9:43 p.m.
For those interested in linguistic diversity and the role of culture in socio-cultural
construction, the ongoing debate centers around reconciling universals with particulars:
Is thought independent of language and culture (e.g., universalism as argued by Steven
Pinker), or do culture and language influence cognition, and in turn, behavior
(particularism)?
As an example, I am interested in resilience research and social validity, looking at what
enables certain students, children, and families to bounce back while others with similar
profiles falter. My favorite Finnish term is SISU- which is deeply part of Finnish
culture. It lacks a direct English translation but conveys notions like unconquerable,
tenacious, stubborn determination or steadfast perseverance—akin from a faith-based
perspective, maintaining faith despite suffering in the face of a hopeless task.
So for example, the absence of a direct translation for "Sisu" in English raises
questions: Are the thoughts still present despite there being no direct word? Are they
expressed differently? Or does having the word itself influence behavior and thought?
Linguistic relativism and universalism offer two opposing views on how language interacts
with thought and reality.
Linguistic Relativism: Often associated with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, this view
suggests that the language one speaks influences or determines one's perceptions and
understanding of the world. According to linguistic relativism, speakers of different
languages perceive the world differently because their languages categorize reality in
distinct ways. This notion includes "linguistic determinism" (a stronger form
suggesting that language determines thought) and "linguistic influence" (a
weaker form suggesting that language merely influences thought patterns). The vocabulary
and structure of a language shape its speakers' cognitive processes, impacting how
they perceive, think about, and interact with the world.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/sapir-whorf-hypothesis.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
Linguistic Universalism: Steven Pinker, a key advocate for this view, challenges the
strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He suggests that all human beings share a
common cognitive framework that is not fundamentally shaped by our native language.
Instead, he proposes that universal patterns of thought transcend language. This
perspective is grounded in the theory of universal grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky,
which posits that the ability to acquire language is innately structured in the human mind
and that all human languages share certain structural features. Pinker believes that while
language can influence decisions and perceptions at a superficial level, it does not
determine the fundamental cognitive capabilities of individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker
These differing views are debated in cognitive science, psychology, and linguistics about
the relationship between language, thought, and culture that filter down to us in
disability- especially when there are issues of language and communication, as well as the
social construction of culture and disability Is the category of disability (e.g., LD, ID,
EBD, Autism, visual impairments, etc.) real? Are the categories reflect something
objectively real or not? If no, what aspects are socially constructed? Something in
between? All the same conversations around the social construction of
disability/impairment, race/ethnicity, sex/gender, etc. etc. What is real and what is not,
what is malleable for intervention and what is not?
For further reading on Sisu and the related linguistic theories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SisuSapir-Whorf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-quiet-joy-of-being/202303/sis...
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180502-sisu-the-finnish-art-of-inn...
Also, there is also a Finnish film titled " Sisu" akin to the John Wick movies,
directed by the same filmmaker, which I strongly recommend- the Finnish John Wick! 😊
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14846026/
Mack
From: Burke, Mack <Mack_Burke(a)baylor.edu>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 5:30 PM
To: project.leer(a)lists.it.utsa.edu <project.leer(a)lists.it.utsa.edu>,
project.diverse(a)lists.it.utsa.edu <project.diverse(a)lists.it.utsa.edu>
Subject: [Project.diverse] Social construction of disability
I highly recommend Ian Hacking’s THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF WHAT? He is likely a
“soft-moderate” social constructionist but the questions is a good one for us- what is the
social construction of disability? Looks mostly at how categorization schemes are used and
the impact- the hard social constructionist rejects objective reality all together and
would say something to the effect that the category, labeling and naming brings the
disability or X into existence- a hard form of disability anti-realism. Which put’s it
squarely in the area of those of you who are addressing linguistic and language issues
because language is a large part of the social construction of reality and
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, a concept in linguistics
and cognitive science that suggests the structure of a language influences its
speakers' worldview and cognition, or is the other way- objectivity, worldview, and
cognition influence language. Chicken or the egg?
He spends part of the book on the social construction of child abuse as an exemplar- isn’t
so clear whether he thinks child abuse is universally real- but is real at the particular
level, I guess that is something. One culturally relativistic view is that it is only harm
if the culture thinks it causes harm. Hacking tries to split the needle on the social
construction side on whether naming something brings it into existence or not, or if it
was in existence before it was named, and what are the effects of the naming or social
construction; disagree with him in many areas- but it is interesting view, he still comes
off as too anti-universalist and anti-realist for my views.
