Assimilation
Many people in this country have accepted, whether consciously or unconsciously, the notion of assimilation or the idea of a melting pot in which we will all merge becoming one homogeneous country with a universal set of standards and beliefs. This concept has prevailed since white European groups immigrated to America. The view of assimilation and people fusing together has often led to the notion of color blindness (Isaacs & Benjamin, 1991). This essentially means that we are all the same and that a person's color (or disability, or gender etc.) has nothing to do with how s/he will or will not be seen and accepted. Carol Gill (Johnson, 1987) says in response to the idea of ignoring a physical disability,
...Disabilities themselves cause problems, and those physical problems, too, form who we are. I don't like the idea of ignoring that. That's also a potent force in our development. No matter what your disability is, it has an impact on you. To say you're just like everyone else--except you accidentally have this little difference is really to deny your experience. And I don't think denying your experience can ever lead to good judgement.
In essence, people denying their race, gender, disability or whatever trait is significant to them, as though it didn't exist, or teachers and professionals saying, "I don't see their color or disability," only further contributes to denying who that person is.
The idea of who can become part of the dominant culture has a deep historical context that calls into question who is acceptable to assimilate. In understanding this, it is important to take a brief historical look at how cultural diversity has been viewed over time and some of the reasons why assimilation was never possible.
Early on, Social Darwinism opposed cultural diversity, militantly limiting how people of the dominant culture knew and understood people who were different from themselves. They cautioned that we should not interfere with the evolutionary forces that attempt to make universal what was attainable by only a few; consequently, we should not try to assimilate people considered incapable of survival and who might contaminate the stock of intelligent individuals considered important to civilization (typically northern Europeans) (Edson, 1989). Terms like "childlike" and "uncivilized" were labels applied to Blacks, immigrants, and people with special needs (p. 5).
Edson presents three main issues that have constructed barriers to multiculturalism. They are: race and slavery, ethnicity and immigration, and eugenics and intelligence.
Race and Slavery. This was interpreted by many as bringing "civilization" to Blacks, a view that was widely accepted among early twentieth century white Americans. Early in the century (not unlike today) race was viewed as a national problem as Blacks moved to the north, and the portrayal of them as uncivilized, lustful, and superstitious remained. Some argue these attitudes remain today as the portrayal of African Americans in the mass media, and this portrayal has changed little (hooks, 1992). Because theories of evolution explained things in a so-called "scientific" manner they were widely accepted (Gould, 1981). Beliefs and assumptions about Blacks, as well as other groups seen to be "deviant," became institutionalized, which justified treating them differently.
Ethnicity and Immigration. During the early part of the century, there was also an influx of immigrants coming to this country. As evolution was accepted as an explanation for the racial problems that existed it also served to define ethnic problems. Immigrants were said to be uncivilized and docile and considered to be of inferior stock. Along with this migration came industrialization and urbanization, which led to a growing number of social problems which included urban ghettos, increased crime labor conflicts, and growing discontent among the working class poor (Handlin, 1951). This flood of immigrants was viewed with great alarm by the dominant culture described as White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) (Suzuki, 1984). This gave rise to the concept of assimilation, and the notion of implanting immigrant children with the Anglo sense of righteousness. Making them like "us" would work to make the society a better place and create in a sense a homeostatic harmony and a melting pot.
Intelligence and Eugenics. By the 1920s the evolution ideas were becoming less popular, but deep-seated effects remained and gave rise to the new "sciences" of Intelligence Testing and Eugenics which was based on the belief that "science" could ameliorate and control the evolutionary process and preserve and possibly perfect "civilization." This was a time of human engineering and some advocated that those found to be "mentally defective" be sterilized so as not to reproduce (Edson, 1989). Intelligence, then, was equated with social character. Poverty and social conditions were not looked at as explanations for why some people could not rise above their conditions; instead, character faults and lack of intelligence were promoted as reasons why some people were in certain situations. Science was seen to be value-free (Patton, 1990) and the opinions of those considered to be the experts were taken as truth, giving rise to professionalism and the status of the expert (Bledstein, 1976). The patterns of devaluation for a number of people in our society (African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, women, people with disabilities, etc.) can be easily traced and continue to contribute to many of our beliefs and attitudes toward people who are not considered as part of the dominant culture.
The public schools played a major role in promoting assimilation through the imposition of a strong Anglocentric curriculum which often punished children for using their mother tongue and devalued cultural traditions and values of any given culture outside of the dominant one. One striking example is what happened to American Indian children who were taken from the reservations and placed in governmental schools in an effort to replace Indian culture with Anglo American culture. One of the most notable aspects was the removal of Indian girls from tribal homes in an effort to make them into a government version of the ideal American woman (Trennert, 1990). In addition laws were created in 1887 prohibiting American Indians from speaking their native languages in schools (Duchene, 1988).
