Learning_Disability,_Eugenics_and_the_Social_Model_Approach

Learning Disability can be traced back to classical Greek Society, with both Hippocrates and Galen referring to learning disabilities within their writings. At this point, there were no attempts to cure ‘idiocy’. Unlike those with physical impairments, children with ‘idiocy’ were not offered for sacrifice, since they were believed to lack a soul, this meant that infanticide was rare. However, those with learning disability were often forced into slavery (Quo Vadis, 2001). The terms ‘idiocy’ and ‘lunacy’ (used to describe those with learning disabilities or mental health problems) can be traced back to a 13th century legal doctrine, which dealt with the issues of property and title inheritance. ‘ this…doctrine distinguished those who were unfit to inherit because of supposedly innate mental incapacity from those who could be temporarily deprived of their inheritance while they were judged to be out of their minds’ (Rushton, 1988:36) From this it can be deduced that the labels were not created by medicine, they were a way of categorising people in order to assess whether they were worthy of their title or to inherit land. ‘Idiots’ were those with ‘innate mental incapacity’ whilst ‘lunatics’ were those who had been judged to be ‘temporarily out of their minds’. Rushton argues that those labeled ‘idiot’ were probably young dependants who were able to remain part of their community unless their caregivers become poverty stricken. On the other hand, ‘lunatics’ were adults and “were subject to a wide range of constraints, both domestic & institutional, and this confirms the basic idea of earlier theorists (such as Foucault) that lunacy, even when not actually dangerous, requires social control for the public good.” (Rushton, 1988) During this period, those with caring for ‘idiots’ or ‘lunatics’ were provided with relief by the parish council. In 1601 the Poor Law was introduced to replace that system. The Poor Law meant that every parish was assigned a ‘Justice of Peace’ who was given responsibility for local poor-relief within their parishes, which was primarily home-based. As part of the Poor Law, relief was given to those families affected by ‘idiocy’, which is seen as the first form of ‘community care’. The 1601 Poor Law was also instrumental in bringing about the rise of Poor Law Hospitals and asylums (Rushton, 1988). The institutionalisation of learning disabled people began with the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which introduced the concept of the workhouse. By the 1790s there were 127 workhouses in England. Workhouses favoured ‘idiots’ over ‘lunatics’ as they were better workers and generated lots of revenue for the owners. In some workhouses, ‘idiots’ counted for up to one third of the occupants. ‘lunatics’, who did not generate much income for the owners of the workhouses were sent to asylums. At this point, learning disability became a public issue that was dealt with by society, and was no longer a private family matter (Digby 1996, Gardiner and Wenborn 1995). It was in the workhouse were the segregation of learning disabled males and females first began to take place. One of the main motives for institutionalisation in the early decades of this century was an overriding fear that the ‘feebleminded’ would ‘repeat their type’ resulting in the ‘propagation of a degenerate stock’. There was particular concern about young women referred to as ‘high and medium grade’ who were presumed to be more immoral and fertile than other women. Residents were housed on separate sites of buildings to ensure that no mixing could take place which would therefore discourage any risk of sexual behaviour, and deny inmates an ‘adult’ relationship (Atkinson, 1997: 41 & 62). The fear of the ‘feebleminded repeating their type’ spurred the development of eugenics. Eugenics is defined as ‘the manipulation of the processes of evolutionary selection, in order to improve a particular genetic stock or population’ (Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, 2005). Eugenics can be traced back to Classical Greek society. In Plato’s republic society is improved by the selective breeding of the superior "Guardians" and courageous warriors. Selective Breeding, according to Plato, would create harmony in the state by producing ideal citizens (Museum of Disability, 2008). In 1866 Gregor Mendel published The Theory of Heredity. Mendel's work with strains of peas became the foundation for modern genetics. His work was later rediscovered and breeding experiments were done that produced results in animals' traits such as fur and eye color, and in hardier and more productive crops (Museum of Disability, 2008). Richard Dougdale who wrote ‘The Jukes’ in 1877 further examined the theory of heredity. The Jukes focused on the hereditary degeneracy of an upstate New York family. This work emphasized the "defects" passed on through the generations and the costs that society incurred as a result (Museum of Disability, 2008). Soon after the release of Dougdale’s work, Sir Francis Galton, a British psychologist first coined the term ‘eugenics’ and began to advocate the restrictions on the breeding of the ‘feeble-minded’. Once Galton’s theories had been widely accepted, his views on the restriction of breeding were later codified into law in America. The first Compulsory Sterilization Law was passed in Indiana in 1907, from then onwards another 30 states adopted laws on the compulsory sterilisation of ‘idiots’ (Museum of Disability, 2008). However, despite the growing popularity of the eugenics movement in Britain during the early 1930s, no sterilization policy was ever introduced. This was mainly due to the fear of increased promiscuity among those with learning disability, which could have resulted in the spread of venereal disease (Thomson, 1998). During the period of World War II, the Nazis began their T4 Programme, which