So, How The Hell ARE We Supposed To Treat Mentally Handicapped People?

It seems to me the modern western world doesn't know where it's **** is at when it comes to the mentally challenged, retarded, functionally impaired, or whatever else the 'acceptable' term is now. We're in moral limbo over them, and in the meantime the only way people are willing to approach the problem is by arguing over which terms are most proper to refer to them by.

The real problem, of course, is not what we're allowed to call them. It's how we're expected to feel about them, talk about them and treat them - this last one most of all. We can't seem to decide whether they should be treated equally or preferentially.

The conflict is best summed up in the South Park episode 'Timmy', which introduced the titular character as a retarded 4th-grader who becomes a member of a popular rock band and sings by simply shouting his own name repeatedly. Responses to the band are polarised: some people say "They're exploiting him! He has no idea what he's doing, they're just laughing at him, it's sadistic!"; others say "It's cool, he sounds good and he's obviously enjoying himself, so what's the problem?"

It's a really good thought-provoking episode, I recommend it.

So the question is: should retarded* people be protected from public exposure, attention and limelight, or should they be treated indiscriminately, neither one way nor the other, and allowed to attract attention, achieve fame, be featured and subjected to the public spotlight?

Documentaries featuring retarded people draw very high ratings. Is it because people are just laughing at them, revelling in their oddities like they're circus attractions, or is it a genuinely compassionate interest and curiosity? If a retarded person accurately portrays someone with a similar condition to theirs in an acting role in TV or cinema, are they being exploited or not? Is it inappropriate and wrong to want to know about mental disabilities and to see the people who suffer from them? Is it more appropriate to stare, or to look away? Is it reasonable to expect people to do neither?

We don't seem to be able to decide. There's a conflict between our necessary, unmovable principle that all humans are equal and the self-evident empirical fact that retarded people are not like other people. How should they be regarded, how should the media and arts treat them? How do you regard them and want them to be treated by society?

*Yeah, I use this term, since I have little patience for the euphemism treadmill. I use it respectfully and without bias, because to my mind it's as accurate as any other; if it offends you, explain why, and I'll edit it over with another term you deem appropriate.

 

Equal to oneself.

 

South park is well known for the moral high ground it treads

We should treat them as they require to be treated to be honest. If they need special attention, if thats what they need then thats what they need.

People are always going to stare or look at what is unfamiliar to them. When white folk go to some parts of india they get stared at merely because they havent seen a white person before. Its entirely acceptable (though not PC, but PC is frankly retarded... excuse the pun ) and human nature to examine and look at the unfamiliar, its part of who we are and its part of how we learn.

For example, I used to walk past a school for the blind on my way into University. At first I would be quite interested in how they used their canes or dogs to find their way around, but by the end it wasnt really so interesting. Why should I have ignored my opportunity to learn ? Was it wrong of me to watch ?

Treat them how the need to be treated, but dont feel guilty for learning from the unfamiliar.

edit: also, dont everybody give the "treat them equal to yourself" reply, because you dont need special care. For example, if aperson with tourettes came up to you on the street and called you a dickhead, would you smash their face in if you were aware they had tourettes? No, special treatment. Would you not include disability ramps in your business because you wanted to treat all wheelchair bound people equally? No, special treatment.

Treat them equally in the way that they are human, but when it comes to practicality they do sometimes need extra attention or special circumstances.

edit2: that image is from cripple fight, not timmey 2000

 

Can't disagree with any of that really. Oh, and yeah, I know it's from a different (and even more un-PC) episode, but it just suited the topic so well

It's true that their needs should be met. You'd have to be seriously strange to say they shouldn't be. But what of the issue of mentally retarded people becoming famous? That's a more interesting one, to me. Is it just voyeurism at their mental handicaps that makes them popular - and if so, is that reason enough to say they shouldn't carry on with it? If they can't understand what it is they're doing, or are famous for unintentional qualities, should they be stopped from doing it? On the flip-side, is it discriminatory to stop them from pursuing a public-image career? Is it considerate or insulting to discourage mentally retarded people from exposing themselves to massive audiences in music, film and television?

