Discussion 2: Ability And Disability In The Parker Case

Discussion 2 Ability And Disability In The Parker Caseto Prepareview

Discuss the social construction of disability, how it influences perceptions, and relate this to examples from the Parker case. Consider how disability labels evolve over time and what they imply about societal views of disability. Analyze how societal inconsistency in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities contributes to marginalization. Describe how disability can be seen as a social construct and how this relates to societal perceptions. Explore how intersectionality, such as Stephanie’s mental illness intersecting with other identity characteristics, can further marginalize her and impact her agency. Explain how such marginalization affects her ability to make choices, exercise self-determination, and interact with professionals on an equitable basis.

Paper For Above instruction

The social construction of disability fundamentally shapes how society perceives, treats, and responds to individuals with disabilities. Historically, disability was viewed solely through a medical lens, emphasizing the individual's deficits or impairments as the core issue. However, contemporary disability studies argue that disability is not merely a physical or mental condition but a social construct—an idea constructed, reinforced, and reinforced by societal attitudes, policies, and institutions. This perspective emphasizes that societal barriers, discrimination, and inaccessible environments contribute significantly to the disabling experience, often more than the underlying impairment itself (Oliver, 1996).

The shifting labels associated with disability exemplify the sociological understanding that disability is fluid and socially negotiated. Terms such as "handicapped," "crippled," "disabled," "persons with disabilities," and "differently-abled" reflect different societal attitudes and levels of acceptance or stigma. For instance, "handicapped" was once a widely accepted term but is now considered outdated and potentially stigmatizing due to its negative connotations and associations with barriers rather than individuals’ abilities (Shakespeare, 2014). The movement toward identity-first language, like "disabled," rather than person-first language, such as "person with a disability," underscores ongoing debates about agency, identity, and societal perceptions. These labels reveal how society constructs the meaning of disability, often conflating impairment with social incapacity.

In the case of the Parker family, the perception of disability is intertwined with societal norms about competence, independence, and normalcy. The portrayal of the family members suggests societal discomfort and often marginalization of those with disabilities, which can be seen in how the family navigates social services and institutional support. For example, Stephanie’s mental health condition is viewed through various societal lenses—sometimes as a medical issue, other times as a personal failing or character flaw. The labels and perceptions influence the family’s interactions with professionals, often leading to stigmatization or undermining the agency of individuals like Stephanie.

Intersectionality further complicates these perceptions. Stephanie’s mental illness intersecting with her cultural identity, socioeconomic status, and possibly other attributes like race or gender, can amplify her marginalization. For example, if her mental health challenges are compounded by systemic biases against her cultural background, this can lead to inadequate support, misdiagnosis, or neglect (Crenshaw, 1995). Such intersecting identities can render her more vulnerable to exclusion and discrimination, limiting her access to services and her voice in decision-making processes.

This marginalization significantly impacts her capacity for self-determination and agency. When societal and institutional attitudes view her primarily through a deficit lens—focusing on her mental illness rather than her strengths—her ability to make autonomous choices is diminished. She may encounter professionals who impose decisions on her rather than collaborating with her, leading to disempowerment (Taylor & Ruckstuhl, 2014). Cutting through societal barriers and biases requires recognizing her as an active agent capable of participation, despite systemic constraints. Recognizing her agency, and addressing the structural barriers rooted in the social construction of disability, is essential for promoting equity and inclusion.

The Parker case demonstrates how societal constructs shape individual experiences. For example, Stephanie may be viewed through stereotypes that limit her opportunities and reinforce her marginalization. Her mental health condition might be misunderstood or dismissed, leading to social exclusion. As a result, her ability to participate fully in society, make informed decisions, and advocate for herself is undermined by societal attitudes and systemic barriers grounded in the social construction of disability. Addressing these issues calls for a shift in societal perceptions, emphasizing capacity, rights, and inclusion, as advocated by the disability rights movement.

In conclusion, the social construction of disability influences perceptions and treatment of individuals like Stephanie. Understanding disability as a social construct highlights the importance of challenging societal barriers and stereotypes to promote equitable treatment and full participation. Intersectionality plays a critical role by illustrating how multiple identities can compound marginalization. Efforts to improve accessibility, reduce stigma, and recognize the agency of people with disabilities are essential steps toward social justice and inclusion.

References

• Crenshaw, K. (1995). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
• Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.
• Taylor, S. J., & Ruckstuhl, A. (2014). Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessment and intervention. Oxford University Press.
• Gilson, S. F., & DePoy, E. (2002). Theoretical approaches to disability content in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 153–165.
• Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, C., Catalano, D. C. J., DeJong, K., Hackman, H. W., & Zuniga, X. (2018). Readings for diversity and social justice (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social work case studies: Foundation year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
• Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2003). Digital disabilities: The social construction of disability in a networked society. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Meadow, S. (2018). Disability as a social construct: Exploring social stereotypes and barriers. Journal of Disability Studies, 35(2), 101-115.
• Shakespeare, T. (2018). The social model of disability. In S. Barnartt & B. Scotch (Eds.), Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction (pp. 142-154). Sage Publications.