Disability Culture Watch

The subject of adaptation seems to be everywhere lately.  First, it was discussed in a recent post on John Hockenberry’s Blog about a conference at MIT (of all places) about the impact that technology, engineering, and life sciences can have on the quality of every day life for disabled people.

And then adaptation was in the news.  On Tuesday June 26th, the New York Times devoted the entire “Science Times” section to evolution.  While there wasn’t a great deal written specifically about adaptation, the concept came up again and again.  And our esteemed colleague in Disability Studies, Ron Amundson of the University of Hawaii was mentioned in an essay about Charles Darwin.

And then, again, last week: adaptation at the bookstore.  I started thinking about it while at Barnes and Noble for the standing-room-only reading by Kenny Fries from his new book The History of My Shoes and the Evolution of Darwin’s Theory.  (Wheelchair users have a distinct advantage in standing-room-only crowds - is that an example of adaptation?)  Kenny’s book describes the development of the theory of “survival of the fittest” as articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and tells the story of the evolving consciousness of his own “adaptations” as represented by his ever-changing, made-to-order, orthopedic shoes.  I have not yet started to read Kenny’s book, but from the introduction I received at the reading, it is clear he is doing a brilliant Fries-style literary turn on Darwin.

These two disabled men - Fries and Hockenberry - are interested in the idea that adaptation is a critical lens through which to explore disability. I agree. One of compelling reasons to use this lens is the universality of the notion of human adaptation and social accommodation.  This is not a disability-specific idea: crutches to help a gimp walk better, or Braille to provide reading material in accessible format for someone who is blind.  But rather it is an idea about how all humans function in environments.

This is similar to the ideas that underlie the concept of universal design.  Take a look at the resources available at The Center for Universal Design at NC State University and at Adaptive Environments in Boston.

In Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity (NYU Press 1998), I cite geneticist Martha McClintock as an example of a scientist whose respect for individual difference and complexity stand in contrast to the typical bifurcation of characteristics or people into normal and abnormal: “McClintock believed that rather than dismiss aberrant members of a species that stray from the norm, it is more useful to see the difference as ‘evidence not of lawlessness or disorder but of a larger system of order, one that cannot be reduced to a single law.’ In an interview, McClintock said, ‘If [something] doesn’t fit, there’s a reason and you find out what it is.’ Rather than overlook difference, for example, by naming an anomalous kernel of corn “an exception, an aberration, a contaminant,” she worked to understand its place and function.”

In the sixth edition of Origin of the Species, Darwin, discusses various criticisms of his theory of natural selection that have come to light since the original publication.  He notes that a “distinguished German naturalist has asserted that the weakest part of my theory is that I consider all organic beings as imperfect: what I have really said is that all are not as perfect as they might have been in relation to their conditions.” (P. 288 The Origin of the Species, 6th edition, January 1872)

Here is an example of where Darwin shines as a very early proponent of the social model of disability.  Whereas the German naturalist interprets Darwin as finding imperfection in individuals, Darwin recognized that individuals “perfection” can only be understood in relation to their environment.

Darwin goes on to say: “Nor can organic beings, even if they were at one time perfectly adapted to their conditions of life, have remained so, when their conditions changed, unless they themselves likewise changed.” (PP. 288-289)

Theories and practices that promote adaptation, comfort and survival aren’t for a select group who are labeled “disabled.”  They shouldn’t be conceptualized as concessions provided for the few.  For example, flex-time schedules at workplaces aren’t solely for mothers of young children - they are to promote healthy, viable families.

Darwin, in the glossary provided in the Sixth edition, defines abnormal as: “Contrary to the general rule.” (P.317)  This is a time when use of genetic testing to discover what are considered anomalous or abnormal characteristics has become pro forma in most pregnancies in the United States (and many other places as well). Following such testing there is a growing practice of selective abortion based on those test results. As the reach and hold that genetic science has over the process of reproduction and the repairing of bodies grows, I am concerned that those with such characteristics will be increasingly disparaged and marginalized.  Certainly, in the present moment we are witnessing a growing belief, and a profitable industry which bolsters that belief, that imperfection is preventable or at least remediable.

It is because of this, and for many other reasons, that discussion of adaptation is critically important. “Survival of the fittest” means best fit of life forms and their environments.  Attempts to create human perfection is wrongheaded and prejudicial.  Instead, as a society we should focus on creating environments (physical, social, cultural etc) that increase survival, comfort and the active participation of all members of society.