Blandy, 1991 Conceptions of Disability: Toward A Sociopolitical Orientation To Disability For Art Education

National Art Education Association
Conceptions of Disability: Toward a Sociopolitical Orientation to Disability for Art Education Author(s): Doug Blandy Source: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Spring, 1991), pp. 131-144 Published by: National Art Education Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320684 . Accessed: 12/07/2013 06:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in Art Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 155.207.206.132 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:29:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STUDIES in Art Education A Journal of Issues and Research 1991, 32 (3) 131-144
Copyright by the National Art Education Association
Conceptions of Disability:Toward a Sociopolitical Orientation to Disability for Art Education

Doug Blandy
University of Oregon
People experiencing disabilities are gaining recognition as members of a minority group deserving equal protection under the law. With this recognition comes a changing perception of disability as a condition not inherent in people, but characteristic of the potential impact of human-made environments on people. This article explores a sociopolitical theory upon which this shift is founded. The evolution of this shift in art education is explored. Recommendations for art education research and practice with a sociopolitical orientation to disability are discussed.
In 1990, the United States Congress approved antidiscrimination legislation protecting 43 million people experiencing disabilities.1 This legislation, sometimes referred to as the "Americans with Disabilities Act," grants people experiencing disabilities access to public-, and private-sector employment, buildings, transportation, and communications services. In doing this, it equates discrimination against people experiencing disabilities with discrimination based on gender, race, or religion. This legislation recognizes people experiencing disabilities as a minority group deserving equal protection under the law. This act passed, due, in large part, to people experiencing disabilities advocating on behalf of themselves (Rasky, 1989). We can, therefore, consider the dictums of this legislation as being congruent with the wishes and aspirations of this constituency. The "Americans with Disabilities Act" assumes that human-made environments are the primarysource of disablement. Such environments are informally and formally shaped and defined by programs, policies, curricula, architectural plans, and other assorted practices. Disablement is not primarily recognized in the functional limitations of citizens. As such, this legislation encourages a profound shift in current perceptions and orientations toward people experiencing disabilities. Although the "Americans with Disabilities Act" primarily concentrates on human rights related to employment, transportation, communication services, and the use of privately owned businesses, the sociopolitical forces that motivated its Congressional passage will come to bear on art educaThe author wishes to express his appreciation to Kristin G. Congdon, Rogena Degge, and Beverly Jones for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. 'Myriad labels have been associated with people experiencing disabilities. In recent years it is not uncommon to find this constituency referred to as "alter-abled," "physically and mentally challenged," or "people with disabilities." For the purposes of this article, I have chosen to use the phrase "people experiencing disabilities." This phrase assumes that disability is not an inherent condition of people but is a condition experienced under certain circumstances as a result of human-made environments. This phrase is congruent with the Guidelinesfor Reportingand Writing About People with Disabilities (The Research and Training Center on Independent Living, 1984) as compiled with the assistance of numerous disability-rights groups.
132
DOUG BLANDY
tion. It will be my purpose in this article to discuss this shift in orientation toward people experiencing disabilities, a theoretical position that contributed to this shift, and possible ramifications of this shift on art education. In pursuing this latter purpose, I will discuss art education's current and previous relationships to people experiencing disabilities. Recommendations will be made for additional thought and study in the field. A Sociopolitical Orientation to Disability Johnson (1989) writes that, as a person experiencing disabilities, she feels she must strive to be "normal" in order to be personally "Okay." Ed Murphy, quoted in Bogdan and Taylor (1976), observes that "If you are considered mentally retarded, there is no way you can win" (p. 49). Both of these individuals have articulated a belief that they have, in some way or ways, failed to meet the expectations of society. They believe that they have been perceived as limited in their functioning and are themselves the source of the limitation. The orientation to disability that Johnson and Murphy personify is commonly referred to in the literature of special education and disability policy as the functional-limitations model (Hahn, 1985). Hahn (1988) traces this prevailing orientation to disability to the Enlightenment and an "existential anxiety" stemming from a fear of becoming disabled coupled with an "aesthetic anxiety" linked to a fear of the disturbing or unpleasant. Hahn is supported in this position by Foucault (1961/1965), who links perceptions of disability to the European disappearance of leprosy in the late medieval period. This resulted in the transference of a negative perception of lepers to people with disabilities in general. Foucault also argues that the application of the medical model to disability that occurred in the Renaissance contributed to a view of disability as inherent in people and as a condition that was potentially curable through treatment. Functional limitations could thus be seen as rehabilitative or remediable and not necessarily dependent on environmental factors. The ramifications of the functional-limitations orientation to disability, and its negative effect on how people experiencing disabilities are perceived by others, are well documented in the literature. Through this