As early as 1964 it was argued that there was no evidence showing the melting pot ideology worked (Gordon, 1964). As Trennert (1990) points out, racial beliefs worked to hinder the success of assimilation, and despite the fact that the schools were trying to convince Indian girls of their equality, the overriding racist belief in the inferiority of the Indian seldom led a successful graduate to be integrated or accepted in the job market. We continue, however, to base our educational institutions, programs, services, and expectations on such a theory.
Until the 1960s, many social scientists viewed racial minorities as merely the last groups to migrate to the cities and predicted that it was only a matter of time before they too would assimilate and gain upward mobility (Blauner, 1972; Suzuki, 1984). Yet as Harry (1992) argues, there is a grave distinction related to who can actually assimilate. In this country today there is a resurgence of new immigrants, yet the difference for many of these immigrants is that many are from non-European countries, and their skin color alone sets up obstacles to integration. Harry (1992b) brings up the difficulties in assimilating when skin color is the bias and prejudices remain around issues of race.
Today, the need to understand that knowledge is a social construct and that it reflects the experiences, values, and perspectives of people and their cultures is critical (Banks, 1991, p. 34). The challenges it provides are being embraced in a multitude of areas including the area of disability.
Multiculturalism and Disability
Understanding disability within the context of issues related to diversity and minority status is not new. In their chapter on "The Disabled Minority," Biklen and Knoll (1987) discuss the discrimination and stereotypes that are faced by people with disabilities simply because of that disability. Drawing analogies to other groups facing institutionalized discrimination, Bogdan and Biklen (1977) coined the term handicapism and drew parallels to it and racism and sexism. They relate how prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination are an inherent part of handicapism and the policies and institutionalized discrimination that keep handicapism in place.
This analysis laid the groundwork which likened disability to the larger societal discriminations that exist. It is important, especially now with the popular interest in cultural diversity and multiculturalism, to continue to link these dialogues. It is equally important to acknowledge that people with disabilities are multi-faceted individuals whose life circumstances are made up of a variety of experiences. It is important to understand people with disabilities in light of all of the forces that impact on their lives. Looking only at disability limits a person's identity and does little to help us understand how a person's ethnicity, gender, class, sexual preference, and religion play a role in their identity.
Double Discrimination
In our society people who are poor, of minority status, and labelled as having a disability are often at a disadvantage in schools and within the service system (Harry, 1992b; Smart & Smart, 1992). In discussing the effects of each of these, Herman (1983) suggests that when these elements intersect, families and people with disabilities are more vulnerable to discrimination. In addition people viewed as having a minority status tend to have a higher likelihood to be poorer and unemployed; thus, individuals from minority groups who have disabilities tend to earn less when they are employed than their white counterparts with disabilities. Another factor to consider is the higher risk for minorities of becoming disabled (Parrino, 1992). This is often related to issues of poverty as well as discrimination of services that exist. In school settings, for example, minority children are at risk because they are being asked to master two cultures. Ironically, the expansion of the civil rights movement of the 1960s brought additional special education services where large numbers of "culturally different" children were labelled retarded and inappropriately classified because of assessment bias and language differences, classroom practices, racial and cultural prejudices and cultural incongruity in instruction and curriculum (Harry, 1992a).
In a hierarchy of "handicaps" within our society, is being Black more visible or devalued? Carter suggests (1986) that the story of Black mental health consumers is one of being in "double jeopardy" because of the negative feelings towards Blacks and people who are labeled mentally ill. With descriptors such as Black, Latino, American Indian and disability or being a woman with a disability and often poor, the question "what is primary" to that person and their identity must be raised. Many of these people are dually devalued in our society. The inter-relationship between the areas of race and disability, gender and disability (Traustadottir, 1990), and class and disability (Golden, 1987) are research areas that remain virtually untouched but are critical areas whose impact needs to be more clearly understood. As individuals gain knowledge of themselves as being made up of many experiences, it is critical that the field of disability studies begin revisit the principles that drive it.
Community Integration and Normalizatio
There have been many changes in the field of disabilities over the past 25 years. The deinstitutionalization movement placed people in the community, but it has done little to acknowledge the individual identities of those people or their families. The movement toward community integration has only begun to look at what living as a valued member of a community means for a person with a disability. These questions must further our understanding of people not only in relation to their disability but also in relation to the many other aspects that make up who they are. All are important elements of a person's identity and impact greatly on where s/he will choose to live, who s/he will choose as friends and all of the decisions that person will make about his or her life. As we begin to look more closely at what it means to be included or integrated into a community for people with disabilities, we must understand more clearly what makes up an individual's life. For example, a Latino person may want to continue living in his or her neighborhood around people that s/he knows and speak the same language rather than move to a neighborhood simply because the system feels it is better or safer. People labelled as having a disability essentially were (and in many cases still are) defined almost entirely by their disability. They were not described as a young/old man or woman who is African American, Latino, American Indian, or European American, or as a person who adheres strongly to the values, traditions, and beliefs of their culture. We knew only that they had a disability and knew/know well all of the clinical nuances that were attributed to that disability. A designation of having a behavioral problem often is more of a determinant as to where a person might live, go to school, or work more fully than any of the personal aspects of that person's life. This was especially true for people labelled with mental retardation or with mental illness labels (Doe, 1992).
