Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SOCIOLOGY
Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164 brill.nl/coso
Introduction
Culture and Disability:
Advancing Comparative Research
Heinz-Dieter Meyer
State University of New York-Albany (SUNY),
EAPS, ED 316, Albany, NY 12222, USA
hmeyer@albany.edu
Abstract
Cultures differ greatly as to which specific conditions they recognize as a disability,
how they interpret matters of causation and consequence, and which kinds of
remedy they believe adequate. The papers in this special issue of Comparative
Sociology explore the institutional and cultural variation of disability as well as the
underlying causes, including a culture’s degree of individualism / collectivism.
Keywords
individualism, collectivism, religion, culture, institutions, disability policy
“A Babel of Discourses”
That disability research has disappeared from the mainstream of sociologi-
cal research is reflected, among other things, in the fact that in ten years
(1996–2006) two sociological flagship journals (American Journal of Soci-
ology and Annual Review of Sociology) carried not a single article with the
word “disability” in the title or abstract. Similarly, the 43 journals listed by
JSTOR as belonging to the sociology journal family list a total of ten arti-
cles for the same time period, eight of which appeared in two journals
( Journal of Health and Social Behavior ; Journal of Human Resources). In
other words, what little research on disability sociologists are publishing, is
crowded into narrow outlets quite a distance away from the sociological
mainstream.
The lack of sociological attention contrasts sharply with the abundance
of work carried out outside of sociology. Notice, for example, that there are
Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164 159
over 50 English language journals on disability. Also, the annual book pro-
duction on the topic is burgeoning. Amazon.com lists over 100 new books
with the keyword disability that were published in 2007 alone. But the
large quantity of attention paid to the subject is not reflective of theoretical
coherence or high resolution theorizing. Rather, the field resembles a
“Babel of discourses” (Williams 2003:125) in which highly specialized
work takes place in a fragmented environment without strong cumulative
effects. While some of sociology’s basic axioms have become standard ref-
erence points in disability studies of virtually any stripe – that disability is
socially constructed, that disability is readily subjected to processes of
dominance and exclusion – the sociology that informs disability research
seems often to end with the contributions from sociologists like Goffman
and Foucault. While the seminal contributions of these writers – question-
ing dominant conceptions of normalcy and inclusion/exclusion – have left
their mark on the field, other classical lines of sociological inquiry, espe-
cially those that require comparative approaches – culture, religion, institu-
tions, professions – have been plumbed less energetically and effectively.
Needless to say that these themes (of culture and institutions) are the
special, albeit not exclusive, province of comparative sociology. The papers
published here may thus be read both for the substantive insights they
offer individually, as well as for the direction to more systematic compara-
tive work in which they point.
collectivist cultures the claims of the group (family, peers, work group,
company, nation) trump those of the individual. In individualist cultures
an individual with a disability can be seen as a person who deserves partic-
ularly expansive assistance. In collectivist cultures, by contrast, the individ-
ual’s role is subordinate to the group, with the former owing lifelong loyalty
to the latter.
One of the interesting differences between more and less individualistic
cultures is a different weight given to the individual learner on the one
hand, and the group of individuals with similar disabilities on the other.
Germany (and to a lesser extent Japan) have traditions grown around what
Germans call “therapeutic pedagogy” (Heilpädagogik) (see Powell, this
issue). Therapeutic pedagogy focuses on the specific disability and the req-
uisite techniques. At the center of attention is not necessarily purely cogni-
tive learning, but the overall amelioration of a person’s quality of life. The
idea is to have national centers dedicated to most of the known learning
disabilities where cutting edge technologies and pedagogies are applied
and developed and, frequently, research undertaken. To the German or
Japanese observer this practice has nothing to do with ‘segregation’ of the
students, but rather with an optimal concentration of available knowledge
and resources. By contrast, in the American climate of “inclusion” such
specialized institutions are harder to legitimize. As I discuss below, for pol-
icy makers these are interesting tradeoffs between individual inclusion and
optimal pedagogical treatment in specialized institutions.
rights’ provides a more readily mobilized resource than the ‘quality educa-
tion for all’.
Modeling special education on anti-discrimination legislation prompted
by the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown versus Board, reflected
the assumption that only the highest levels of the political system could
secure effective education for special needs students. As with desegregation,
educators were not consulted or involved. The comparison with Finland – a
less individualistic country than the US with far lower litigation around
special education issues – suggests that educators are interested in results,
not formal rights. In the US the emphasis has been on ‘compliance’ with
the law, less so on the substantive improvement of the student’s abilities.
References
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inkeles, Alex and Masamichi Sasaki. 1995. Comparing Nations and Cultures: Readings in a
Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, Adam. (1776) 1937. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House.
Triandis, Harry C. 1990. “Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism.” In
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 37, edited by J.J. Berman. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Weizsäcker, Carl F. v. 1988. The Ambivalence of Progress, Essays on Historical Anthropology.
New York: Paragon.
Williams, Gareth. 2003. Theorizing Disability. Pp. 123–144 in Handbook of Disability
Studies. Sage Publications.