orientation, disabilities have been linked to outcomes and potentially stereotypical perceptions of the person experiencing disabilities. For example, deficits in cognitive development are routinely linked with an assumed enjoyment of repetitive tasks or bewilderment by too much stimulation (Clements & Clements, 1984). Hearing impairments encourage self-consciousness and discourage talking (Clements & Clements, 1984). Physical impairments will distort a child's body image (Uhlin & DeChiara, 1984). Disabilities will lead to a disconnectedness from the environment (Lowenfeld, 1957). Hahn (1985) establishes a direct link between a functional-limitations orientation to popular perceptions of a person's capacity for employment and quality of life. It is important to state that at no point in a purely functional-limitations approach is there a consideration that disability may be a result of environmental failure. Environments are not to any great extent adapted to people. People must strive, sometimes with the assistance of remedial and rehabilitative education, to adapt to environments in the quest for an abstract "normalcy." The critics of the functional-limitations orientation to disability believe this orientation has contributed to a variety of social problems confronting children, youth, and adults who are experiencing disabilities in the United States. Segre-
CONCEPTIONSOF DISABILITY
133
gated living spaces, sterilization,denial of child custody,housingdiscrimination, inaccessiblevoting places, and the denial of juryduty are commonplace (Asch, 1986). Ferguson(1987) reportsthat 50-80%of people with disabilities are unemployed. Eighthundredto nine hundredthousandadultslabeledmenretarded are tally currentlyunemployedor makingless than $300 per month. Welfare dependencyis commonplace,and, despite P.L. 94-142,"The Education for All ChildrenAct,"there are manyreportsof inadequatepublicschool programs(Hahn, 1987). State governmentsare not enforcingthe legislation servicesfor people with disabilities.There are lawsuitsin at least 21 requiring states thathaveresultedin the courtsorderingstate governments to respondto currentlawsof this type (Diesenhouse,1989).The currentsituationfor people with disabilitiesin the United States has been referredto as "America's apartheid" (Hentoff, 1986). Evidencesuch as the precedingsuggeststhat the functional-limitations orientation to people experiencingdisabilitieshas failed all concerned.Conseorientationis currently quently,the functional-limitations being challengedin special education and disabilitypolicy by the sociopoliticalorientation.This focus of the "Americans challengeis readilyobservablein the environmental with DisabilitiesAct."Funk(1987)has identified1976as the yearin whichthis orientationbegan to influence educational and governmentalpolicy. Hahn (1985), a primaryshaper of this orientation,articulatesa theory of disability that attributes emotionvisual,learning,physical,mental,behavioral, auditory, to the failureof socialsystems,including disabilities al, andotherhealth-related educationalsystems,to accommodatethe "needs and aspirations" of all citizens. Disability,accordingto Hahn, does not result from a child's,youth's,or adult'sfailureto adaptto societaldemands,but fromsociety'sinability to adapt to the individual. Hahn proposesthat we mustworktogetherto developa new set of socialvaluesthatwill free us fromthe negativeexpectations we associate with disability andthat arisefromour existentialand aestheticanxieties.Biklen andKnoll(1987)havesuggestedthe set of socialvaluesthatwe mustaffirm and internalize. These includethe recognition of people experiencing disabilitiesas being guaranteedconstitutionalrights,that disabilityis not a reason for the denial of rights, that people experiencingdisabilities need not conform to criteriain orderto access community servicessuch as schools,transarbitrary portation,medicaltreatment,or recreation,and that community integrationis the primarygoal of human-service professionals. disabilitiesare embracing the sociopolitical orientation. People experiencing To embracethis orientationis to be "disability cool" (Johnson,1989). People disabilitiesare usingthe theoryassociatedwith the sociopolitical experiencing orientationto build a coalition of individualsadvocatingfor themselvesas a minoritygroup experiencingthe bias, prejudice,segregation,and discrimination that have been experiencedby other minoritygroups. Membersof this coalitionarguethat biologicaldifferencesare not importantamongpeople. To use suchdifferencesas rationalesfor discrimination is incongruent with democracy.Disabilityis nothingmore than a "socialconstruction" (Ferguson,1987; Roth, 1983).As such, disabilityis a categoryworthyof elimination(Ferguson, 1987). did not arise independentlyof disabilityhistoryand policy. Funk (1987) deConceptions of Disability and Art Education It is important to acknowledge that the sociopolitical orientation to disability
134
DOUG BLANDY
scribes the treatment and perception of people with disabilities as an evolutionary progression towards humanization, a recognition of their rights as citizens, and the privileges and responsibilities implied by this recognition. The sociopolitical orientation to disability is but the latest step in this process. According to Funk, our purpose, encouraged through civil rights legislation, is now to work with people experiencing disabilities to "achieve a normal life experience as a citizen, not to create a nearly normal person, as has been the focus of human service providers" (p. 8). Funk has divided this evolutionary process into four phases that are helpful in understanding responses of art educators toward people experiencing disabilities. By reviewing literature from the field, we can observe the influence of the functional-limitations orientation on our research and practice, and speculate on what we have contributed and what we could contribute to the sociopolitical orientation. We will also be able to note changes over time and observe the problems and misconceptions that we have inherited from our predecessors. Historical Background Phase 1, 1700-1920, Funk characterizes as a period that began with extended family or local community members as the primary care givers for people experiencing disabilities. A notable participant in this system was Robert Bulkeley Emerson, the brother