Better Together - Denia Bradshaw
The sermon this past Sunday touched on topics that are very near and dear to me, particularly that of disability.
Having been involved with the disability community for over a decade now, I often use guiding questions to direct my work and approach. A few examples of these questions include: how might we be implicitly [and explicitly] stereotyping folks due to disability? Are we referring to folks via diagnosis or are applying person-first language (i.e. autistic person vs. person with autism)? Are we asking them what their preferences are on such language?
One of the first pieces I wrote about disability was in 2020. I wrote a guest blog entry for a friend entitled, “UDL and Dis/Ability.” I met this friend through our mutual disability advocate and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) networking circles during my dissertation journey. Based in Maine, Hilary Goldthwait Fowles is the name of that colleague and friend. Dr. Goldthwait Fowles is a certified Assistive Technology Professional (ATP) who focuses on removing learning obstacles by utilizing Assistive Technology and principles of UDL. With that in mind, I’d like to share a reworded excerpt from the guest blog post that outlines a framework I’ve embraced and continue to rely on:
Authors Annamma, Connor, and Ferri (2013) explain that they deliberately use the slash in “dis/ability” to challenge and disrupt conventional ideas of disability. As both a researcher and an emerging professional, I’ve chosen to adopt this as well, as a way to promote critical reflection on how society conceptualizes disability—a perspective aligned with DisCrit, or Disability Critical Race Studies. DisCrit is a theoretical approach that integrates elements of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Disability Studies (DS). Annamma et al. (2013) describe the use of the “/” as a tool to highlight the flawed belief that disability inherently implies an inability to meet “culturally-expected tasks,” reinforcing the notion that individuals are incapable of fully participating in society (p. 24). I’ve encountered such misconceptions throughout my life. As someone who grew up as an English language learner and a first-generation college student, my personal connection to disability comes through my youngest brother, who was born with a developmental dis/ability. In my younger years, I didn’t fully grasp what dis/ability meant, and I recognize that my understanding is still evolving. What remains constant, however, is my commitment to advocating for individuals with dis/abilities—work I feel deeply about and encouraged to continue.
Similar to what was discussed on Sunday, particularly the notion healing vs. curing – it is not us versus them, which perpetuates othering (like: wrong side, inferior). But rather, it is us with each other, which inherently encourages relation. It goes without saying, but a reminder nonetheless, that disability is a formulated societal construct created by an ableist system. And the “/” in dis/ability, along with the principles behind it, represent a deconstruction of harmful and outdated ways of thinking.
With the sermon in mind while also considering the framework of DisCrit, as explained above, how might you think differently of dis/ability? Where might you intentionally interrupt the notion of “disabled” conditioning in your day to day?
To God, no one is valued higher or lower due to ability. Certainly not human-made culturally-expected tasks. God asks of us to be humble and to think with sound-mindedness (Romans 12:3).
I am so grateful to be part of a church that not only honors diversity but actively lives into its values. One of those being: that we are better together.
If you are curious about the blog, you can find more entries here: https://hillaryhelpsulearn.com/blog/ and my post here: https://hillaryhelpsulearn.com/udl-and-dis-ability/
Annamma, S., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1-31.