 

hey if they can do something special, why not? you see plenty of no talents making money anymore.. but severely retarded, I'm sorry I just can't see it.. check out this guy on youtube- he's seriously funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V8VaJL-s3Q

 

At my local store they have a mentally handicap person who take the cart inside. TBH I laugh at the things he says and does but not at him, I'm not mean nor is anyone else. If he screams HELLO from across the parking lot you yell HELLO right back and so does everyone else

 

Plus, sometimes although they're "disabled" they may get along just as well as you:



And yes, he is permanently in need of those crutches.

 

I've always treated them the same as I would treat another non-retarded person. I also do not see the harm of calling them retarded, etc as that is the definition of the word, I don't say it in a negative way, it's just what the word exists, and is used, for.

However, if I encounter someone who requires a bit more attention due to w/e retardation/problem they have then obviously I'll treat em in a way to properly (or as best as I can) compensate for said attention requirement.

I've always laughed and found people who get all offended when you call a retarded person retarded to be silly & stupid. They are what they are and are defined as such by modern language in this way. Obviously you can say it with positive/negative connotations but that's a different topic.

On the other hand, I also have a very different opinion where I would rather not be alive if I were to have a mental/physical retardation as I wouldn't want to not be able to experience life the way I do now.

 

I try to treat people as an equal to myself or anyone i meet. Whether they be handicapped, gay, transsexual, or anything else that is commonly considered a taboo. If someone needs special attention ( I have a 50yr old aunt with Down Syndrome) I will give it to them but treat them in all other aspects as an equal.

In the end it comes down to what you make out of it

 

A useful concept in this discussion is perhaps that of "normalisation". It was a driving philosophy behind the integration of the learning disabled into society in the 70's and 80's.

Baldwin (1985) gives a historical overview of how it has evolved. He notes that the first definitional statement was provided in 1969 as:

which was later refined to:

Wolfensberger (1972), emphasising how disabled people are often perceived negatively, elaborated the concept of normalisation further to encompass the development for disabled people of socially valued roles in their community, and redefined it as:

The "American" version (Wolfensberger) reasoned that the learning disabled should be trained to adopt socially valued norms and patterns to promote integration in society. Basically: "Be like 'normal' people".

the "Scandinavian" version (Nirje) reasoned that the learning disabled should be enabled to attain a human everyday existence equal to that which is attainable for other members of society. Basically: "Be all you can be".

In Wolfensberger’s framework of normalisation it is others’ judgements or attitudes about a person’s learning disability which causes that person to be labelled as deviant (i.e. different from the social norm in a negative sense) and thus to be socially devalued. This has consequences for the way in which other members of society interact with him, and the physical environment in which he ends up living. It thus leads to further marginalisation and deviant behaviour as the person finds himself in the social role and environment which society has assigned to him. In Wolfensberger’s view the aim of normalisation is to change society’s perception of learning disabled people; this involves changing, i.e. adding socially perceived value, to those factors which govern this perception, such as their environment, the language used to describe them, but also their social roles. Of primary importance in this “social role valorisation” is the attainment of non-deviant, or normative behaviour.

Briton (1979) notes that Nirje (1970), in his definition of normalisation, is explicit that the life conditions to be attained, although having benefits in terms of behaviour and adaptation, are valued in themselves because they represent “a decent interpretation of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (p. 63). Furthermore, as a learning disabled person like anyone else, has his identity defined through the circumstances and conditions of his existence, the benefit of these life conditions is an enhanced quality of self-experience. This is to be valued in itself given that we value persons. The development of self-regard in turn fosters a degree of self-control. The relationship between benefits, then, is as follows: enhanced life conditions result in an enhanced self-experience, which in turn results in enhanced behaviour, and all three are of value in themselves. From this also follows that Nirje regards normalised behaviour to be a more functional and varied behaviour repertoire with more freedom of choice, action and response, rather than “acceptable” or stigma-free behaviour.

Briton also points out that, in contrast to Nirje’s view, Wolfensberger’s approach aims to change the style of behaviour of learning disabled people rather than enhancing its repertoire. Furthermore, normative behaviour is considered to be behaviour that is regarded by society as socially valued and acceptable. This, of course, often entails a distinction between what is socially valued and acceptable for people in general, and for learning disabled people in particular (e.g. sexual intercourse, parenthood etc.), and Wolfensberger appears to go along in making that distinction for the sake of social acceptance.

