Framing Disability: Comparing Individualist and Collectivist Societies

COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 165–181 brill.nl/coso Framing Disability: Comparing Individualist and Collectivist Societies Heinz-Dieter Meyer State University of New York-Albany (SUNY), EAPS, ED 316, Albany, NY 12222, USA [email protected] Abstract In this paper I use international diff erences in disability rates as a window to address the question how national culture infl uences a nation’s understanding and practice of disability. I apply the well-established distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures to explore the relationship between culture and disability rates. I argue and fi nd support for the hypothesis that individualistic cultures exhibit higher rates of disability. In the second part I add cultural and institutional detail to the account. While individualistic and collectivist cultures both value assistance to the disabled, only the Western individualist tradition pro- duces a rights-based approach to disability. Keywords individualism, collectivism, disability, education, comparative sociology Introduction Disability has become a worldwide concern. Over the past two decades a far-reaching consensus has emerged that non-recognition of a person’s disability is a major roadblock on the way toward full inclusion of all persons. However, the growing global awareness notwithstanding, disability con- tinues to be viewed diff erently by diff erent cultures and societies, a fact that is refl ected in disability rates that range from upwards of 14% in the USA to a low 2% in Singapore or Japan (see table 1). Understanding the causes of these disparities is important from both a theoretical and a policy perspective. Th e persistence of diff erent rates in © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156913210X12548146054985 166 H.-D. Meyer / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 165–181 Table 1 Individualism/Collectivism, SES, and disability Individualism HDI /SES Disabled Develop (% of age cohort) Mean 50.3 0.83 4.7 (S.D.) (24.7) (0.15) (5.6) Australia 90 0.93 7.0 Austria 55 0.96 6.4 Brazil 38 0.74 0.4 Canada† 80 0.98 6.9 Chile 23 0.86 2.2 China 20 0.72 3.0 Colombia 13 0.81 0.7 El Salvador 19 0.5 1.6 Finland 63 0.92 7.1 France 71 0.92 3.85 Germany 67 0.96 6.0 Greece 35 0.88 1.29 India 48 0.44 0.2 Italy 76 0.91 3.5 Japan 46 1.0 1.6 Mexico 30 0.78 1.76 Netherlands 80 0.98 4.5 New Zealand 79 0.94 11.0 Pakistan 14 0.42 0.5 Panama 11 0.8 1.3 Peru 16 0.64 1.3 Philippines 32 0.67 1.3 Singapore 20 0.9 0.4 S. Africa 65 0.73 0.5 Sweden 71 0.99 8.0 Switzerland 68 0.92 5.43 Th ailand 20 0.69 1.4 Turkey 37 0.75 0.31 UK 89 0.96 12.2 US 91 0.94 14.0 H.-D. Meyer / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 165–181 167 countries that are otherwise on comparable socio-economic trajectories poses an interesting challenge to theories of modernization and globaliza- tion, some of which predict a trend towards institutional convergence, especially in education. Hardly less important are the implications of a comparative analysis for social and education policy. For example, some argue that disability is ‘over-diagnosed’ in the US due to perverse incen- tives that reward parents, professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and even students for being classifi ed with a disability (Zernike 1997a, b). On the other hand, disability advocates argue that the comparatively high rate of diagnosis refl ects the successful struggle of disabled minorities to receive the kind of recognition and assistance that has long been due to them. Th ese diff erent views are refl ected in daily tugs of war over implementation. In the US there is hardly a school district that is not, at any given point, entangled in costly legal proceedings over what constitutes the ‘least restrictive environment’ for a particular student. Often, the controversy pits parents seeking specialized treatment for their child against school districts insisting that they are readily equipped to provide the ‘least restrictive’ environment for the student. Meanwhile parents of non-disabled students often complain that their children’s learning suff ers because of the many resources absorbed by special needs instruction. Despite these criti- cisms and misgivings, there is no serious challenge to the policy of inclusion and the standard of ‘least restrictive environment’ represented by the 1975 EAHC (Education for All Handicapped Children), later relabeled IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act). More importantly for this study, since the successful implementation of a new, rights-based disability policy in the United States, other countries with often very diff erent cultural tra- ditions are under pressure to follow suit. Disability as a Cultural Construct In light of its theoretical and practical import, cross-cultural research on disability and disability policy seems particularly promising. Because the idea of “disability” is so obviously shaped by cultural and societal norms and expectations, cross-cultural research should enable us to zero in on the assumptions and standards that enter into the process of social construction. Ruth Benedict (1934) in her paper “Anthropology and the Abnor- mal” argued that rather than dealing with questions of why abnormalities 168 H.