What do y'all think of this article on ancient disability?

Post Reply New Topic

http://warwickglobalist.com/2015/11/11/survival-of-the-fittest-experiencing-disability-in-antiquity/

I have to admit that I read it and was not impressed. I felt that she focused almost exclusively on "social stigma" and did not consider the issues that many disabled people would face with no systematized push for treatment or accommodation. She seems to use almost exclusively anecdote (and folklore) to demonstrate her points, and the bit with the King was strange-- he kills friends and strangers in equal measure because he's mentally ill (this is really the example of mental illness she wants to use?) and he is still powerful because he is a King. The supremacy of monarchy doesn't mean people with blindness, mental illness, deafness, or physical impairment had an easy time by any means.

That being said, I may be unfair, so I wanted to get second opinions.

The article seems a bit vague really, and reliant wholly on looking at Classical Greece.
There are only three pieces of evidence put forth, two of which are mythic (and teasing out the complexities of Greek religious narratives & beliefs is a complex specialism all of its own), and one tale from Herodotus... who is better as a source of what was said to be the case then what was the case (by his own admission: he set out to record how the people of his time perceived events).
The references (only three!) given at the bottom might prove more interesting, informative and thought provoking: but the article itself reads more like a pointer to them than something of genuine substance.

You don't need to go back to antiquity to see the "If you were able to survive with a disability then you were just as able as anyone else" attitude. It's true anywhere where survival is your first concern.
My father's grandfather lost his leg in WWI.
He got married and could normally support his family as a shoemaker. This shaped a lot the attitude towards disability in my family: a disability is your weakness but find what strengths you have to make up for it and live a productive life with what you got.

People often use anecdote to enliven a point they want to make—to make it accessible to a mass audience who do not often read peer-reviewed journal articles.

This serves a useful purpose, in my opinion. The reader should receive input from both anecdotes and research; this would enable an individual to be able to arrive at a broadened assessment of an issue.

Magz‘s example is not “backed by research,” and is purely anecdotal. It provided a great amount of illustration to me. She is a research scientist who sees the value of common sense.

I guess it's true that anecdote can be good for illustrating points. It would be good if it was backed up by empirical research or at least something connecting the anecdote to something institutional.

(ie, are there any writings that point to widespread Roman policies on how to treat the blind, deaf, impaired, etc?)

I doubt there were any widespread policies. Policies are a recent invention. In a survival-focused world, you either make it or not. If you don't make it, you die. If you make it, you live with whatever burdens you carry.

As the author of the text mentioned, ancient people didn't have a concept of disability.

The late (Christian era) Roman Emperor Justinian had a massive complication of all extant Roman law made during his reign, copies of which survive: I suppose that and academic assessments of it would be a good starting point.
Cicero wrote a lot on the functioning of the Roman Republic in its last generation: there might be something among his surviving works.
And of course the Stoic philosophers would give you an overview of a popular approach to dealing with adversity from that era.

There were “policies” in ancient societies. But not really when it came to “disabilities.”

Many were taken care of by their families; the treatment received in these situations varied from brutal to excellent.

Many disabled people compensated, similar to how Magz’s great-grandfather compensated. Some had to resort to begging. It was a mixed bag, really.

Of course, many disabled people were treated brutally all the way around.

And the latter (Byzantine) Eastern Roman Empire developed a notion that the emperor had to be without physical disability: blinding became a way of attempting to invalidate a rivals claim to the throne, although there was one occasion where that didn’t work.

I think my memory must be going.

Just thought: Sparta.

They definitely had a concept of disability: used to throw babies born with physical defects off a cliff.
This was thought to be a tall tale for centuries, until archaeologists excavated the bottom of said cliff.

Typical article of that sort of thing. No complaints from me.

Mental, physical, spiritual, and moral disabilities have always been blended in cultures.

In the US, we describe mental issues as if they were physical, we have little concept of improving a moral state, and we deny spiritual states.

There are different mixes of understanding elsewhere. I used to know a lady from Bhutan who had seizures “because her child died”.

It should be assumed that our understanding of disability used to be different and will be different again in the future.