Recently, I tweeted a link to an eSchool News article on how technology is redefining disability. http://fb.me/w9QrLDLL. The title of my post, "Same-abled" is not a term we use often; Get used to it! “ didn’t sit quite right with one reader….
P.R. has sent you a message.
Subject: RE: "Same-abled" is not a term we use...
On 11/17/10 5:53 PM, P.R. wrote:
--------------------
Michael, “The article is
interesting, and I like the concept but I'm not crazy about the term
"Same-abled", it seems redundant (?). If we are all equally able,
then aren't we all just "able"? I do feel that "dis"abled
is too harsh and condemning, but differently-abled, or any of those other terms
seems to fit the bill. Obviously, my comment is of no great importance, I just
wondered what the thought is behind same-abled, maybe I'm missing something....
“
On 11/18/10 10:54 AM, Michael Leventhal wrote
--------------------
Not sure if I heard the term from
someone else, but “same-abled” popped into mind as I reflected on the article.
I regard ability as a spectrum of human potential, possessing with both breadth
and depth. Many are defined contextually. For example, being paraplegic might
not a disadvantage for someone with a desk job. But, being an air breather
stuck in a sinking automobile, certainly would.
Terms like blind, deaf, paraplegic, autistic are not as useful as they once
were in simpler times. Historically, these terms were both a diagnosis and a
conclusion (“Oh, he can’t read; he’s blind”). Today, many handicaps no longer prevent individuals from
participating in mainstream life (talking books for the blind, wheelchairs that
climb stairs, et. al.). Technology
enables ordinary folks to accomplish the miraculous (“If God wanted us to fly,
he would have given us wings”). But,
it also serves to solve a variety of contextual problems for those of us who
are not ordinary in all ways.
I hate the term “autistics”. I call my students Spectrum Kids. I rarely say “autism spectrum”; instead,
I say communication spectrum. Naming
disabilities is convenient for conversation. But describing what an individual needs in order to
accomplish a specific task is infinitely
more productive and encourages egalitarian thinking. Changing the language forces me to refocus on context. It also succeeded in getting you to
think about it too.
“Same-abled” implies a more level playing field. Not that we all bring equal talent to the game. Some players may out-run or our-score,
but nobody wins without teamwork.
Given time, technology empower almost anyone to participate.
In my upcoming Internet series, “The Wonderful World Of Pinky And The
Professor” I explore how specific technology is helping to “enable” autistics…
I mean au-tutes… ur, Spectrum-ites…. childhood schitzophrenics … disordersed…
pervasive developmental disordered… you know… those other kids.
P.R. has sent you a message.
Subject: RE: "Same-abled" is not a term we use...
Date: 11/18/2010
Thanks for the explanation. I like it!
So, you are not necessarily saying that we are all inherently
"same-abled", but more that "with proper accommodations, we can
all be same-abled". Obviously some are gifted with very few struggles, but
thanks to technology it is possible for each of us to have success, and each of
us are an integral part of our team.
Thank you again for the response. You are
correct; the story did make me stop and think!
(Deleted paragraph describing what a great teacher she thought I was. Et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera, thank you, Yul Brenner!)
Public attitudes about Special Needs mature as technology helps to “re-humanize” their image. Because societal attitudes lag behind new trends, P.R.’s comment is of great importance. I thank her for giving me a public opportunity to weigh-in on the topic. Hopefully discussions like this will help accelerate our climb to enlightenment.
Comments