Advertisement

The Metaphor of Civic Threat: Intellectual Disability and Education for Citizenship

  • Ashley TaylorEmail author
Chapter
  • 6 Downloads
Part of the Critical Studies of Education book series (CSOE, volume 12)

Abstract

The philosophical study of the role of schooling in preparing democratic citizens has tended to presume an able-minded learner. Dominant philosophical and theoretical models of democratic education consider neither the civic preparation of individuals with perceived intellectual disabilities in particular, nor the presumptions of able-mindedness that are built into theorizing about democracy and citizenship. As a result, democratic citizenship aims are frequently conceptualized according to an unevaluated assumption that civic preparation requires a particular level and display of intellectual ability, communicative competence, social independence, and behaviour. This unevaluated assumption parallels the presumed incompetence of individuals with perceived intellectual disabilities in other areas of education, a phenomenon that has been well documented by scholars of disability studies. This chapter builds on theory and research in Disability Studies in Education (DSE) and other areas of critical educational studies to challenge this assumption. In particular, I take up what Kliewer, Biklen, and Peterson refer to as the “metaphor” of intellectual disability, the sense in which “We do not literally see mental retardation; we infer its existence” (Kliewer et al. 2015, p. 22). I argue that this metaphor emerges within the context of citizenship education in particular and troubling ways. Intellectual ability—and disability—is actively constructed by and through gendered and racialized attachments to the notion of the ideal citizen. Individuals who are perceived to manifest undesirable differences in cognition, behaviour, communication, or performance appear to threaten notions of civic well-being, of nationhood, and of social reciprocity. In this sense, intellectual disability becomes a metaphor for civic threat. Consequently, educational theorizing around democratic citizenship education advances the metaphor of intellectual disability through a process of negation: the citizen is that which the person with intellectual disability is not or intellectual disability is that which is not citizenship. We do not see intellectual disability; we infer its existence through manifestations of non-citizenship.

Keywords

Intellectual disability Citizenship Independence Philosophy Dis/ability 

References

  1. Aspis, S. (1997). Self-advocacy for people with learning difficulties: Does it have a future? Disability & Society, 12(4), 647564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspis, S. (2002). Self-advocacy: Vested interests and misunderstandings. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baglieri, S., & Shapiro, A. (2012). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for creating least restrictive attitudes. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baynton, D. C. (2013). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. In L. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 17–33). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Carey, A. C. (2010). On the margins of citizenship: Intellectual disability and civil rights in twentieth-century America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chavez, L. R. (2013). The Latin threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clifford, S. (2012). Making disability public in deliberative democracy. Contemporary Political Theory, 11(2), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowley, D. M., & Bacon, J. K. (2013). Self-determination in schools: Reconstructing the concept through a disability studies framework. PowerPlay, 5(1), 463–489.Google Scholar
  10. Danforth, S. (2001). A Deweyan perspective on democracy and inquiry in the field of special education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(4), 270–280.Google Scholar
  11. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erevelles, N. (2002). (Im)Material citizens: Cognitive disability, race, and the politics of citizenship. Disability, Culture and Education, 1(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  13. Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2006). Reading resistance: Discourses of exclusion in desegregation & inclusion debates. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Greene, M. (2009). Teaching as possibility: A light in dark times. In S. L. Macrine (Ed.), Critical pedagogy in uncertain times: Hope and possibilities (pp. 135–149). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Introduction to Supported Decision-Making [Transcript]. (2014, April 30). The Jenny Hatch project. Retrieved from http://jennyhatchjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/043014_transcript.pdf
  18. Jones, A. (1999). The limits of cross-cultural dialogue: Pedagogy, desire, and absolution in the classroom. Educational Theory, 49(3), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kittay, E. F. (2001). When caring is just and justice is caring: Justice and mental retardation. Public Culture, 13(3), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kliewer, C., Fitzgerald, L. M., Meyer-Mork, J., Hartman, P., English-Sand, P., & Raschke, D. (2004). Citizenship for all in the literate community: An ethnography of young children with significant disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 373–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Peterson, A. J. (2015). At the end of intellectual disability. Harvard Educational Review, 85(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leake, D. W. (2014). Self-determination requires social capital, not just skills and knowledge. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 34–43.Google Scholar
  24. Levinson, M. (2003). Challenging deliberation. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGregor, C. (2004). Care(full) deliberation: A pedagogy for citizenship. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(2), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Minow, M. (2013). Universal design in education: Remaking all the difference. In A. S. Kanter & B. A. Ferri (Eds.), Righting educational wrongs: Disability studies in law and education (pp. 38–57). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pan, D. (2012, November 5). Protecting the voting rights of people with mental disabilities. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/voting-rights-mental-disabilities.
  29. Peterson, A. J. (2009). Shana’s story: The struggles, quandaries and pitfalls surrounding self-determination. Disability Studies Quarterly, 29(2).Google Scholar
  30. Popenoe, P. & Johnson, R. H. (1920 [1918]). Applied eugenics. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  31. Powers, L. E. (2005). Self-determination by individuals with severe disabilities: Limitations or excuses? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rood, C. E., Kanter, A., & Causton, J. (2015). Presumption of incompetence: The systematic assignment of guardianship within the transition process. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(4), 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rubin, S., Biklen, D., Kasa-Hendrickson, C., Kluth, P., Cardinal, D. N., & Broderick, A. (2001). Independence, participation, and the meaning of intellectual ability. Disability & Society, 16(3), 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schalock, R. L. (2011). The evolving understanding of the construct of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 36(4), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schweik, S. (2011). Disability and the normal body of the (native) citizen. Social Research, 78(2), 417–442.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, K. (2015, March 6). Posters on teenage pregnancy draw fire. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/nyregion/city-campaign-targeting-teenage-pregnancy-draws-criticism.html?_r=0
  37. Terzi, L. (2010). Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and Special Educational Needs. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  38. Trent, J. W., Jr. (1994). Inventing the feeble mind: A history of mental retardation in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vargas, T. (2013, August 2). Woman with Down syndrome prevails over parents in guardianship case. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/woman-with-down-syndrome-prevails-over-parents-in-guardianship-case/2013/08/02/4aec4692-fae3-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html.
  40. Wolbring, G. (2012). Citizenship education through ability expectation and “ableism” lens: The challenge of science and technology and disabled people. Educational Sciences, 2, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations