Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History
Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History.
Douglas Baynton argues in this article that historians should see disability as a central issue in American history, rather than a special topic of interest only to those who study the lives of disabled people. To illustrate this point, he draws together historical narratives of three major political debates in American history that do not–on face value–seem related to disability: the women’s sufferage movement, debates over slavery and civil rights for black Americans, and the implementation of immigration restrictions. In each of these debates, Baynton argues that the concept of disability plays a key role in justifying the discriminatory practices laid out in law. For instance, politicians and scientists in the 19th century frequently argued that enslaved black Americans were constitutionally unfit for full civic participation; their bodies and minds were built for captivity. Similarly, women’s constitutional infirmities were used to justify excluding them from the franchise.
Since the political revolutions of the eighteenth century, social and political thinkers have challenged ostensibly rational justifications for inequalities based on gender, race, and ethnicity. Disability has been largely absent from that effort, despite its prominence in debates over equality. Not only has disability justified the inequality of disabled people but of other groups as well. the argument that the disabled identity has been used throughout history to argue both for and against the equality of marginalized groups—disability is either assigned to the marginalized, or the marginalized reject the disabled label in order to justify gains on their part. Disability has functioned historically to justify inequality for disabled people themselves, but it has also done so for women and minority groups. That is, not only has it been considered justifiable to treat disabled people unequally, but the concept of
Douglas Baynton argues in this article that historians should see disability as a central issue in American history, rather than a special topic of interest only to those who study the lives of disabled people. To illustrate this point, he draws together historical narratives of three major political debates in American history that do not–on face value–seem related to disability: the women’s sufferage movement, debates over slavery and civil rights for black Americans, and the implementation of immigration restrictions. In each of these debates, Baynton argues that the concept of disability plays a key role in justifying the discriminatory practices laid out in law. For instance, politicians and scientists in the 19th century frequently argued that enslaved black Americans were constitutionally unfit for full civic participation; their bodies and minds were built for captivity. Similarly, women’s constitutional infirmities were used to justify excluding them from the franchise.
Since the political revolutions of the eighteenth century, social and political thinkers have challenged ostensibly rational justifications for inequalities based on gender, race, and ethnicity. Disability has been largely absent from that effort, despite its prominence in debates over equality. Not only has disability justified the inequality of disabled people but of other groups as well. the argument that the disabled identity has been used throughout history to argue both for and against the equality of marginalized groups—disability is either assigned to the marginalized, or the marginalized reject the disabled label in order to justify gains on their part. Disability has functioned historically to justify inequality for disabled people themselves, but it has also done so for women and minority groups. That is, not only has it been considered justifiable to treat disabled people unequally, but the concept of