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/sisu-the-finnish-secret-of-inner-strength-and-resilience

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180502-sisu-the-finnish-art-of-inner-strength

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@baylor.edu>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 5:30 PM
To: project.leer@lists.it.utsa.edu <project.leer@lists.it.utsa.edu>, project.diverse@lists.it.utsa.edu <project.diverse@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/revisiting-szasz-myth-metaphor-and-misconception

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