Hi to all list members,
There is a bit of work being done/having been done about intelligence and IQ
from a disability perspective. This is one line of research I was involved
with for several years and I've recently come back to it, albeit from a new
angle. Back in the early 90's (I can't believe it was that long ago!), I
presented a paper at SDS entitled, "Intelligence Testing as Body Ritual,"
(June 1993) in which I argued that intelligence testing is a form of ritual
and, more particularly, a form of body ritual. (The paper is in the 1993
proceedings.) When I tried to get it published, an anthropology journal
wouldn't publish it. Irv was supportive of the paper and asked me to submit
something related to his upcoming special issue of DSQ on genetics. My
argument, obviously, was that intelligence isn't necessarily a genetic
trait, rather it can be understood to be a construct used to control those
perceived as "deviant." This was in the days before The Bell Curve and the
uproar about that. I didn't know anyone else doing intelligence/IQ work and
I abandoned it for a while. If you can get back issues of DSQ, my paper
was entitled, "Intelligence Testing: Western Ontology and Control of
Perceived Deviance" (summer 1993). In those days, "deviance" and
"normalcy" were what many social scientists were attempting to deconstruct.
I didn't realize at that time that my work was consistent with disability
studies and that traditional publishing venues would not be receptive to my
work, so I muddled around a lot not knowing where to publish things and not
having any success with anthropology or education venues (my two
disciplines).
Recently, I decided to resurrect the original paper on intelligence and body
ritual and play with it a bit. The idea that intelligence can be
determined by a cultural ritual fits into my empirical research agenda, in
which I'm examining the conceptualizations of cognitive disability (I hate
the term but I haven't found one I like better) among South Asian Indian
Americans. My research team and I have found fascinating and significant
differences between South Asian and "Western" views of cognitive
disability/impairment.
I share all of this for two reasons. First, to inform fellow members that
some of us are doing work in this area. I agree with Shelly that the
disability studies community has long neglected people with cognitive
disability/impairment/whatever, though I'm not sure, Shelly, that I agree
with you that the social model is any more problematic for these folks than
it is for others.
Further, I'm unconvinced that calling someone else or one's self cognitively
impaired is any better or worse than using the term cognitively disabled.
Right now, I prefer disabled because it signifies that this is an individual
who experiences or is likely to experience oppression, discrimination,
labeling, etc., due to cognitive traits or what we assume from the outside
are "abnormal" cognitive traits. If impairment is used, I believe it allows
the speaker and listener to assume that cognition is somehow damaged or not
working properly without assuming there will be oppressive consequences. In
addition, it assumes the medical/psychological/educational diagnosis is
correct and that there is, in fact, an impairment. On the contrary, there
are many "false positives" or inaccurate diagnoses. In addition, even when
we might agree that a diagnosis is accurate, how can we be sure we aren't
just identifying human cognitive variation and calling it cognitive
impairment? Furhtermore, it seems to me to be inevitable that as soon as a
person is identified as cognitively "impaired," that individual immediately
becomes a very different person who experiences markedly different social
relations. In a sense, identifying someone as having impaired cognition
alters society's view of that body (or brain) in ways similar to tattooing
or body piercing: the tattooed, pierced, or IQ'd person is visibly
"different" and clearly "belongs" to group of other "different" people. In
this case, the person belongs to people whose brains "don't work right." My
argument is that as soon as a person is identified as such, and regardless
of what that person might be doing with his/her life, there is no choice in
the matter: that person is a disabled person.
Perhaps this is similar to what you are arguing, Shelly, and I just didn't
see it. I'd really like to hear more of your argument about this issue, on
or off list.
I also share this information because there may be someone out there doing
similar work who would like to collaborate in some way. If so, let me know!
Finally, a few years ago there was a good book published by an
anthropologist, F. A. Hanson, from the US. The text was an enormous help
to me and I strongly recommend it. I think it still holds up today. The
book is " Testing Testing: Social Consequences of the Examined Life,"
1993, University of California Press.
Susan Gabel, PhD
University of Michigan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|