of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Throughout his life, Robert Bulkeley Emerson was boarded with relatives and others, living on farms in Massachusetts and Maine. Waldo Emerson (cited in Allen, 1982) characterized his brother as "easily irritated, very garrulous, and altogether no inmate for me who have no sand rope for him to twist" (pp. 520-521). Waldo Emerson's discomfort with his brother was not an isolated instance. People experiencing disabilities during this phase often experienced this discomfiture in physical and emotional abuse. For this reason, according to Funk, this system of familial and local care was soon displaced by the establishment of large residential institutions, supposedly to mitigate abusive circumstances. However, these institutions became notorious for the horrific treatment of inmates. By the 1920s, according to Funk (1987), this institutional system was firmly in place with institutions tending to specialize in people experiencing a particular disabling condition. Rehabilitation programs were minimal and available only to those few who appeared to be potentially employable. There are some indications that the people living in these institutions did participate in art activities. It is unknown if these institutions supported formalized art education programs. Benjamin Rush, a psychiatrist working in a Philadelphia hospital c. 1812, was known for collecting the cartography of one of his patients named Richard Nisbett (Gilman, 1984). Pliny Earle is credited with articulating a view in which the art of the "insane" was used to prove their humanity. Earle is notable for his involvement in an organization that would become the American Psychological Association (Gilman, 1984). However, by the 1860s, art was less a vehicle supporting humanness in the institutional setting and more a recognized diagnostic tool for determining nonfunctionality and psychopathology (Gilman, 1984). It seems that at this point art became formally linked with a rehabilitative and remedial purpose in the minds of those charged with the care of people perceived as being disabled. Phase 2, 1920-1960, Funk (1987) describes as a period of large residential institutions with an ever-increasing population of inmates. This increase, according to Funk, occurred simultaneously with an increase in the number of
CONCEPTIONSOF DISABILITY
135
of people professionalsassociatedwith the care, education,and rehabilitation experiencingdisabilities.Some of these professionalsincludedart educators. Funkcharacterizes the end of this 40-yearperiod as a time in which the large institutions were recognizedfor theirinabilityto respondin a life-affirming way to the personal needs of their inmates. Goffman's(1961) vivid and chilling of the deculturalizing and depersonalizing conditionsof institutions description this attests to Funk's observations. the large instituAlthough during period tions came to be recognizedas being inadequatefor people experiencingdisabilities,the functionalabilityof people so labeled remainedquestionablein the mindsof professionals andthe generalpublic.Indicative of this attitudewas the Detroit automobilefactorythat requiredemployeeswith amputationsto wear artificiallimbs so as not to affect the morale of the other employees (Berkowitz,1987). of literatureemergedrelatedto art educaDuringthis phase, a proliferation tion and people experiencing disabilities.This literaturelargelyaddressedthe influence of a given disabilityon art-makingor the remediationof a given These art education approachestended to be disabilitythroughart-making. bound to such disablingconditionsas "abnormal" children(Bercategorically rien, 1935),"mentalretardation" (Spoerl,1940),"deafness" (Pitner,1941),the "socially maladjusted" (Bhatt,1955),"visually handicapped" (Anderson,1956), the "delinquent" (Eisner, 1960),"slowlearners" (Gaitskell& Gaitskell,1953), and the "cerebral palsied"(Scheerer,1962), amongothers.Duringthis phase, CharlesD. Gaitskell,Margaret R. Gaitskell,and ViktorLowenfeldemergedas prominentresearchers.Their prominenceis based upon the influentialpositions they held at the time and the numbersand significanceof their publications. Gaitskelland Gaitskell(1953) initiateda systematicstudyof "slowlearners" andtheirabilitiesto participate in arteducationactivities. Theirpurposewasto determine effective teaching methods and "commonmodes of expression." Their subjectswere 575 institutionalized and noninstitutionalized childrenlabeled "idiots" to those with I.Q. scoresof 89. Gaitskelland Gaitskellinterpreted theirfindingsto indicatethat "allchildrenhavingan I.Q. between50 and89, but not otherwisegreatly handicapped,and a chronologicalage of approxiin a programme of art mately7, appearedto be capablenot onlyof participating education, but also of derivingbenefit from it" (p. 15). This study clearly articulateda view that emphasizedsimilaritiesamongall childrenratherthan dissimilarities. Their interpretationof researchfindings also discountedthe abilitiesof those childrentesting below 40 on an I.Q. test. These individuals were not able to adaptto the art educationvision held by the Gaitskells.This vision assumed that art is a product of emotion and intellect. The focus of productionwill be the expressionof personal life experiences.The teaching methodsthroughwhichthis visionwas communicated were not questionedby Gaitskelland Gaitskellas a contributing factorin these individuals' inabilities to participatein the vision. Lowenfeld'steachingof people experiencing blindnesshas been well-documented (Michael, 1981). This teaching ultimatelyled to the following:his course, "CreativeArt Activities for the Handicapped," at The Pennsylvania State University;several articleson the topic of art and people experiencing disabilities thatfocusedon categoriesof disability andremediation (Lowenfeld, 1940, 1941,1942,1956);and a book chapterthat articulateda therapeuticand
136
DOUG BLANDY
