The New York Times recently carried an article about a new ad campaign uses gentle humor to advocate for for people with disabilities in the job market. The shtick is that everyone is different: there’s a guy in the office who is “jargon impaired”; someone else is “copy impaired”; another person talks to loud and is “volume control impaired” etc. Against this one sees a person in a wheelchair who just naturally fits in. I must say that I like this pitch, I like it a lot. The underlying message is that despite our superficial differences we all bring strengths to the table.
Part of the problem that people in the U.S. tend to think of strength as a bodily attribute before they think of it as a matter of character. Our worship of Hollywood westerns and competitive sports get all the ink in this regard but the bodily semiotics or symbolism of strength is more pervasive than the O.K. Corral–we believe all too easily that a narrow conception of normal fitness equals character. Obviously in this symbolic universe people with disabilities are conceived as being uncompetitive and flawed in darkly Freudian ways. I don’t want to hammer this point like Kruschev with his ugly shoe, but one needs to be clear: real people with real disabilities remain unemployed in the United States and elsewhere largely because employers believe that character “is” the body, the fit body if you will.
I know that this is true the way I know that certain cloud formations warn us of impending high or low pressure.
So the advent of humor in a national advertising campaign on behalf of people with disabilities is a good development indeed. But humor cannot solve our longstanding assumptions about physical strength as a determination of inner strength. We must challenge our very culture to stop thinking of Stephen Hawking as the exception.
S.K.
Planet of the Blind 
SK, you comment, “real people with real disabilities remain unemployed in the United States and elsewhere largely because employers believe that character ‘is’ the body, the fit body if you will.”
The continuing struggle for women’s rights has parallels with the disabilities rights movement. Here is a memorable quote from way-back-when:
“Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel.” (Bella Abzug, 1920-1998)
However, it is also my contention that the average employer would hire an army of stinky, bad-tempered armadillos, if that employer perceived that the odd-looking creatures would increase the effectiveness, productivity and profitability of a business enterprise.
If you talk to many people without government-verified disabilities, they will tell you that finding and maintaining gainful employment is no easy task even for the average person. As an example, if I entered the job market now, I would be concerned for my potential for employment. Many employers might select an applicant who has more than the 10 years of career potential of someone who is 55 years of age. I understand that. Although I would have expanded job opportunities in the field of low vision rehab if I included jobs that entailed working with people who are 18 years of age and under, my increasing hearing impairment, even when corrected with aids, significantly limits my capacity to communicate with squeaky-voiced children and mumbling adolescents. I rarely have insurmountable communication problems with my current clientele of predominantly older adults. My inability to speak Spanish is also a significant limitation to finding human services work in Los Angeles. Each job has its own set of essential functions that must be competently accomplished. Each employee, to keep a job, must have the abilities, knowledge and skills to adequately perform these functions. The big question with regards to employment is whether or not people, provided with reasonable accommodations, can be competitive and effective.
You and I currently have found our employment niches. Hurrah for us! But on a case-by-case basis, it seems as if employment for people with disabilities is much more complex than simply the employer’s perception of an employee’s cosmetic appearance.
LikeLike