I suppose the issue I keep coming back to is that disabilities in special education are
poorly specified (at least for LD/EBD)- a construct validity issue, which has opened the
door to hard social constructionists represented in the iterations of Disabilities
Studies, that have now found its way into the field posit that disabilities don’t really
objectively exist- which is quite different than saying there is a social construction
dimension to the disability or something interactional.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674004122
He lists the areas of what that have been asked before in the preface:
WHY ASK WHAT?
What a lot of things are said to be socially constructed! Here are some construction
titles from a library catalog:
Authorship (Woodmansee and Jaszi 1994)
Brotherhood (Clawson 1989)
The child viewer of television (Luke 1990)
Danger (McCormick 1995)
Emotions (Harre´ 1986)
Facts (Latour and Woolgar 1979)
Gender (Dewar, 1986; Lorber and Farrell 1991)
Homosexual culture (Kinsman 1983)
Illness (Lorber 1997)
Knowledge (MacKenzie 1981, Myers 1990, Barrett 1992,
Torkington 1996)
Literacy (Cook-Gumperz 1986)
The medicalized immigrant (Wilkins 1993)
Nature (Eder 1996)
Oral history (Tonkin 1992)
Postmodernism (McHale 1992)
Quarks (Pickering 1986)
Reality (Berger and Luckmann 1966)
Serial homicide (Jenkins 1994)
Technological systems (Bijker, Hughes, and Pinch 1987)
Urban schooling (Miron 1996)
Vital statistics (Emery 1993)
Women refugees (Moussa 1992)
Youth homelessness (Huston and Liddiard 1994)
Zulu nationalism (Golan 1994)
One exemplar given related to EBD and mental illness is Schizophrenia, now championed by
disability studies as well..
Schizophrenia, in short, is a scientific delusion. According to my
grades of commitment, Boyle is at least a rebellious constructionist
about schizophrenia. She wants to unmask and disintegrate. R. D. Laing
and other leaders of the anti-psychiatry movement of a quarter-century
ago were revolutionary. They were out there in the streets, the clinics,
and the wards, trying to destroy and replace this very category of disease.
We need not embrace anti-psychiatry to realize that the classification
as schizophrenic, and current attitudes to and treatments of schizophrenics,
are matters of which the patients, for all their periodic deficits
of logic and sense of reality, are intensely aware. More of them are more
aware now than they used to be. This is because of the continually developing
arsenal of psychotropic drugs that is already able to bring some
semblance of ordinary life to
There is a conviction that retarded children, schizophrenics, and autistic people
suffer from one or more fundamental neurological or biochemical problems
which will, in the future, be identified. It is not claimed that every
person now diagnosed will have the same problem. In the case of schizophrenia,
some researchers conjecture that there are at least two distinct
disorders, one of which declares itself in late adolescence and is genetic,
and another of which may not be inherited. No one maintains that mental
retardation is a single disorder, but many believe that specific types
of retardation have clear biological causes, to the extent that we can say
these disorders simply are biological in nature.
Autism is instructive.
There was a debate long ago between the antipsychiatrist,
Thomas Szasz, and Robert Spitzer, who as editor of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals has directed American psychiatric
nosology since 1974. Szasz argued that MDs should treat only what they
know to be diseases. Psychiatrists treat troubled people, but cannot identify
any genuine medical conditions, so they should leave the treatment
to healers, shamans, priests, counselors. Psychiatry is not a branch of
medicine. Spitzer replied: what about childhood autism? We know it
must be neurological in nature, but we have no idea what the neurology
is, so we treat it symptomatically, as psychologists. Is it wrong for us as
doctors to try to help autistic children just because we do not yet know
the neurology?8
For the social construction of EBD, the assumptions are almost the same as that help by
Szasz that helped the Church of Scientology put together their anti-psychiatry
manifesto:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freud-fluoxetine/201806/revisitin...
In the end, the question for special education is simple, at least on the surface, are
disabilities real or not? And if they are how? If the answer is no, and there is a hard
social constructionist view of disability is taken, then we really don’t need a special
education based on an IDEA conception of disability and we should do like many people are
currently advocating and end special education and replace it- as Wehmeyer from KU said
“special education has outlived its utility” or put it under the auspices of general
education, would have us do. If the answer is yes, and a special education is still
needed, we need to figure out what should it look like?
Something more for us to talk about…Mack
Mack D. Burke, Ph.D.
Department of Educational Psychology
Applied Behavior Analysis and Special Education Programs
Behavioral Education & Assessment Research (BEAR Lab)
School of Education, Baylor University