Wolfenberger’s principle of social role valorisation has four “traps” however (borrowing the cognitive-analytical connotation of the word):

Trap no. 1: to be is not to be.

While the social role valorisation of learning disabled people as a group is likely to enhance their lives to some extent, issues of immediate relevance for their personal wellbeing, e.g. happiness and personal choice become secondary to the social status of the group as a whole. Wolfensberger appears to sacrifice individual choice for social acceptance of the group as a whole, stating that “the right not to be institutionalised or segregated… is really a bigger issue than the restriction of individual choice” (Wolfensberger, 1980; p93) –given the life conditions in former institutions, it might have seemed a small price to pay. Bayley (1991) however argues that the concept of socially valued roles for people with learning disabilities is in danger of failing to support their personal needs, desires and valuable characteristics. The onus is on their conforming rather than unconditional acceptance of them as fellow human beings (and individuals in their own right). That this can happen at the expense of their self-experience is illustrated, for instance, in cases of the “savant” syndrome; people may become so enamoured with, and encourage the development of a particular socially valued exceptional skill in a learning disabled person, that his needs in other areas of his life are neglected; his self-actualisation as a whole person suffers (Barnes and Earnshaw, 1995).


Trap no. 2: going in circles.

In response to the above argument the point can be made, of course, that all members of society experience some restriction of personal choice and gratification for the sake of social acceptance and conformity, and learn to comply with most social norms and values as a matter of course. This is however a matter of degree: society often makes a distinction between what is acceptable for learning disabled people in particular as opposed to people in general (e.g. Brown, 1994). It is for instance not generally accepted for learning disabled people to pursue sexual intercourse, marriage, or procreation and parenthood, important rights able people take for granted. It could therefore be argued that we are back to square one: the leaning disabled person is still seen to be, and treated, as different in a negative way by society. On that basis he is denied certain aspects of life that are available to the rest of society, and forced to act out a particular social role assigned to him.


Trap no. 3: having to do it all.

But even if society does not make that distinction, there is a trap. Eayrs and Ellis (1990) for example, found that the commitment to give money to charity organisations for the learning disabled was positively associated with advertisement posters portraying them as helpless, dependent and different in a negative sense, thus eliciting sympathy, guilt and pity; it was negatively associated with posters which portrayed learning disabled people as persons with the same value, rights and capabilities as non-disabled people. The problem with Wolfensberger’s approach is that we cannot have it both ways: the more people with learning disabilities are perceived to be normal, the less tolerant the public will be of their special needs in society, and the special services that are provided for them. The problem with the endeavour for learning disabled people to adopt socially valued and accepted roles to become part of society, is that it requires them to adopt all socially valued and accepted roles, including those of socio-economic success, intellectual achievement and self-sufficiency in the same way able people are expected to. After all, in our society which values (mostly intellectual) ability, achievement and independence, people normally are expected to look after themselves, and to ‘earn’ a life in a meritocracy where one has to “work for a living”.


Trap no. 4: having to be equal to become equal.

In ignoring learning disabled people’s individuality, the tendency is to discuss them as a homogenous group that is assumed to have sufficient ability to acquire relevant socially accepted or valued behaviour, and to adopt socially valued roles. However learning disability expresses itself not as a uniform characteristic which is shared by a particular, uniform group of people (i.e. the ‘learning disabled’) but as something that manifests itself in varying degrees, and in different, unique ways, in certain individuals. As much as Wolfenberger himself warns against making the assumption “that handicapped people are not handicapped... and that every handicapped person could do and be almost anything if only provided with sufficient role expectancy and opportunity” (p97), social role valorisation does not account for those with very severe learning disabilities, who function at a level that may largely preclude this process from happening. The risk is that severely learning disabled people who cannot meet these expectations will thus continue to be marginalised.

The onus cannot be put on the learning disabled person to integrate into society; society needs to accommodate learning disabled people. It is society as a whole that needs to change its beliefs, of what makes a person worthwhile and a life valued.

