Distorted ideals: the "problem of dependency" and the mythology of independent living

Social Theory and Practice, Oct, 2001 by Steven R. Smith

Introduction

The ideal of independent living for disabled people, although it has political cachet for a society committed to the values of economic independence and self-reliance, represents an over-simplified distortion of the social experiences of disabled and non-disabled people alike and of the complex moral questions arising out of these experiences. However, to understand the ideal of independent living it is important first to examine what is socially constructed as "the problem of dependency"--and herein lie the origins of what I will call "the myth of independent living."

The ideal of independent living can be understood as a myth in two senses--it is a goal that is unquestionably and falsely assumed to be (a) attainable, and (b) morally desirable. I will try to show that it is a myth that is commonly promoted in both of these senses through traditional right/left-wing politics as well as through the Disability Rights Movement, despite the important differences within and between these positions. Through combining insights from social theory and political philosophy, I will argue that understanding individual relationships and social relations as interdependent and symbiotic provides the basis for a more accurate account of the social and moral worlds we all occupy. In the process, this understanding will allow for a more fully fledged "celebration of differences," including the celebration of the various types of interdependencies we experience that are in part shaped by the differing experiences we have of disability and impairment.

The "Problem of Dependency" and Policy-Making

In general, dependency can be defined as: the state in which a person or group relies upon the activities of another to meet their needs in a way that broadly conforms to societal norms. Separate from questions concerning specific definitions or "social constructions" of normality and how this affects understandings of need, (1) the degree to which a relationship is dependent within any definition is usually in inverse proportion to the level of reciprocity that is perceived to exist within that relationship. Reciprocity, in turn, refers to the degree to which the dependent person can in some way return or repay the goods and benefits received. These "returns" or "repayments" will not necessarily be identical in form to the benefits or goods received but can instead be "equivalent" to them in some way--whether this equivalence is related to the benefits received or to the cost to the person returning or repaying. (2) Therefore, in its paradigmatic form, the dependent relationship is one where the dependent group/individual is understood as unable to reciprocate at all in relation to the "donor" group/individual. In less extreme cases, the dependency may be understood as allowing (even demanding) reciprocation in some form, but the outcomes relating to need fulfillment, for the dependent group/individual, are still reliant upon the donor group/individual behaving in particular ways.

The "problem" of dependency is understood by policy-makers in a number of different contexts but is constructed as symptomatic of both extreme and less extreme cases. For example, severely disabled people are frequently perceived as being entirely dependent upon the activities of non-disabled people to meet their needs. As such, the dependency in this case is understood as a problem, to be solved often by reference to some kind of redistributive principle between the "better off" (non-disabled) and the "worst off" (disabled)--where the needs of the latter are justifiably met at the expense of the former. (3) Moreover, because of the extreme dependency, the distributive principle usually comes with no conditions attached, except that the dependent person is able to prove her status as severely disabled. (4) In less extreme cases, the dependency is either temporary and/or the dependent person is able to do something herself to relieve the dependency. A solo parent, for example, is often defined as being "welfare dependent" but with fairly stringent conditions being placed on the payment of social security benefits to encourage the claimant to change her dependent condition. (5) Here the putative social problem to be solved is not only how best to meet the needs of the dependent person and her family members. But how that person can move from a state of economic dependence to independence--the latter condition being seen as more morally desirable than the former. Of course, some would claim that the types of policies implemented in response to this understanding of dependency often as a consequence effectively undermine the goal of economic independence. However, the point here is that the claim--at least from those working within the above "dependency paradigm"--is that if economic independence is achieved, not only are proper moral relations restored according to this particular social construction of the "dependency problem," in the process, it is seen as more likely that the former dependent will experience less poverty for her and her family as a result.