Growing Up Disabled: Impairment, Familial Relationships and Identity

  • Brian Watermeyer
Chapter

Abstract

Psychology’s construction of the reverberations of disability in families has been heavily criticized for an inattention to contextual factors shaping broad family functioning, as well as responses to a disabled member. Psychoanalysis, in particular, has pathologized parental relationships with disabled children, emphasizing ideas such as loss, shame and ‘chronic sorrow’. Against a ‘social model’ backdrop, a family support model instead identifies avoidable, socially engendered disadvantage faced by families as a counter to individualizing (family) analyses. Meanwhile, growing interest in psycho-emotional aspects of disability has focused attention on internalized oppression, and hence disablist socialization. In any population, it is argued, the family is crucial in mediating the developing self, drawing attention to intra- as well as extra-familial variables. In this chapter, the author uses his own experience of inherited visual impairment to explore the divide between family-centred, politically aligned analyses of ‘disability families’, and psychological approaches curious about intra-psychic and relational implications of impairment. Conclusions are that these viewpoints both highlight and obscure essential elements of family experience, indicating the need for a new theoretical and political synthesis.

References

  1. Drotar, D., Baskiewicz, A., Irvin, N., Kennell, J., & Klaus, M. (1975). The Adaptation of Parents to a Birth of an Infant with a Congenital Malformation: A Hypothetical Model. Pediatrics, 56(5), 710–717.Google Scholar
  2. Ferguson, P. M. (2001). Mapping the Family: Disability Studies and the Exploration of Parental Response to Disability. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Finkelstein, V., & French, S. (1993). Towards a Psychology of Disability. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Forshaw, M. (2007). In Defence of Psychology: A Reply to Goodley and Lawthom (2005). Disability & Society, 22(6), 655–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. French, S. (1993). “Can You See the Rainbow?” The Roots of Denial. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Freud, S. (1916). Some Character-Types Met with in Psycho-Analytic Work: The Exceptions. In J. Strachey, A. Freud, A. Strachey, and A. Tyson. (Eds.), (1957) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIV (1914–1916): On the History of the Psychoanalytic Movement Papers on Metapsychology and Other Works. London: The Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frosh, S. (1991). Identity Crisis: Modernity, Psychoanalysis and the Self. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frosh, S. (2006). For and Against Psychoanalysis (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Goodley, D. (2011). Social Psychoanalytic Disability Studies. Disability & Society, 26(6), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/Ability Studies: Theorizing Disablism and Ableism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Goodley, D., & Lawthom, R. (Eds.). (2006). Disability and Psychology: Critical Introductions and Reflections. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, A., & Wideman, D. (1988). The Construction of Gender and Disability in Early Attachment. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture and Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hoggett, P. (1992). Partisans in an Uncertain World: The Psychoanalysis of Engagement. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  15. Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on Narcissism and Narcissistic Rage. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27, 360–400.Google Scholar
  16. Lasch, C. (1984). The Minimal Self: Psychical Survival in Troubled Times. London: Norton.Google Scholar
  17. MacKeith, R. (1973). Parental Reactions and Responses to a Handicapped Child. In F. Richardson (Ed.), Brain and Intelligence. Hyattsville: National Education Consultants.Google Scholar
  18. Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial Debates and Psychosocial Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Oliver, M. (1986). Social Policy and Disability: Some Theoretical Issues. Disability, Handicap and Society, 1, 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pinkerton, P. (1970). Parental Acceptance of the Handicapped Child. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 12(2), 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raphael-Leff, J. (1994). Imaginative Bodies of Childbearing: Visions and Revisions. In A. Erskine & D. Judd (Eds.), The Imaginative Body: Psychodynamic Therapy in Health Care. London: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Simpson, J., & Thomas, C. (2015). Clinical Psychology and Disability Studies: Bridging the Disciplinary Divide on Mental Health in Disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(14), 1299–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solnit, A. J., & Stark, M. H. (1961). Mourning and the Birth of a Defective Child. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 12, 523–537.Google Scholar
  24. Watermeyer, B. (2002). Blindness, Attachment and Self: Psychoanalysis and Ideology. Free Associations, 49, 335–352.Google Scholar
  25. Watermeyer, B. (2006). Disability and Psychoanalysis. In B. Watermeyer, L. Swartz, M. Schneider, T. Lorenzo, & M. Priestley (Eds.), Disability and Social Change: A South African Agenda. Pretoria: HSRC Press.Google Scholar
  26. Watermeyer, B. (2009). Claiming Loss in Disability. Disability & Society, 24(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watermeyer, B. (2012a). Is It Possible to Create a Politically Engaged, Contextual Psychology of Disability? Disability & Society, 27(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watermeyer, B. (2012b). Disability and Countertransference in Group Psychotherapy: Connecting Social Oppression with the Clinical Frame. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 62(3), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watermeyer, B. (2013). Towards a Contextual Psychology of Disablism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Watermeyer, B. (2014). Disability and Loss: The Psychological Commodification of Identity. Psychology Journal, 11(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
  31. Watermeyer, B. (2016). ‘I Don’t Have Time for an Emotional Life’: Marginalization, Dependency and Melancholic Suspension in Disability. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry. doi: 10.1007/S11013-016-9503-X.
  32. Watermeyer, B., & McKenzie, J. (2014). Mothers of Disabled Children: In Mourning or on the March? Journal of Social Work Practice, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2014.889103.
  33. Watermeyer, B., & Swartz, L. (2008). Conceptualising the Psycho-Emotional Aspects of Disability and Impairment: The Distortion of Personal and Psychic Boundaries. Disability & Society, 23(6), 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watermeyer, B., & Swartz, L. (2016). Disablism, Identity and Self: Discrimination as a Traumatic Assault on Subjectivity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. doi: 10.1002/casp.2266.
  35. Young, R. M. (1994). Mental Space. London: Process Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Watermeyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations