As Tobin Seibers discusses in “Disability in Theory”, the social constructionist model of viewing disability implies that the body itself is a social construction; further, our overall views of the body are dictated by society’s standards of normality and physical ideals. While Seibers also presents counterarguments to using this theory in the context of disability studies, I still believe that its central points are applicable to this field and can enrich our studies of disability as a part of our society.
The main point of social constructionism is that all of our ideals and standards, what we consider “normal”, is influenced by our society as a whole. When changing the societal context in which we view a certain body, the actual view of that body is altered accordingly as well. As Seibers wrote in his article, “In a society of wheelchair users, stairs would be nonexistent,” (p. 174). This is a simple example which reinforces the discussions our class has been having for over a month, that an individual is not disabled until their society makes it so. As a personal example, I am incredibly nearsighted, and depend fully on glasses and contacts to navigate my world. If I lived in a society in which these resources were inaccessible or considered abnormal, I would be disabled; however, since this is not the case in our society, I merely have a vision impairment, which is easily adapted into my life. This again shows the dependence we have on our society to determine how our bodies are viewed, treated, and accepted (or not).
In addition to this, I felt that Sheila Black’s poem “What You Mourn,” spoke volumes to the conversation which Seibers has in “Disability in Theory,” and ultimately reinforces the strength of social constructionism as a theoretical argument in disability studies. While the poem’s narrator has a physical disability which has been “fixed,” the narrator themself is mourning the body they were born with. Regardless of how their physical impairments made “normal” activities difficult or impossible for them, the narrator is speaking of their disabled body as a lost love of sorts. In response to the societal voices which called their body “crippled… disabled and then differently abled,” the narrator explains that these labels were given from an external point of view, from people who had never shared the narrator’s experiences. In discussing the ongoing commentary about their body, the narrator explains that “none of [these outsiders] could imagine / that the crooked body they spoke of / … was simply mine.” Here the narrator is saying that their disabled body had inherent value despite their society saying that it didn’t; instead of looking at their impairments as flaws in need of perfecting, they saw them as unique differences which enhanced their value. At the poem’s conclusion, the narrator compares loving their unique and “abnormal” body to one loving one’s country, including “the familiar lay of the land, the unkempt trees, / …down to the nameless / flowers at your feet.” Regardless of how society views the physically impaired body, this poem allows us to view this situation from the perspective of someone who values their supposedly disabled and undesirable body, and ultimately ties in perfectly with the theory of social constructionism by showing that societal views of the body are not universal.
Word Count: 553