categorically comprehensive approach to the art education of people experiencing disabilities (Lowenfeld, 1957). He linked art education with therapy in his consideration of people experiencing disabilities. Unlike Gaitskell and Gaitskell (1953), he assumed that all individuals are creative. As such, art education would emphasize personal initiative leading toward independence, flexibility, social interaction, and self-confidence. What is most informative in terms of our discussion is Lowenfeld's belief that the environment is a somewhat static and inflexible entity to which the individual must negotiate a relationship. The degree of success which the individual is able to achieve in this endeavor will be equal to his or her usefulness to society. Art education practice that would facilitate this negotiating process was labeled "therapeutic."Lowenfeld recognized the environmental problems that people experiencing disabilities must confront. However, he failed to see that the environment could be a source of the problem. In his view, the individual bears the responsibility for being able to adapt. Like Gaitskell and Gaitskell, Lowenfeld saw disability in people rather than in programs and environments that failed to meet the needs of individuals. Phase 3, 1960-1975, is characterized by Funk (1987) as a period that began with the public recognition of the inadequacy of the large institutional system, with a subsequent move toward the integration of people experiencing disabilities into the larger community. This integration was reinforced through the passage of such acts as the "Rehabilitation Act" of 1973, prohibiting discrimination in federally supported projects, and Public Law 94-142, the "Education for All Children Act" in 1975. During Phase 3, the "normalization principle" was brought to the attention of English language readers by Wolfensberger (1972). This principle, first implemented in the Scandanavian countries, emphasized that those professionals working with people experiencing disabilities should base their work on the "utilization of means which are as culturally normative as possible" (p. 28). This principle, widely endorsed among human-service providers, clearly supported a position in which people experiencing disabilities were to be treated first and foremost as contributing members of the community with a greater similarity to their nondisabled peers than not. Some art educators writing at this time continued with an explorative and/or rehabilitative emphasis (Alkema, 1967; Lindsay, 1966; Rapaport, 1964), reminiscent of Phase 2. Individuals experiencing disabilities continued to be perceived as being functionally handicapped (Barlow, 1964). However, during this phase, one study appeared in the literature that clearly emphasized ability rather than disability and the importance of basing art education on this assumption. Bryant and Schwan's (1971) study of institutionalized and noninstitutionalized children with an I.Q. range of 23 to 80 repudiated Gaitskell's and Gaitskell's (1953) findings of almost 20 years earlier. Bryant and Schwan (1971) found that the subjects of their study could express themselves through art media as well as understand art forms created by others if instructional strategies were adapted as necessary to the needs of the individual. They concluded that all children and adults can share the same art education goals. Special and different goals need not be applied to children and adults experiencing disabilities. Art education as rehabilitation was not emphasized. More characteristic of this phase among art educators was a 1975 National Art Education Association and Illinois Arts Council-supported conference titled "Art Education and Special Education." One-hundred fifty art educators,
CONCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY
137
special educators, and general educators representing Canada and 29 of the United States convened to discuss such issues as the relationships between art education and special education, appropriate teaching methodologies, continuing education of professionals, and curriculum (Allrutz, 1975b). The apparent importance of this conference topic and the conference itself is evidenced by the fact that a special issue of Art Education, edited by Allrutz (1975a), was devoted to reports from the conference. Although conference reports supported the idea that art education is the right of all people, the proposition that this education take place in an integrated or "mainstreamed" setting was less so. Guidelines were suggested as to when, and if, integration should take place (Barlow, 1975). Integration was not assumed to be appropriate for all students. Public Law 94-142 would not be passed until after the completion of the "Art Education and Special Education" conference. However, the philosophical tenents of the act had been under discussion throughout this phase. The reports from "Art Education and Special Education" communicate a general anxiety about the preparedness of art educators to deal with the implications of the act. Although the conference did not endorse the concept of education for people experiencing disabilities in an integrated setting, it did respond to the possibility by stressing the need for continued regional and local conferences that would address the issue. However, as a field, art education seemed at this point to be failing to evolve at the pace discovered by Funk in his survey of disability policy as it emerged during this phase. The failure of art educators to include the "normalization principle" in their discussions at this very important gathering does not speak well of the field's preparedness to teach art to people experiencing disabilities at a time when the very nature of disability began to be questioned by human-service workers. Phase 4, 1976-1985, is characterized by Funk (1987) as a period in which disability becomes a fully formed civil rights issue. For the first time, large numbers of people experiencing disabilities began to advocate for themselves. This advocacy was very visible in the editorial policy of such publications as The DisabilityRag and through public demonstrations pointedly demanding accessible housing, education, employment, transportation, and communication services. People experiencing disabilities recognized that they were not inherently disabled, but were struggling with human-made environments that failed to adapt to their needs. Several years into this phase, another important conference occurred that addressed art education and people experiencing disabilities. Gair (1978) reported on a National Committee Arts for the Handicapped (NCAH) (now Very Special Arts International) conference that seriously addressed the implications of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Public Law 94-142 of 1975. Like the participants in the "Art Education and Special Education" conference of 1975, there was general support of art education for all people, but at this gathering there was also a seeming realization among participants that this education should take place in the "least restrictive environment" and hopefully in integrated settings. A position was taken that if "handicapped" children were to receive art instruction, then all children should. In this way, Public Law 94-142 was seen at the conference as benefiting all children. In doing this, the conference participants reinforced a position in which people experiencing disabilities were seen as being more similar to their nondisabled peers than not. During this phase, art educators began to suggest appropriate strategies and
