make the following points:
Goal 1: related to the point discussed earlier that this course is not about two separate topics 'disability' and 'human rights', rather, it is about how disability is a human rights issue. This is our starting point, I will show that as long as disability is treated as a rights issue separate from human rights, it will only succeed in serving the cause of the segregrationists.
Goal 2: Legal aspects of disability are very important as they are brought about after years of hard work and activism, they are not achieved in one day. Once an act comes into force then it becomes an instrument of empowerment in terms of how it affords people the 'right' to demand their rights. For any career in advocacy in the future, a thorough knowledge of the Acts is of utmost important because the Indian Constitution is a powerful instrument that ensure justice for all. I strongly believe that to carry out one of the most important agendas of disability studies, namely, to not divorce activism from academics, taking the legal path is the most effective one -- sometimes, this is forgotten in the zeal of 'street' activism.
Goal 3: The philosophical background of disability as a human rights issue is linked to the philosophy of justice and equality, and it's important to review the context and place of this stance in Philosophy. We will specifically look at Amartya Sen's work in this context, which is also the position taken by Martha Nussbaum, whose re-reading (and problematising) of the concept of equality is less brandied around in the disability field (and therefore, probably, more meaningful).
Goal 4: relates how the different waves of feminism and women's issues neglected disability and women with disability left behind, forgotten. Even now, most fora on feminism, mention disability simply as an add-on category, there is no indication of any active acceptance of a disability perspective and the resulting enrichment. We will also discuss how the UNCRPD though has a separate section on women with disability, most disability acts of most countries show reluctance in designing separate articles for WwD.
Goal 5: relates to the active union driven movement in disability which earned disability a place in the academia, however, which continues to be neglected in the governmental acts and laws. In fact, most disability laws of most countries, do not accept the tenets of the social model. Unfortunate.