-D. Meyer / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 165–181 occurred or how they could be treated, the whole notion of abnormality as a cultural phenomenon should instead be put under scrutiny. Similarly, Nora Groce (1999) points out: As an anthropologist, it is always tempting to list dozens of interesting exam- ples of the diff erent ways in which societies have interpreted what constitutes a disability and what it means to be disabled. However, it is equally important to establish some frameworks within which such beliefs and practices can be better understood. (1999:4) In this paper I explore the potential of a cross-cultural, comparative perspective to shed light on the cultural construction of disability. Drawing on the well-established distinction between “individualism” and “collectivism” (Triandis 1990; Hofstede 2001; Hofstede and Hofstede 2005; Schim- mack, Oishi and Diener 2005), I probe the viability of this cultural distinction to provide building blocks toward a more general analytical framework. Th e individualism / collectivism distinction refl ects a funda- mental issue that all cultures must resolve: how to weigh the claims of the individual self and those of the group, especially when both confl ict. Indi- vidualist cultures tend to give priority to the claims of the individual, refut- ing the idea that the group has legitimate claims over the individual. In collectivist cultures the claims of the group (family, peers, work group, company, nation) trump those of the individual. Avner Greif (1994) builds his defi nition of individualist and collectivist cultures around the concepts of integration and segregation. In a collectivist society “the social structure is ‘segregated’ in the sense that each individual socially and economically interacts mainly with members of a specifi c religious, ethnic or familial group . .” (913). Enforcement is achieved mainly through “ ‘informal’ economic and social institutions, and members of collectivist societies feel involved in the lives of other members of their group.” In individualist societies “the social structure is ‘integrated’ in the sense that economic transactions are conducted among people from diff erent groups and individuals shift frequently from one group to another” (913). In an individualistic culture a person with a disability would thus be seen as someone to be integrated. In collectivist cultures, by contrast, the disabled person can more likely expect to be segregated from the larger community in subordination to the group. For the case of individuals with a disability, this diff erence might be refl ected thusly: H.-D. Meyer / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 165–181 169 Table 2 Individualist and collectivist orientations to disability Macro-Level Micro-Level Individualist Cultures Integration: inclusion Personalized through equal rights accommodation and support Collectivist Cultures segregation: Shunning, avoiding, disability=problem of outcasting primordial group and/or special segregated institutions However, on another interpretation, one might arrive at the reverse predic- tion. Individualism can also be seen as characteristic of a society in which each pursues his or her self-interest, leaving the weak to their own fate. By contrast, collectivist cultures might be seen as those in which the group cares for the needy member. As we shall see, this alternative hypothesis is not supported by the available data, although it points to the ambivalence of cultural orientations vis-à-vis the disabled. Data In the next section, I use data on the incidence of disability among school- age children along with data from Geert Hofstede’s (2001) study of cross- cultural diff erences to test the hypothesis that individualist cultures exhibit a higher recognition of disability than collectivist ones. In the third section I deepen the analysis by adding cultural and institutional detail for the United States and Japan. Individualism / Collectivism To test the hypothesis I draw on data about global culture diff erences and OECD / UN data on disability and development. Hofstede’s well-known cross-cultural data include individualism / collectivism as one of four major dimensions, the other three being power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity / feminity (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). While not without detractors (Mcsweeney 2002), Hofstede’s are the only data which 170 H.-D. Meyer / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 165–181 include a large number of the world’s nations and are accepted by many students of national culture. In table 1, high values in column 2 (Individu- alism) refl ect a focus on individualism and low values refl ect a collectivist orientation.

Load more