Don't be embarassed because it is arcane and the history is only just being written by disabled historians and theorists as of late. Disability has largely been placed in the realm of medicine, not sociology or history. Actually it is an exciting time for disabled people now forming collectively to do the necessary work to define ourselves.
>However, if I am reading you correctly, their form of
>"rehabilitation" was related to making these groups
>more "productive", meaning in the case of capitalism
>to make these groups able to produce commodities to
>some extent. It's as if these "rehabilitators"
>strived to show, "look, these people aren't so bad
>after all...they can serve capitalism, too". In other
>words, their criterion of "good" is based on notions
>of commodity productivity.
Sure, but also a whole crop of professionals found an occupation -- rehabilitating, overseeing, counseling, the "inferior" disabled persons and did not see them as a minority that had been excluded from society. An industry of social workers, psychologists, doctors, etc. set up the disability system which created dependency. A friend of mine jokes, "now that we have a recession more nondisabled people will be hired to find jobs for us" (they rarely do).
>
>Well, I presume that many of these groups were unable
>to "produce" commodities as quickly as the "normal"
>people. Notice that I enclose the word "normal" in
>quotation marks, because obviously normal in a
>commodity driven society means "those who can
>'produce'
>commodities quickly and efficiently".
Yes, but since impairment is wide ranging one size does not fit all. Some can keep up with the average widget sorter and some cannot. Blind people, for instance, work making plates and flatware for companies that are sheltered workshops at below minimum wages and produce at rates equal to nondisabled workers. A developmentally disabled person can bus tables as efficiently as a nondisabled one.
>Of course
>ANYONE who cannot do so is put into a ghetto and
>defined as anormal.
The rise of the institution in Western society coincided with the rise of industrial capitalism. The "abnormal" were so named and segregated from the population. Also excluded were the unskilled pool of workers ever desperate for work should the capitalists need them.
>
>So, in spite of any well-intentioned individuals, when
>you live in a society in which the psychology
>considers commodity production as the highest good, or
>the development of the "productive sources" as the
>highest good, then folks like the blind, deaf,
>mentally retarded, etc are going to be viewed as
>flawed by that system and the people who cop to the
>ideology of that system; rehabilitators, who cop to
>that ideology, no matter how well intentioned, are
>only going to measure "progress" in terms of how much
>the "disabled" person can increase his/her work
>productivity. Correct me, if I am wrong in this..I am
>just making assumptions, jumping from the general to
>the specific.
Oh I think you are quite correct in this. But the professionals became gatekeepers in a way which oppressed disabled persons as well as the capitalist need to make profit above all else.
>
>Perhaps, if you would be so kind, you could point me
>to a good history of the disabled.
>
>Thomas
>
It is sporadic, not in one book, but I would point you to:
Michael Oliver, "The Politics of Disablement" St Martin's Press, 1990 Brendan Gleeson, "Geographies of Disability" Routledge 1999 Doris Zames Fleischer and Frieda Zames, "The Disability Rights Movement" Temple University Press 2001 Paul Longmore and Lauri Umansky, eds., "The New Disability History" (2002, I think) Colin Barnes, Geof Mercer, and Tom Shakespeare, "Exploring Disability, a Sociological Introduction" Polity Press 1999
If you would like I can snail mail you some of my papers. I have one written from a Marxist perspective which follows your reasoning here. It was published by the Journal of Disability Policy Studies Fall 2001. marta -- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.disweb.org