Carey Passing and Intellectual Disability

Disability and Passing ' Blurring the Lines of Identity EDITED BY Jeffrey A. Brune Daniel J. Wilson ~ TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PRESS ~ Philadelphia Sociopolitical Contexts of Passing and Intellectual Disability •> 143 ment for the feebleminded, parents in the 1950s and '60s walked a far subtler line in recognizing the differences of their children and families while striving to pass as "normal;' or some approximation of it. Today, The Sociopolitical Contexts of the system is fraught with contradictory messages about passing. Mod Passing and Intellectual Disability els of self-advocacy and empowerment suggest that human variations should be respected and valued. The proliferation of disability identity constructions that are gradational, fluid, dynamic, and equal lessen the ALLISONC. CAREY incentives to pass, as well as the meaning of passing. However, typical patterns of socialization emphasize that value in American society is tied to one's status as a contributing, productive citizen, and many peo ple truly want to conform to that standard to the best of their ability. Still more problematic, extensive specialized systems, including special education, sheltered workshops, and segregated recreation, continue to create sharp distinctions between the able and the disabled, heightening the tensions around passing and removing people's choices about how to identify. NDIVIDUALSWITH DISABILITIESface an environment fraught with contradictions regarding whether one should try to pass as non disabled, develop disability pride and resist passing, or deconstruct Historical Analysis and disregard the binary construction of disability-ability altogether. The study of passing is often approached from the perspective of social EugenicAnxiety and the Panic over Passing psychology, involving a consideration of why and how individuals Much academic literature has tied the rise of eugenics and the associ engage in the active manipulation of their identity. However, the very ated panic regarding feeblemindedness to increasing anxiety over status notion of passing, and thereby individuals' experiences with and deci provoked by the social transformations that occurred in the late nine sions regarding passing, are shaped by the larger sociopolitical context teenth century and early twentieth century, including industrialization, and the way in which identity categories are socially constructed on a urbanization, and immigration. 1 In the midst of these social transfor macro level. By developing and applying a structural model of identity mations, eugenics-a pseudo-scientific endeavor to improve population and passing, we come to a greater understanding of the meanings of, quality-quickly became a tool to reinforce social stratification.2 Eugen the incentives for, and the likelihood of passing for people with intel icists rooted social problems of the day in individuals' biology and lectual disabilities in various time periods. claimed that defective people caused poverty, crime, and the moral In the early twentieth century, eugenicists feared that the "feeble decline of society generally. Based on this position, they commonly minded" would pass and spread an epidemic of mental degeneracy advocated measures to enforce social control and limit social change, throughout the nation. They constructed categories of "feebleminded" such as the restriction of immigration, the prohibition of miscegena and "fit" that were sharply demarcated, with rigid expectations regard tion, and the valorization of traditional gender roles.3 As the eugenics ing the behavior and abilities of people with disabilities, static views of movement grew, it increasingly focused attention on the threat of the disability that denied its dynamic nature, and intense inequality, all of feebleminded and advocated social policies such as institutionalization which heightened the relevance of passing. To then prevent passing, and sterilization to prevent feeblemindedness. 4 Feeblemindedness they relied heavily on extensive systems of identification and segrega served as a conceptually advantageous focal point for the politics of the tion. Unlike eugenicists who saw normality as an impossible achieve- eugenics movement for several reasons: it was widely assumed to be 144 <• Allison C. Carey Sociopolitical Contexts of Passing and Intellectual Disability •> 145 rooted in genetics and biology; it indicated biological, social, and moral programs could not improve the deficient nature of the feebleminded; inferiority; and it justified medical treatment or control and legal and education would be lost on them, and model housing would be turned social restrictions. By using an expansive and flexible definition of fee into slums "because we have these mentally defective people who can blemindedness, eugenicists could exercise tremendous control over a never be taught to live otherwise than as they have been living:•11 With wide variety of socially marginalized populations. 5 no hope of cure, social control and prevention were perceived as the As a mechanism to enforce control, eugenicists constructed the only effective answer. Feeblemindedness was therefore also imagined as identity category of feeblemindedness in particular ways to emphasize the identity characteristic of singular importance-a "master status" - the clear demarcations between the "feebleminded" and the "fit" and to that trumped all other identities, such as gender, race, profession, or enforce the consequences associated with feeblemindedness. First, they regional demographics, in shaping one's interactions and opportunities. drew thick boundaries around the categories of feebleminded and fit These characteristics of identity construction heightened the likeli citizens, depicting the feebleminded to be fundamentally different from hood that human variation would be perceived as "passing:' Because other citizens. Sharply bounded categorical constructions portray the these identity categories were seen as bounded, rigid, and static, there people within identity categories as totally different kinds of people, was no room to be both able and disabled. If one acted able, it was compared with quantitative constructions that assume a continuum of understood as a transgression and defined as "passing:•12 In fact, Edgar humanity so that differences are of degree, not kind. 6 According to Doll and Joseph Jastak, leading psychologists in this field, argued that eugenicists, the feebleminded lacked rationality, moral judgment, and people with mental deficiency could never be socially successful; suc the ability to achieve self-sufficiency; as such, they were at best a "bur cessful social adaptation defied the very definition of mental defi den" or a "dead load;' and at worst, they were a "social evil;' a "danger;' ciency.13 Therefore, social success indicated deception (passing) on the and a "menace:'7 Some eugenicists relied on war metaphors to heighten part of the person with a disability or misdiagnosis by experts. Given the the "otherness" of the feebleminded, while others compared them to prestige conferred on medical professionals, the more common assump a biological epidemic. 8 Thus, the proclamation by Alexander Johnson, a tion was deception. The person may seem to be successful, but passing leader in the field of social work and director at the Training School at was certain to end in failure due to his or her inherent limitations. Vineland, New Jersey, that feebleminded women constituted a "graver Eugenicists also explicitly tied the construction of feebleminded danger to the prosperity of the state than a foreign war or a native pes ness to the distribution of privilege. Feeblemindedness was not a neu tilence" is illustrative of eugenic rhetoric rather than exceptional in its tral descriptive category; it was laden with value and tied to a system of fervor:'9 norms, resources, and privileges.14 People labeled as such were poten Moreover, eugenicists depicted these identity categories as rigid, tially subject to a pervasive system of medical, legal, and social con static, and of singular importance. 10 Rigid constructions, versus mal trol.15 While some medical institutions offered treatment based on this leable ones, constrain the content of the categories, offering narrow diagnosis (and therefore the label or identity of feeblemindedness con views of the behavior, attitudes, and lifestyles associated with an iden nected one to a resource), most medical institutions operated as a form tity. Thus, eugenicists argued that the feebleminded were necessarily of social control and physical segregation in which inmates experienced immoral and unproductive and would fare best among their own kind neglect, abuse, and social, and civil "death:'16 Outside the medical insti rather than imagining a population with diverse interests, abilities, and tution, too, people labeled feebleminded experienced restrictions on potential lifestyles. Not only was the content of the identity rigid, it was the rights to marry, bear children, enter contracts, and vote. also static-or, in other words, unlikely to change over one's lifespan. Categorical constructions that enforce inferior access to power and Presented as a genetic disorder that impaired one's overall mental and privilege likely magnify the incentives for passing. 17 Because of the moral functioning, feeblemindedness was seen as without hope of cure incentives to pass and the desire to preserve the exclusive privileges or improvement. Along these lines, Henry Goddard,

Load more