Embracing Difference

Most u.s. progressives share the view that the destigmatization of “disability” is a positive thing. Translating that vision into widespread social practice, however, is proving difficult to do. The U.S. mainstream has much to learn from Native American communities, many of which have lived experience with non-stigmatizing approaches to differences in community members’ talents and abilities.Western knowledge systems establish opposition concepts such as day/night, good/bad, and able/disabled. These dichotomies form the basis of Western social hierarchies by establishing certain identities as superior and others as inferior, and they shape how people with disabilities are defined and treated within Western communities and institutions.While there is no single, unified Native American culture, language, spirituality, or way of being, it is generally accurate to say that Native American worldviews do not adhere to this same dichotomous logic structure. Instead, they focus on an interrelatedness of all things. It is useful to draw generalizations such as these in order to illustrate how Native American approaches to disability offer a counter-model to Western approaches. Before I proceed in contrasting these two approaches, I would like to ask the many distinct and unique Native American communities’ forgiveness for the generalizations made in this article.Within Native American worldviews, all aspects of the universe are generally seen as connected in a mode of spirit or energy beyond dichotomy or hierarchy. Each being can be thought of as a tripartite self with mind, body, and spirit. While each component is of value, the spirit is often understood to be the most significant, as it is the enduring element of self and is always whole and connected to other spirit beings. Because the spirit is always whole, there is no designation of some people as able and others as disabled. A difference or damage in the body does not indicate damage to the spirit, nor does it limit communication between individuals. Even individuals who cannot communicate verbally can communicate with others who are trained to do so.Native American concepts of difference are informed by the interdependent structure of traditional Native American communities. Individuals within these communities traditionally understand themselves in terms of their position in the community and the responsibilities that are associated with that position. For example, a person might think of herself as a daughter, granddaughter, mother, sister, friend, and community participant.Western communities, in contrast, tend to focus more on independence, defining the self in terms of rights owed and individual success. This orientation establishes patterns of interaction that involve competition and conflict as a means of establishing or maintaining one’s success.Native American communities, on the other hand, tend to designate conflict as the result of childlike immaturity that can be outgrown. Competition is used to establish talent differences, but not as a means of establishing an individual as more successful than or superior to another. Individuals are deemed successful according to their character and community achievements, not by talents of body or mind, which are finite and will pass. Thus “success” means making progress toward balance with the self and the self’s contributions to all of his or her relations.In following with their understanding that all beings participate in the collective spirit, these communities treat issues of wellness and difference in a community-based fashion. The community assists people with differences in whatever ways they may need, attending to their personal requirements for balance and offering any assistance necessary to enable them to participate in the community. However, it remains the responsibility of each individual to work to gain balance or harmony and thus wellness. Balance is not a state that, once achieved, is permanently retained. It is a continuing process. Balance is a process of becoming, not being. In addition, balance does not necessitate the elimination of the difference. Whether or not the difference (what Western frameworks would call a “disability”) is permanent, it is not seen as a betrayal or as something with which one must continually struggle. The goal in Native American healing is not the overcoming or elimination of these differences, as is seen in Western cultures. Instead, healing is a matter of coming to balance with the whole self, including the difference. The individual is not defined by the difference; rather, the difference is incorporated into the whole being.Every being is understood to have a role in society, and the balanced self promotes the overall success of the society. Traditional Native American communities recognize all talents as gifts from the Creator and consider them to be of immense value to the community. One individual may have limited or no sight, but may have a talent for making Piki bread. Another individual may have a talent for storytelling or song, but no talent for walking. One child may be seen by the Native American community as less book-talented but instead as skilled in listening and retaining information, and thus able to serve society as a historian or medicine person. Another child, who may be considered “slow” by Western standards, may have a talent with animals, farming, or sewing, all of which are necessary abilities for the community’s survival. For this reason, the preference for the “normal” functioning of the body and mind is itself suspect.I imagine that some readers may have a skeptical response to my positive assessment of Native American approaches to disability, due to the widespread circulation of myths about Native American groups abandoning people with disabilities to die. In our book Native American Communities on Health and Disability: Borderland Dialogues, Dr. Carol Locust and I examined these abandonment myths that continue to surface in Western literature. We