sought to ‘cleanse’ the German gene pool through the enforced strerilisation of ‘imbeciles’. Adolf Hitler later authorised the systematic killing of 200,000 to 250,000 people with intellectual or physical disabilities (Burleigh in Kuntz, 2004). In the United Kingdom in 1998, 69% of all Health Authorities or Health Boards offered antenatal serum screening to all pregnant women in order to detect Down Syndrome (Stewart, 2000). A study conducted in 1992 found that 91–93% of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated (Mansfield, Hopfer, Marteau 1999). Even though there has never been a sterilization policy in Britain, many women with learning disabilities are ‘encouraged’ to get sterilised by their parents or carers after being convinced they could not look after a baby themselves. In addition to this, sexual relationships between learning disabled people are often discouraged. Eugenics is rooted in the medical model of disability as it sees those with impairments as ‘defective’ and that by placing limitations on their breeding and screening for those with genetic ‘abnormalities’, society can be made stronger. From a medical model perspective the ‘problem’ is with the individual, not with society (Thomson, 1998, Craft, 1994, Ellorre 2002). Materialists believe that this is not the case. They use the social model of disability to critique the eugenics movement. The social model of disability The “Social Model” accepts that impairment exists but it focuses on those social barriers that are constructed around impairment. Therefore, disability is regarded as “socially created” and the clarification of its changing character is located in the social and economic structure and culture of the society in which it is found. Instead of regarding disability as an individual limitation, the social model identifies society as “the problem” and looks to fundamental social and political changes to provide the “solutions” (Barnes et al 1993:3). From the social model perspective, the number of aborted found to have a learning disability and the number of learning disabled women being ‘encouraged’ into sterilisation would decrease with the removal of disabling barriers. Materialists believe that equality could be achieved for those with learning disabilities if improvements were made to welfare provision and more support was offered to families with learning disabled members. They also believe that improving access to mainstream education and employment could further help in the fight for equality and be instrumental in removing the attitudinal barriers faced by those with learning disabilities (Shakespeare,1998, Barnes et al 1993:3). Those critical of the social model approach to pre-natal screening believe that it takes away the woman’s ‘right to choose’ what is best for both them and the child. The mother might be concerned about the child suffering pain or about the risk of premature death. In these cases, those critical of the social model believe that a blanket discouragement of abortion following pre-natal screening is incorrect, and that other factors must be considered (Shakespeare, 1998). Throughout history those with learning disabilities have been subject to massive inequalities. From the early ages they have been forced into slavery, then following a brief spell of inclusion when they worked on their families land, they were institutionalised in the workhouse. From then on learning disabled people have been socially excluded and denied a life on an equal footing to their non-disabled counterparts. One consequence of this has been the segregation of learning disabled males and females to discourage sexual relationships and the continuance of ‘defective genes’. Further advances in eugenics have led to forced sterilisation and a high level of abortions due to pre-natal screening. From the social model perspective, the removal of disabling barriers faced by those with learning disabilities would enable them to live independently as equal members of society. The question of the ‘woman’s right to choose’ is one that will always be controversial, as it has been even outside of the disability movement. However, if the correct changes in policy and attitudes are achieved, the numbers of terminations should decrease dramatically and disabled people would be able to fulfill their potential as caring, responsible parents. Bibliography Atkinson D, Jackson M, Walmsley J, Forgotten Lives: Exploring the History or Learning Disability 1997, Worcestershire, VILD Publications Barnes, C, Mercer J, Shakespeare T, 2005 Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction, Cambridge, Polity Press Craft, A. 1994, Practice Issues in Sexuality and Learning Disabilities, London, Routledge Digby, A.1996, From Idiocy to Mental Deficiency: Historical Perspectives on People with Learning Disabilities, London, Routledge Gardiner J & Wenborn N. 1995, The History Today Companion to British History, London , Collins & Brown Kuntz, D. 2004, Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race, North Carolina, North Carolina Press Mansfield C, Hopfer, S, Marteau, T (1999). "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. Prenatal Diagnosis 19 (9): 808–812 The Museum of Disability, 2008, Eugenics Timeline – http://www.museumofdisability.org/html/exhibits/society/timeline_eugenics.html Rushton, P. 1988, Lunatics and Idiots: Mental Disability, The Community, and the Poor Law in North East England 1600-1800, Medical History, 32, pp34-50 Scott, J. Gordon, M. 2005 Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford, Oxford University Press Shakespeare, T. Choices and Rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality, Disability and Society, Vol. 13, No, 5, 1998 pp. 665-681 Sienkiewicz, H. 1997, Quo Vadis, New York, Hippocrene Books Thomson, M 1998, The Problem of Mental Deficiency: Eugenics, Democracy and Social Policy in Britain, c.1870- 1959, Oxford, Clarendon Press