138
DOUG BLANDY
instructional methodologies for achieving integration. Allrutz (1981), Clements & Clements (1984), May (1976), and UNESCO (Isar, 1981) advocated for integration strategies across educational settings for children and adults. Articles addressing very specific strategies such as the Individualized Education Plan (I.E.P.) (Gair, 1980) and task analysis (Morreau & Anderson, 1986) also appeared. Other art educators articulated the importance of perceiving the art work of people experiencing disabilities as equal to those not (Anderson, 1978; Stabler, Stabler, & Karger, 1977). Art as a contributing factor to the quality of life also emerged (Sherrill, 1979). In addition, the "normalization" principle was applied to art education (Blandy, 1983; Kinsley, 1983). During this phase, Frances Anderson published several works that were instrumental in bringing the art education needs of people experiencing disabilities to the attention of the field at large and that also assisted researchers in the field to focus on their contributions to the art education of people experiencing disabilities. Anderson (1978) assisted pre-service and in-service art educators in their efforts to include children experiencing disabilities in their classes through the publication of a source book on teaching art to this population. Anderson, writing with Colchado and McAnally (1979), also published the results of her own work to coordinate the facilitation of teachers' competencies in this endeavor. In addition, Anderson (1981b) provided art educators with a research foundation for their work through her editing of a special issue of Studies in Art Education. Anderson's (1981a) editorial in this issue advocated the need and importance of such research and asked readers to consider "How can the art program be all things to all students?" (p. 5). Anderson (1983) continued her advocacy for research by critically analyzing research literature in art for people experiencing disabilities with a visual arts orientation. In this article, she also identified research problems that emerged in the design of many of the studies and made suggestions for future research. Reading Anderson's research analysis reveals that, as late as 1983, many art educators were still attempting to provide a rationale for teaching art to people experiencing disabilities. Their agenda, however, was tied to categories of disability that people experiencing disabilities resented, and it focused on functional limitations rather than strategies for environmental change. This phase concluded in art education with the functional-limitations model and its focus on categories of disabilities and remediative strategies still firmly entrenched. Although there was diligence on the part of many art educators in their advocacy for full participation in the arts by all children, youth, and adults, there was the unrecognized possibility that full participation was not possible as long as art educators continued to bring the functional-limitations orientation to the problem. Toward a Socio Political Orientation for Art Education Funk's (1987) analysis of disability programs and policy concludes with Phase 4 in 1985. Congressional action on the "Americans with Disabilities Act" indicates that a fifth phase is now underway. This phase began two to three years ago as lobbying efforts for the act began-and will continue as the act is interpreted and applied. We can expect to see a widespread, but not necessarily immediate, transformation of disability into a characteristic of environments, rather than an inherent condition of people. It is likely that approaches with a functional-limitations orientation will diminish. It is expected that employment transportation, communications, housing, and leisure-time options will in-
139
induceddisabilcrease for people experiencing disabilitiesas environmentally ity is mitigated. Some change is currentlyunderway.Statisticsfrom supported-employment rateamongpeople experithatthe highunemployment are indicating programs encingeven the severestof disabilitiescan be reduced(Wehman,1981,1988). andothertechnological devicesare facilitating personalcapaMicrocomputers bilities among people once thought to be disabled (Cain & Taber, 1987). Leisure-timeenvironments,such as art museums and arts celebrations,are being redesignedso that they no longer disablevisitors(Majewski,1987;The National Endowmentfor the Arts, undated). Wolfensberger's(1972, 1983) or social-rolevalorization continuesto be reinforced principleof normalization in the literatureof arteducation(Blandy,1989a;Blandy& Congdon,1987).In and the princiaddition,other instructional strategies,such as cue hierarchies havebeen introducedto art educatorsas a wayfor ple of partialparticipation, designing art instructionalenvironmentsthat are accessible to all students & Mockensturm, suchas discipline-based (Blandy,Pancsofar, 1988).Curricula, models, have been analyzedfor their inherent lack of responsivenessto the individualneeds of learners (DeChiara, 1988). However, these changes in supportof a sociopoliticalorientationto disabilityshould not misleadus into believingthat additionalchangesare not warrantedand necessary.There are substantial contributions that arteducatorsmustbeginto makein orderfor the field to be congruent withthe goalsandintentof the disability-rights legislation. Giventhislegislativeinitiative, the civilrightsmovement thatencouragesit, and the sociopolitical thatphilosophically theoryof disability supportsit, it is important to speculateon what steps art educatorscan take in affirming and contributing to this orientationalshift.