(Yes, this is ripped straight from an essay I once wrote on the subject. )

 

That's one heavy post Pretty well sums up the problem of social integration of retarded people into conventional modern society, too, but it didn't come around to the problem I'm still hung up on - the ethics surrounding retarded people adopting entertainment-oriented roles such as acting and musical performance.

Increasingly, I feel that it just doesn't matter either way - perhaps the ratings are the only governing law. Physically and mentally retarded people attract viewers to a programme, film or musical act for both good and bad reasons - some people are genuinely interested and enjoy it for what it is, others are voyeurs who relish the spectacle of people who are different to themselves. Since there's no way to distinguish or ensure one occurs and the other doesn't, perhaps we should ignore the distinction and say that all interest in retarded actors/musicians is morally acceptable.

Thing is, I think that would ultimately lead to exploitative and disrespectful media, most particularly TV programmes. I'm reminded of the way entire documentaries were made about Michael Jackson, not when he was at the peak of his career, but when he had fallen from grace and become a circus freak in the public eye - when the documentary would draw the highest ratings for all the wrong reasons. Similarly with plastic surgery - once executives realised that people would watch anything if it was shocking or explicit, the documentaries on plastic surgery and cosmetics grew increasingly obscene, graphic and leering in attitude.

Similarly, I can imagine a niche developing in TV shows about, or featuring, retarded people wherein respect and discretion is no longer a high priority and the actors and/or documentary focii are chosen for their voyeuristic value more than anything else (much the way reality TV shows changed in their selection of candidates).

 

Well, let's reframe the question: is retarded people adopting entertainment-oriented (or arts oriented) roles a manifestation of "normalisation" in the 'American' (Wolfensberger's) sense, or in the 'Scandinavian' (Nirje's) sense?

Or to put it more concretely: are retarded people encouraged into entertainment/arts roles because that is the basis on which they are socially accepted in society, or does it just happen to be an area in which talented retarded people can truly actualise their talents just as much as other, able people are able to (i.e. it is a level playing field)?

Perhaps it is a Wolfenberger's phenomenon: the retarded person as freak show. It's OK for them to sing and dance for our entertainment, and we can feel noble about letting them play with the adults and tossing them some gold. Or to exhibit some exceptional talent as painter or musician so we can marvel at this noble savage; such fine human qualities shining through the mud of worldy wretchedness and adversity and in doing so seeming all the brighter. They reflect the best of humanity, those angels unaware, and we put them on pedestals to worship as fine objets d'art of nature.

A bit like we did women and children in the Victorian age: women as chaste, senstive and delicate beauties to be protected and controlled by men because after all they are not that bright, the poor dears, and they wouldn't manage on their own; and children as pure, innocent and without pretention or deceit, but morally naive, to be guided by a firm hand to become upstanding citizens carrying on the family name (and wealth). Of course in reality women were treated as so much cattle: good breeding stock for the next generation, workhorses for all the unpleasant labour or butchered on the block of men's lustfulness. Children were sent up the chimney as they could reach the tight spaces, or into the sweat shops as their delicate hands were good at making fine lace.

Perhaps we can look at it Nirje's way. Perhaps the performing arts, always the bohemian, is one area in which pure talent and originality matters more than intellect, education or social status, and in which the human playing field is really levelled. Look at Tracy Emin.

But I suspect we would be kidding ourselves. We all know how art is twisted by pretention, and becomes what the bored-and-wealthy want it to be (see Damien Hirst: he is a talented artist but it is his lambs-in-fishtanks that make the big bucks). And for the masses, modern entertainment hardly requires any talent or ability at all: look at big Brother. How is that different from any other freakshow? Instead of laughing at the intellectually damaged, we laugh at the emotionally damaged. We may even put some of them on a pedestal for personifying those fine human qualities of unpretentiousness and the pursuit of dreams, even if we think that they are none too bright and a bit naive, the poor dears (they need someone like Max Clifford to look after them...).

But if woe betide them if they ever show themselves to be real humans with weaknesses, desires and less pleasant qualities just like the rest of us, especially when they actually become more successful than us. We all know how people felt about Jade Goody. We all know how people feel about learning disabled people wanting to have sex or children. They are allowed to dress up and pretend to be adults; we think it looks kinda cute --they are so innocently naive, and yet can be so right on the money in their observations. But we won't allow them to be adults.

