Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2014, Blaðsíða 97

Uppeldi og menntUn/icelandic JoUrnal of edUcation 23(2) 2014 97
Kristín Björnsdóttir, dan goodley & hanna Björg sigUr jónsdóttir
draw from the ideas of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. From early childhood
social actors develop attitudes and dispositions that unconsciously steer their practic-
es and are in a way produced by their social history or what Bourdieu (1994) refers to
as ‘cultural trajectory’. We (the authors of this article) are sidetracked by our ‘cultur-
al trajectory’, which is grounded in the grand theoretical narrative of disability and
attempts to give an absolute explanation of disabilities and ignores the complexity
of living with and negotiating impairment. The grand theory of disability could fur-
ther be explained in the terms of a grand theoretical narrative of pathology or deficits
which serves the purpose of determining the individual’s limitations and inabilities
(Thomas, 2008). The grand theoretical narrative is deeply grounded in medicine, diag-
nostics, developmental psychology, and special education and has shaped services for
disabled people that consist of exclusion and marginalization. The grand theoretical
narrative influences all society, not only such fields as disability and academia. For
example, in an analysis of Icelandic print media, Kristín identified that the discourse
in newspapers and magazines is dominated by a defective understanding of disabil-
ity and people with intellectual disabilities are presented as childlike, dependent and
incompetent (Björnsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2009).
By responding to the call for research reflexivity and reflecting on the complex re-
lationships in intellectual disabilities research through the lenses of social approaches,
the Nordic Relational Approach and the British Social Model, we are reminded how easily
we can be sidetracked by the grand theoretical narrative of disability. Although we
belong to the field of disability studies, contributing to the new social understanding
of disability and engaging in participatory research, we still produce misconceptions
shaped by the grand theoretical narrative.
Our collaborators’ experiences are also influenced by the grand theory. They have
been labelled by the medical, social, and educational systems as having intellectual
disabilities. They have been grouped with people who are generally considered in-
competent and childlike. Their ‘social trajectory’ is one of discrimination, exclusion,
and marginalization. Looking back at the oppositional and disrupted stories told
above, the question of anticipation is raised; do they anticipate our disabling assump-
tions? If we look at the interactions between Kristín and her collaborators we see them
negotiating their disability by challenging and resisting preconceived notions of their
competencies. The negotiation is rooted in a counter narrative of disability that chal-
lenges the dominant and disabling grand narrative. The counter narrative arises from
the disability movement and self-advocacy of disabled people around the globe. It is
in opposition to the dominant deficit understanding of disability and in line with the
rise of the new academic field of disability studies, where social understandings of
disability are being developed, including the Nordic Relational Approach and the British
Social Model. The grand theoretical narrative is constructed and reproduced by profes-
sionals who are trained to diagnose, teach, train, and care for disabled people. Histor-
ically, people with intellectual disabilities have been excluded and marginalized from
participation in society and their voices have been unheard. Therefore, people with
intellectual disabilities have not had opportunities to contribute to the construction