Recommendations
The first step will be to discardthose art educationpracticesthat are inconorientation. We nowknowthatpeople experiencgruentwith the sociopolitical disabilities will not be content with their artwork ing being perceivedas "curious"or as a "genre" as "outsider art,""mad," categorizedby suchdesignations or "l'artbrut."Such designationsemphasizedisabilityratherthan ability,disThe categoricalapproachto disabilitysympsimilarityratherthan similarity. tomaticof a functional-limitations orientationandthe impersonal labelsassociated with it are no longer viable and are counter-productive to the political can no longerenjoy agendaof those so labeled.As such, these categorizations indiscriminate use by arteducatorsor be used to determinewho is deserving of an art education and who is not. All children, youth, and adults, without In addition,environments can no longerbe exception,willbe seen as deserving. seen as fixed entities to whichpeople mustconformand adapt,but as flexible, andadaptable. Lowenfeld's on the relationship of dynamic, (1957)speculations disabilityto environmentsmust be repudiated.Art educatorscan no longer like the "Artin OtherPlacesConference" designandplannationalconventions in Los Angeles or the 1988NationalArt EducationAssociationconventionin Los Angeles that had the potentialfor environmentally disablingparticipants for museumeduca(Blandy,1989b; Blandy& Congdon,1987).It is incongruent tors to state that people experiencing disabilitiesare welcomewhen the facilities provided are architecturally and programmatically inadequate to their needs (Blandy& Hoffman,1989). Anotherstep to be taken is to celebrateand applythe contributions that art
140
DOUG BLANDY
educators have made and are making to the growing acceptance of a sociopolitical orientation. Art educators have a history of interest in the education of people experiencing disabilities. It is apparent that art educators have advocated on behalf of this constituency and the importance of art to quality of life, and that they have contributed to the development and application of instructional techniques that promote integration. These techniques have included task analysis, cue hierarchies, and partial-participation plans. Although these techniques have been largely applied to studio activities, there is every reason to believe that they will be equally applicable to art education with a nonstudio focus. Art educators have also taken pains to review periodically and reflect on research efforts associated with people experiencing disabilities. This can occur, as in this article, with a sensitivity to the disability-rights agenda. Art educators can also take the step of committing themselves to studying and applying the information currently available on creating art-related environments accessible to people experiencing disabilities. Although Blandy's and Hoffman's (1989) study of selected major museums of art in the United States did not reveal a single institution to be completely accessible, it did reveal that among all museums there was architectural and programmatic accessibility. The point here is that information does exist and is being implemented, albeit inconsistently, and that it can be used to create accessible environments. Art educators should take steps to study and apply information available from such sources as The Research and Training Center on Independent Living (1984), the National Endowment for the Arts (undated), and the Smithsonian Institution (Majewski, 1987), as well as the wisdom available from local and regional art-related institutions and disability-rights groups. Collectively, such sources will reveal information about appropriate communication services, curriculum development, architectural strategies, and appropriate terminology. Art educators can also facilitate advocacy efforts on behalf of the sociopolitical orientation. Until recently, the primary advocates for people experiencing disabilities consisted of parents, educators, attorneys, social workers, and interested others. The last two decades have seen a gradual shift in which people experiencing disabilities have begun to advocate on behalf of themselves. The passage of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" was largely attributable to this constituency. However, the passage of this act does not mean that advocacy efforts will no longer be necessary. It is more likely that there will be an increased need for self-advocacy as the act is variously interpreted and applied to myriad settings. To advocate on one's own behalf or on the behalf of others is not an easy task, nor is it one that can be taken on without a thorough understanding of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, and other such forces that come to bear on any given situation needing change. Advocates soon discover that advocacy will involve serious study as well as stress, money, personal sacrifice, employment risks, and hostility from others (Williams & Schoultz, 1982). Without careful and prolonged preparation, advocacy efforts are not likely to succeed. People experiencing disabilities have been and will continue to be advocates on behalf of themselves and others in relation to the art worlds of which they are a part or from which they have been denied access. Art educators can assist in this process by teaching self-advocacy. In doing this, art educators should become familiar with curricula developed to foster self-advocacy. Teaching
141
through this approach will necessitate discussions of definitions of advocacy within art and cultural contexts, rights related to being human, rights protected by law, the right to the least-restrictive environment, rights to due process, rights to appeal, steps to take if rights are violated, and planning strategies (Williams & Shoultz, 1982). Initiating self-advocacy groups, recruitment, and process can also be considered. Lastly, art educators can contribute to the understanding of the "aesthetic anxiety" or fear of the disturbing or unpleasant that Hahn (1988) links to the functional-limitations orientation to disability. There are some indications that the American public is beginning to confront this anxiety. It may be that the critical and popular acclaim received by the film "Rainman" and Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of an individual experiencing autism are evidence of this confrontation. On television, the existence of a character experiencing mental retardation on "L.A. Law" and the inclusion of Christopher Burke, an actor with Down syndrome, in the cast of "Life Goes On" may also support this possibility. However, the popular media cannot be relied upon as a basis for judging the quality of life being experienced by minority group members in the United States. Gates (1989) has pointed out that the contemporary status and experience of African-Americans is quite different than their fictionalized presentation on television. There is every reason to still believe that Americans have not yet fully come to terms with their aesthetic anxieties and the effects of that anxiety on others. Art education researchers and practitioners are giving increased attention to the study of aesthetics. Hamblen's (1988) linking of aesthetics to critical theory may be the most effective way for art educators to work with the aesthetic anxiety associated with what is socially defined as the unpleasant or disturbing. Visual images are recognized for their ability to shape self-perceptions as well as to inform our relationships with others (Berger, 1982; Watney, 1987). Images of people experiencing disabilities could be studied for their sociopolitical and consciousness-shaping content. Hamblen's advocacy for critical methods that analyze issues historically, cross-culturally, and phenomenologically is particularly appropriate to studying disability in a time when the definitions of disability are changing. A precedent for such study has been set by the application of a critical aesthetics to images of women (Myers, 1987). Some of the questions that Myers applies to images of women can be applied to images of people experiencing disabilities. Art educators and their students could speculate on the production of such images, the fantasy recorded, power relationships implied, distribution and circulation, the portrayal of the disability, and whether the image challenges currently held assumptions or stereotypes. The sources of such speculation could range from portraits of court jesters experiencing disabilities at the royal court of Philip II of Spain by Velazquez to contemporary representations such as "Rainman" or the images of "poster children" appealing for donations. Conclusion In this article, I have discussed the emergence of a sociopolitical orientation to people experiencing disabilities. I have also given a brief history of the relationship between people experiencing disabilities and art education. This history confirmed the dependence of art educators on a functional-limitations orientation. This dependence prevented full participation in the arts by all children, youth, and adults. Recommendations were made as to how the socio-
142
DOUG BLANDY
political orientation can better inform our research and practice. These recommendations have been cognizant of our field's well-intentioned but at times misguided approach to people experiencing disabilities. I have also demonstrated the ways in which the sociopolitical orientation has been reinforced and encouraged in the field. Additional contributions that art educators can make to this civil rights movement were discussed in the belief that current legislation, coupled with subsequent applications, will make a substantial contribution to the quality of life experienced by all citizens.