 

PMSL!!

Nice find, he's the guy from the Visa adverts on the telly over here at the mo.

Defo. Any disability is at the thin end of a bell curve somewhere, the vast majority of people have never encountered or interacted with mentally handicapped people, this unfamiliarity can make people socially uncomfortable around them as they've no idea what to do. I guess a strong feeling of empathic concern towards the individual is natural for some, intrigue for others.
I think its a given for people to be unsure how they should react, but i don't think individuals can be blamed for this. Society as a whole needs more education/familiarity/empathy with all aspects of disability. It sound cheesey but behind every disability is a person, and people are all different, there couldn't be a "one size fits all" approach towards them.

Phew!! thought you we're some sort of uber-words-per-min typer!

 

That's the whole solution, right there: acceptance (even celebration) of the fact that people are all different, but equal in value.

Ain't going to happen any time soon, though. In the end we're no more than barbarians with iPods.

 

My brother has spina bifita and through his school Ive worked with severly handicaped children and young adults. Ive often though about how I act towards different people. Ill give an example of what I mean. A good few years ago when me and my brother what at a meeting in our church. The was one black guy there (whos name eludes me at this time) whom brother refered to as "my cholocate friend". It was a term of endearment rather than a put down. It came about from him not being able to remember his name and both my brother and the guy got on very well. The point im making isn't the actual words used but the context. Theres often times my brother runs into my shins and ill threaten to put him on bricks or kick him (usually then he grabs his leg and kicks back) but like everyone else he like the banter. I found that out through the club in his school, that watching what your saying makes you act withdrawn and is therefore more "raciest". It is humans we're talking about, human to human interaction, not something in a jar/test tube that is to be held up. Treat them like any other person. I wouldn't really say its special treatment, after all if a friend needs help you (usually) help, he mightn't need help with feeding himself or getting dressed (depending on the night before) but not everyone needs the same thing. If you understand what im getting at

 

That's a quote for the ages right there.

 

lol nexxo is so deep =] there's a mentally handicapped guy that works up at the theater here in clovis.. my girlfriend was assistant manager there before she was a teacher and we used to run into him alot (cause they worked together).. anyways he used to do some crazy stuff like have jam all over his face.. and there were a couple of teenage girls that worked there, would tell him they would be his girlfriend if he could get a toy out of the machine that grabs the stuft animals XD he was a big perv.. it was actually quite amusing some of the one liners he would use on girls comming into the theater

but you know what.. after putting his parents through hell and running up thousands of dollars in 1-900 sex lines.. he has a mentally handicapped girlfriend now and if you walked up to him- you wouldn't even know he was retarded (until he says something)

all I can say is there's some normal people who have accomplished less than him.. like barack rofl j/k barrack you know I love you XD

 

well put.

 

Illustrates my point nicely. Mentally disabled people are often not given sex education and social skills training because it is presumed that sex is not appropriate for them. But they have the same urges and desires as anyone else. When they then are expressed in inappropriate ways people say: "See? I told you that they can't handle sexuality...". Self-fulfilling prophecy, right there. But when they are taught about these matters they can develop appropriate behaviours and pursue appropriate relationships like the rest of us.

 

You're more right than you might think; under English law medical staff can police and interfere with attempts by their charges to have any form of sexual relationship. This is because of dubious issues relating to the validity of the consent of the mentally disabled; if they're not 'normal' (and believe me, the legal definition of 'abnormal' is vague as hell) it's questionable whether they're really capable of consenting to sex. [This is much worse elsewhere - in the US, I think, parents recently successfully applied to have their daughter's development (she is 12, with a mental age of 3) halted so she would remain manageable for them. That, essentially, was sabotaging her puberty so she wouldn't tempt pervy doctors with T&A, and making sure she stayed small enough to be carried around.] We need to take a long, hard look at our system here, and decide what tough decisions have to be made.

This is why, cringeworthy as it was, I stand by the English adoptive mother who advertised for a girlfriend for her disabled son - after all, why shouldn't he be allowed to enjoy making himself look stupid, just like the rest of mankind when trying to attract partners? Just because it offends our sensibilities doesn't mean it's immoral or wrong...