Much of what drove the community integration movement were the principle of normalization, often referred to as social role valorization (Wolfensberger, 1983), which are being questioned in light of cultural diversity (Baxter, Poonia, Ward, & Nadirshaw, 1990). These principles, are based on the belief that people with disabilities should be socially accepted and valued, and made assumptions about what is considered to be "normal or "valued" in our society. Baxter et al., ask two questions: 1. What are the norms which our society takes for granted? 2. What kind of values should be involved in deciding the policy and practice? They go on to offer some comparisons as to how something offered in one culture as a norm is not in another. In the traditional Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS) evaluation, a rating guide such as "deviant staff juxtapositions" suggests that because Black and ethnic minority people have low social status their employment in services for people with learning difficulties** should be avoided because their presence may further devalue those receiving services.
Another example of this is moving away from home upon adulthood. Though this is the cultural norm in white, middle-class America, it is not the case in many cultures. It should not be taken for granted that because someone has reached a certain age it is time to leave home. In general, services and support systems offered to individuals and families are based on standards and norms of the dominant culture and an assimilationist perspective.
Culture and Services
Though there are many aspects that shape a person, ethnicity has a major influence on how a child understands him/herself. Often it is the cultural patterns that a child learns from his/her family that form his/her view of many things including disability. Isaacs and Benjamin (1991) discuss the relationship of ethnicity and mental health, and much of what they say holds true for the messages children get as they learn to accept or reject a disability. How does a child's culture view the disability, how do they cope with anxiety, depression, fear, anger, and to whom do they turn to seek help; is it extended family or family elders, religious personnel, native healers, or the service system? How disability is constructed within a specific culture plays a key role in understanding the meaning of disability for that person or family.
The cultural context within which disability is perceived is important in knowing the kinds of services to be provided to families and people with disabilities. To one family who may see their child who is labelled playing outside with the neighborhood children after returning home from a segregated special education class, the understanding of the constraints placed upon the child because of his/her label may have little significance until they interact with the service system (O'Connor, 1992). This brings up the question of how a label is defined and to whom is it important. What is imposed on a family or person may be treated very differently within their cultural context. This is not only true in relation to labels but also in relation to childrearing practices within a family.
Kalyanpur and Rao (1991) point out that one African-American mother talked about sending her child to her mother in the south when she felt she needed a break. What she perceived as good parenting and love, workers entering her home saw as her inability to care for her children.
How are services made accessible to people of ethnic groups outside of the dominant culture? When the perceived difference is seen as a deficit that needs to be worked on, people often experience a cadre of workers involved in their lives and a new specialist for each difference that is identified. A number of additional conflicts emerge when services are provided based on values of the dominant culture. Often support agencies are located outside of a community and transportation becomes a problem (O'Connor, 1993). This, in addition to a lack of trust in the system outside of their culture often leads to people being labelled as unconcerned or uncaring about their children (Harry, 1992b). It is clear that to some families the issue of disability is secondary to health issues, or day to day getting by based on the overall needs of the family or person (O'Connor, in press).
All people and families have their own way of perceiving problems and solutions, strategies for dealing with problems and choices of ways to solve them, yet services provided within the dominant culture have done little to understand, respect, and listen to what people considered to be outside of the mainstream are saying. We must also recognize that all Black (whether African American or Caribbean American), Latino, Asian, and American Indian people in this country are not homogeneous and monolithic but varied and complex (Billingsley, 1987). It is the challenge of understanding the meaning of the differences that we all bring to situations that will result in the strengths we need to build a more multicultural society.
Conclusion
We are moving quickly, and in many ways painfully, into the next
century. Before us lie many challenges and choices that people
with disabilities, families, and professionals must make. Do we
want to move forward with one group leading the other, or as
partners? Who today do we need to listen to? History has shown us
that we have done much damage to a great number of people. Our
challenge is the future and how can we learn to listen, to respect,
and work together with people who have not been listened to in the
past. It is the very people who have been excluded for so long who
are best equipped to offer us insight into how we must move forward
in partnerships. Our solutions may not be so much in leaders but
in partners. The strengths related to who a person is because of
his/her cultural, family, religious affiliation, and gender
identity is what we must learn to understand. We must begin by
shifting our focus from one of deviancy and fixing to one of
acceptance and respect, and offering a forum to those people and
families who have been silenced for so long.