References Alkema, C. J. (1967). Implications for art for the handicapped child. Exceptional Children,33(6), 433-434. Allen, G.W. (1982). Waldo Emerson. New York: Penguin Books. Allrutz, C. (Ed.). (1975a). [Special issue]. Art Education, 28(8). Allrutz, C. (1975b). Editorial: Art education and special education-conference outcomes. Art Education, 28(8), 4. Allrutz, C. (1981). Full and successful participation. Design for Arts in Education, 82(4), 4-8. Anderson, F. E. (1978). Art for all the children:A creativesourcebookfor the impairedchild. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Anderson, F. E. (1981a). Research and issues in art for exceptional populations. Studies in Art Education, 22(2), 5-6. Anderson, F. E. (Ed.). (1981b). [Special issue]. Studies in Art Education, 22(2). Anderson, F. E. (1983). A critical analysis of a review of the published literature in arts for the handicapped: 1971-1981, with special attention to the visual arts. Art Therapy,1(1), 26-39. Anderson, F . E., Colchado, J. D., & McAnally, P. (1979). Art for the handicapped. Normal, IL: Illinois State University. Anderson, M. (1956). Art for the visually handicapped. School Arts, 55, 21-33. Asch, A. (1986). Will populism empower disabled people? In H. C. Boyle & F. Reissman (Eds.), The newpopulism: Thepolitics of empowerment(pp. 213-228). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Barlow, G. (1964). Exceptional children's art. School Arts, 63(5), 2. Barlow, G. (1975). Group reports: Instruction and curriculum. Art Education, 28(8), 13-14. Berger, J. (1982). Waysof seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books. Berkowitz, E. D. (1987). Disabled policy: America's programs for the handicapped. New York: Cambridge University Press. Berrien, F. K. (1935). A study of the drawing of abnormal children. JournalofEducationalPsychology, 26, 143-150. Bhatt, M. (1955). Art and the socially maladjusted. School Arts, 54, 23-25. Biklen, D., & Knoll, J. (1987). The disabled minority. In S. J. Taylor, D. Biklen, & J. Knoll (Eds.), Communityintegration forpeople with severedisabilities (pp. 3-21). New York: Teachers College Press. Blandy, D. E. (1983). Printing poetry in Blissymbols: An arts-of-the-book apprenticeship for four so-called moderately mentally retarded persons (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2657A. Blandy, D. (1989a). As I see it: Ecological and normalizing approaches to disabled students and art education. Art Education, 42(3), 7-11. Blandy, D. (1989b). A study of the 1988 NAEA Convention and its accessibility to delegates experiencing disabilities. The Journal of Social Theoryin Art Education, 9, 36-43. Blandy, D., & Congdon, K. G. (1987). Arts in other places: A conference critique. TheBulletin of the Caucus on Social Theoryin Art Education, 7,75-79. Blandy, D., & Hoffman, E. (1989). A description of disability policy in selected major United States museums of art. Proceedings of the Public Policy and Arts AdministrationAffiliate, 3, 39-48. Blandy, D., Pancsofar, E., & Mockensturm, T. (1988). Guidelines for teaching art to children and youth experiencing significant mental/physical challenges. Art Education, 41(1), 60-67. Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1976). The judged, not the judges: An insider's view of mental retardation. American Psychologist, 31(1), 47-52.
