My original plan was to completely rework my earlier post on meritocracy and disability. However, the more I thought about it, the more I decided against it. The whole point of these posts is to work through the overflow of thoughts in my head. Putting them into writing gives me space for new thoughts, and that’s exactly what has happened! So instead of reworking and adding to my previous post, I’ll just hand you this wild part two! If you haven’t already, read my last post on this topic. You’ll need it to understand this one. That preface aside, let’s recap a bit:
Meritocracy: The theory that people succeed because of earned merit. Their accolades equivocate their success. Further, anyone can achieve merit, almost in an “equal playing field” ideology. Key words: merit, theory.
Marx: Individuals with disabilities unfortunately can’t earn merit because of their “residual” classification in regard to both class and social status. Because of this classification, they are overlooked for employment. Because they are not part of the bourgeoise, they must work to earn any form of merit, so no work = no merit. Marx also makes a unique argument regarding work creating disability, which makes this realm of the topic one big, never-ending cycle.
Durkheim: It’s not as black and white. Society functions enough so that there is a bit more of a spectrum between “able-bodied” and “disabled”. However, because there isn’t uniformity amongst these two groups, there is a big stigma that gets in the way for individuals with disabilities when it comes to merit and success. Essentially, Durkheim sees growth, but even as a functionalist, he sees the issue at hand.
Weber: Most prevalent here, Weber calls the study of disability within sociology “adolescent”. Through Weber’s teachings on ideal types (the “perfect” member of society) we can understand a more modern/contemporary approach to disability in relation to meritocracy. Through Weber’s ideology on the American work ethic (religion aside), we can also pick up more on the effort needed in order to be considered “successful” by American standards.
I won’t lie, I’m kind of impressed with myself for not taking up more time on the recap! I like words a lot, if you haven’t noticed… Anywho, let’s move on. What I’d like to do today is apply this idea of meritocracy and disability to some more major parts of society. The “macro-structure” I’d like to focus on is the federal government, with a specific focus on the position of the American President(s). We’re going to look at a few Presidents and how they fit, or don’t, within this idea of meritocracy and disability. Let me be clear: This will not be a post about my political beliefs. I’m going to do my best to apply all three sociological perspectives to each individual. If you get any of my thoughts, they’ll be on the theory, not the president.
When we look at the history of U.S. officials with disabilities, there isn’t a whole lot readily available. However, I was one of the lucky students to learn about a particular president many years ago in a high school history class. Franklin D Roosevelt quite frequently attempted to hide his physical disability. After losing use of his legs from polio, FDR went from using a cane to using a wheelchair. Photos often display a blanket draped or cloaked over him in an attempt to disguise the wheelchair. There is one photo in particular, one that I naturally cannot find, where FDR is not using a cane or wheelchair. However, the gentleman he is walking with has a stiffened arm, and it is clear that the president is putting all of his weight on his companion. This attempt to hide his physical state is concerning at best. So how does this connect to meritocracy? Well, if his mind was still sharp, and his ideologies still widely agreed with, why did Franklin D. Roosevelt need to hid his ability status?
Durkheim talks a lot about stigma when addressing meritocracy and disability, and I think that is very applicable here. The stigma surrounding disability is way too problematic. There is a blur between physical and mental disability. Society has made the two synonymous. So when FDR became an essentially full-time wheelchair user, society began to pin him as incompetent. It’s no wonder he tried hiding his ability status. So we know that Durkheim would pull the stigma card. What would Marx say? Marx would be baffled. FDR contracted polio before he became president, so Marx can’t blame his disability on his profession. He also can’t identify Roosevelt as a member of a “residual class”, as FDR was running with the elite of American society. Oddly enough, he might actually see the same issue of stigma that Durkheim saw. The innate “othering” of people with disabilities is something the two theorists share. See this is what I love about sociology. Every once in a while, you can connect conflict theory and functionalism through real connections, not just contradictions. Fascinating!
Let’s also take into consideration Weber’s ideal types. What or who is the “ideal president”? Well, let’s look at who we have historically elected: White, wealthy, middle-aged(ish) men. What happens when we stray from this? JFK was incredibly young, an he was assassinated. FDR faced a physical disability, and he was othered by the very people he sought to defend. The United States called for the release of Obama’s birth certificate to verify his citizenship because of his race. Historically speaking, straying from the American ideal type of president has gone over about as well as a fart in church. This includes when disability is brought into the picture.
Let’s look at another example, one that is very recent. Since beginning his campaign, Joe Biden has faced countless allegations of mental disability, and subsequent incompetence. Whether you like Joe Biden or not, there have definitely been some words thrown around about his ability status. So what do we know? We know that he had a speech impediment as a child. We also know that with age comes reduced cognitive function. Both of these factors fall under the large umbrella of disability. However, Biden isn’t decrepit or nonverbal. So why the emphasis on these factors? This is where I would restate all of the above information from Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. So is history repeating itself or are these concerns about our current POTUS valid? I’ll leave that up to you, I won’t be elaborating on my personal opinion or answer to that question.
There’s one really big element that we’re forgetting about… The presidents discussed in this post all reached the level of presidency. FDR and Biden both faced backlash for disability (whether alleged or confirmed), yet they were still elected. FDR was even elected for a third term. Durkheim would say this is a major indicator that disability isn’t a one-way ticket to othering. Durkheim would argue that these men prove disability doesn’t interfere with the United States as a meritocracy. Why, then, do we discredit the reputability of our presidents (political perspectives aside) when we see any indicator of handicap, disability, or alternative ability status? I don’t know, Durkheim… I think we may disagree on this one.
Believe it or not, I think there may be a Part 3 to this series. I want to look at the education system next. So in the sea of spiritual, sociological, and musical posts on this page, keep an eye out for the next round of analysis on meritocracy and disability!
Until then, keep thinking.
Humble Chutzpah 