February 7, 2017 - 15:40
While reading Nielsen's telling of the country's history through the lens of disability, I was interested in how attitudes about disability related to the broader political/social/economic climate. I was surprised by the author's account of Coleridge's mental illness, particularly the lack of stigma surrounding this type of difference. It was intersting that the community used him for his teaching abilities at the same time as acknowledging that he had significant care needs. Nielson's account of this time seems to show a very economically 'pragmatic' view of disability that focused on the economic potential of each individual.
Nielsen's account of the post-revolutionary society suggested that the new focus on participatory democracy shifted the definition of who is able. Not only were people judged heavily on their ability to be an perform civic duties, but this criteria was used to exclude anyone who those in power viewed as deficient, whether or not that actually affected their ability to participate (for example women, but also, they denied that cognitivly disabled people could be true citizens of a democracy, which just isn't true). It seems that those in power were incredibly focused on ableness since they were worried about creating a sustainable society to show that they could be independent from Britian.
Other examples that Nielsen discusses of political/economic/social context shaping definitions of disability are the exemption of war-related injuries from many of the discriminatory attitudes surrounding disability, the definitions of disability that emerged surrounding industrialization and surrounding immigration, and the ways in which ideas of disability were used to justify oppression of African Americans as well as women.