143
Bryant, A., & Schwan, L. (1971). Art and the mentally retarded child. Studies in Art Education, 12(3), 50-63. Cain, E. J., Jr., & Taber, F. M. (1987). Educating disabledpeople for the 21st century.Boston: Little, Brown. Clements, L. B., & Clements, R. D. (1984). Art and mainstreaming:Art instructionfor exceptional children in regularschool classes. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. DeChiara, E. (1988). DBAE: Does it meet the needs of students with handicapping conditions? In J. Burton, A. Lederman, & P. London (Eds.), Beyond dbae: The case for multiple visions of art education (pp. 87-94). University Council of Art Education. Diesenhouse, S. (1989, October 22). Mental health becomes a judicial issue. TheNew YorkTimes, p. E3. Eisner, E. (1960). Initiating art experiences for delinquent students. Art Education, 13(2), 8-9. Ferguson, P. (1987). The social construction of mental retardation. Social Policy, 18(1), 51-56. Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization (A. Howard, Trans.). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1961) Funk, R. (1987). Disability rights: From caste to class in the context of civil rights. In A. Gartner & T. Joe (Eds.), Images of the disabled: Disabling images (pp. 7-30). New York: Praeger. Gair, S. (1978). Are the arts ready for special education? Art Education, 31(7), 13-14. Gair, S. (1980). Writing the arts into individualized education programs.Art Education, 33(8), 8-11. Gaitskell, C. D., & Gaitskell, M. R. (1953). Art education for slow learners. Peoria, IL: Charles A. Bennett. Gates, H. L. (1989, November 12). TV's Black world turns-but stays unreal. The New YorkTimes, pp. 1, 40. Gilman, S. L. (1984). Madness and representation: Hans Prinzhorn's study of madness and art in its historical context. The Prinzhorn Collection. Champaign, IL: Krannert Art Museum. Goffman, H. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Hahn, H. (1985). Toward a politics of disability: Definitions, disciplines, and policies. The Social Science Journal, 22(4), 87-105. Hahn, H. (1987). Civil rights for disabled Americans: The foundation of a political agenda. In A. Gartner & T. Joe (Eds.), Images of the disabled: Disabling images (pp. 181-203). New York: Praeger. Hahn, H. (1988). Can disability be beautiful? Social Policy, 18(3), 26-32. Hamblen, K. A. (1988). Approaches to aesthetics in art education: A critical theory perspective. Studies in Art Education, 29(2), 81-90. Hentoff, N. (1986, March 4). America's apartheid. The Village Voice, p. 27. Isar, R. V. (Ed.). (1981). Museums and disabled persons. [Special issue]. Museum, 33(3). Johnson, M. (1989). The bargain. The Disability Rag, 10(5), 5-8. Kinsley, J. L. E. (1983). Apprenticeshipin craft:Expanding the role of the art educator Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Lindsay, Z. (1966). Art for spastics. New York: Taplinger Publishing. Lowenfeld, V. (1940). The meaning of creative activity for the deaf-blind. The TeachersForum, 12, 62-65. Lowenfeld, V. (1941). Self-adjustment through creative activity. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 45, 366-373. Lowenfeld, V. (1942). Modeling as a means of self-expression in the schools for the blind. The Harvard Educational Review, 12(1), 4-6. Lowenfeld, V. (1956). Therapeutic aspects of art education. Art education for the exceptionalchild researchbulletin: EasternArts Association (pp. 14-17). Kutztown, PA: State Teachers College. Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Majewski, J. (1987). Part of your generalpublic is disabled:A handbook for guides in museums, zoos, and historic houses. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. May, D. (1976). Integration of art education into special education programs.Art Education, 29(4), 16-20. Michael, J. A. (1981). Viktor Lowenfeld: Pioneer in art education therapy. Studies in Art Education, 22(2), 7-19. Morreau, L., & Anderson, F. E. (1986). Task analysis in art: Building skills and success for handicapped learners. Art Education, 39(1), 52-54. Myers, K. (1987). Towards a feminist erotica. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Visibyfemale: Feminism and art today (pp. 283-296). New York: Universe Books. The National Endowment for the Arts. (undated). The arts and 504: A 504 handbookfor accessible
144
DOUG BLANDY
arts programming.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pitner, R. (1941).Artistic appreciationamong deaf children.New York: American Association for the Deaf. Rapaport, I. (1964). The art of the mentally retarded child. School Arts, 63(5), 13-17. Rasky, S. F. (1989, September 17). "A minority anyone can join": How the disabled sold Congress on a new Bill of Rights. The New York Times, p. 5. The Research and Training Center on Independent Living. (1984). Guidelines for reportingand writingabout people with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Author. Roth, W. (1983). Handicap as a social construct. Society, 20(3), 56-61. Sherrill, C. (Ed.). (1979). Creative arts for the severelyhandicapped. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Scheerer, D. T. (1962). Art and the cerebral palsied. School Arts, 62, 15-17. Spoerl, D. T. (1940). Drawing ability of mentally retarded children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 57(2), 259-277. Stabler, J., Stabler, J., & Karger, R. (1977). Evaluation of paintings of non-retarded and retarded persons by judges with and without art training. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,81(5), 502-503. Uhlin, D. M., & DeChiara, E. (1984).Art for exceptionalchildren(3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. AIDS, and the media. Minneapolis: University of Watney, S. (1987). Policing desire: Pornography, Minnesota Press. Wehman, P. (1981). Competitiveemployment:New horizonsfor severelydisabled individuals. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks. Wehman, P. (1988). Supported employment: Toward zero exclusion of persons with severe disabilities. In P. Wehman & M. S. Moon (Eds.), Vocationalrehabilitationand supportedemployment (pp. 3-16). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks. Williams, P., & Shoultz, B. (1982). Wecan speakfor ourselves:Self-advocacyby mentallyhandicapped people. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: Theprincipleof normalizationin human services.Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21(6), 234-239.

Blandy, 1991 Conceptions of Disability: Toward A Sociopolitical Orientation To Disability For Art Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blandy, 1991 Conceptions of Disability: Toward A Sociopolitical Orientation To Disability For Art Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Art Education Association

Copyright by the National Art Education Association

Conceptions of Disability:Toward a Sociopolitical Orientation to Disability for Art Education

You might also like