found that there is no evidence or corroboration for the allegations made in these stories.Native American scholars largely dismiss these stories as colonization attempts stemming from “ignoble savage” literature. These stories tend to reflect misinterpretations of medical and spiritual practices. At a recent conference in Florida, a white scholar discussed ancient Indigenous remains recovered from a dig. The individual whose remains she studied seemed to suffer from severe bone cancer. The contents of her stomach contained specific berries and herbs. The scholar stated that the Indigenous woman had been euthanized by her community without providing any evidence to support her assumption. Had she spoken to the local Indigenous communities, she would have learned that the combination of those herbs and berries is still used to treat severe pain and bone illnesses. For those experiencing severe pain and illness, it is not uncommon even now for dosages of medicines to be high. To jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion of euthanasia reflects a prejudice in the scholar that is also held more generally in academia.In other cases, what has been interpreted as abandonment is no more than a difference between where Western and Indigenous people commune with the Creator. Western cultures tend to choose to meet their Creator in buildings, while many Native American communities choose to go to the Creator in nature. An Indigenous individual who is in the process of moving on will often move, or be brought, outdoors so that his or her spirit can meet the Creator without being inhibited by buildings. This act of crossing over is a deeply personal event. The individual is often attended by only a few from this world because he or she is also understood to be attended by those who have crossed before. These times are often spent quietly or in soft song. The focus is on the peaceful passing to the next place, and interference from this world is kept to a minimum. The choice to stay or to leave the body is considered to be a spiritual choice of letting go when a pathway has been prepared.It is impossible to claim that throughout history abuse never occurred in Native American communities. However, there is no evidence that any Native American community approved of or practiced abandonment or harm to those with differences. To the contrary, evidence from traditional Native American ethics and practices supports the claim that those with differences were supported in their survival to the best of their community’s ability.Historically, Native American families and communities have been faced with well-intentioned health workers, social workers, and teachers who believe it is important to label children of difference as “disabled” and, in some cases, to remove them from their community. For example, one young man, who was deemed by Western social workers to be in need of a group home, was removed. The young man had been an active and beloved member of the community and had taken care of many older people by chopping wood and doing chores they could not do. He was known in the community to be quiet and loving and had never shown any sign of violence. However, when the social worker forced his removal, he became distraught in the van on the way to the group home. The social worker, and later the Western medical staff, diagnosed him as violent and placed him in a secured facility. The young man’s decline worsened until he was no longer responsive. He was never returned to the loving community that mourned his loss.Underlying these interventions is the same cultural arrogance that has repeatedly led to the cultural and physical genocide of Native American communities. When a Native American family or community does not understand a child to be “disabled,” but the authorities impose that label, the negative connotations become instilled in the child and can create physical, psychological, and emotional damage. Removal practices “for the benefit of the child” bring damage or unwellness upon the entire community, which mourns the loss of the child and his or her gifts. The child is then faced with devastating effects from this loss of heritage and community support. Individuals who are institutionalized are often given little or no voice in their own treatment, placement, or future prospects, whereas in traditional Native American communities these individuals can make decisions and determine their own futures.To ensure that they do not perpetuate further violence against Native American communities, U.S. health workers, government workers, and teachers must become educated in Native American theories of the self and spirit and the interdependency of communities. Social service groups must assist Native American communities in supporting the talents of people with differences from the majority. Dr. Locust and I continue to work with many caring Western social workers and medical personnel who have educated themselves in Native American traditions and cultures. It is our hope that well-educated and properly trained personnel will replace those who either do not care about Native American cultures or see no need to become educated in the traditions. We believe that individuals working within Native American communities should be required to go through trainings designed and implemented by the Elders of the communities in which they find themselves. So long as Western societies continue to define individuals of difference as inferior, the treatment of people with differences will remain negative.We need to move beyond framing “disability” as a burden upon the American medical and educational budgets. By dismissing the talents of a vast number of individuals simply because other parts of them are different, our society becomes diminished. The United States as a whole would do well to reconsider its approach to “disability” in light of Native American insights in this arena — by embracing the talents of all people, our society will grow stronger and more vibrant.