Social Integration - A Christian Perspective by Rick Eastin

Social Integration – A Christian Perspective
By Rick Eastin

The purpose of this paper is to assist persons who seek to help and support parents with a family member who is severely disabled. In order to do this one must understand the current ideology of professionals who work with these individuals with disabilities.

To begin with, America in the 1950’s began to depopulate its state institutions for the mentally retarded. The two basic premises of the early deinstitutionalization movement were: 1) it was founded on ethics set by the neglect and abuse that was prevalent in many institutional settings and 2) it was understood that in order for these people to live in the community they would need specialized services throughout their lives. This was the basic mode of thought during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Starting with the 1970’s, we began to see a major philosophical transition gradually occur. Wolfensberger wrote a book entitled, The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. In this now classic text, Wolfensberger formulates and articulates a case for improving the lives of persons with developmental disabilities. Wolfensberger’s philosophy
Clearly implies these basic principles:

A. Since persons with developmental disabilities have characteristics that the dominant culture does not always applaud, it is our task to help eliminate these characteristics so that these people will be seen as socially valued members of society.

B. So this means that we should do away with all principles of helping the developmentally disabled when the means of helping these people are not highly esteemed by the mainstream culture. This implies doing away with special schools, group homes, sheltered workshops and Special Olympics.

Now that I have provided a brief historical summary, I now want to turn your attention toward the broader implications of the integration movement. This philosophy attacks our Judeo-Christian heritage due to its emphasis that a person derives his value from personal perfomance and denies his intrinsic value. Repeatedly, in their literature concerning employment, they state that one earns his status in this society by the type of job he has. According to one source, “To a significant degree in our society, the value of tasks performed at the workplace reflects a person’s perceived value”. (McLoughlin et al, 1987 p. 14)

This movement is not aimed at the mildly disabled person alone but affects the severely and profoundly retarded individuals as well. In regards to sheltered working conditions these same authors state: “our uncompromising position is that sheltered work environments are indefensible on a number of dimensions. Much of what they want from the disabled falls under the guise of age appropriate behavior, which in many cases is simply a clever way of introducing the world and its ways to persons who will always be like children. Since most severely retarded individuals possess a developmental age of three to five, they would naturally be more drawn to TV programs such as Sesame Street. Proponents of this movement strongly believe that if something similar to MTV is appropriate for the non-disabled, then it is equally appropriate for the disabled to view (even if they don't want to.) Integrationalists would say that by permitting a severely retarded adult to watch Sesame Street we are allowing this person to behave in a “deviant” way. Here Wolfensberger describes deviant behavior:

A person becomes deviant by being different from others in one or more dimensions of identity, which are viewed as significant by others, and this different-ness must be negatively valued. It is not different-ness in itself that makes for deviancy in this definition, but negatively valued different-ness. (Wolfensberger, 1980, p. 8)

Consider the humanistic impact of the following statements by the integrationalists:

It may not necessarily mean that a normalization implication is moral or immoral.
There may be some things that may be culturally normative and valued that may not be considered moral by a lot of people. (Wolfensberger, 1980, p.16)

All young adults must make choices about their personal sexual values. Providers should discuss, as objectively as possible, options on decisions such as sex outside marriage, use of birth control and the implications of parenting. It is essential that providers understand the right of individuals to make their own choices about such issues and that those choices may not be the same ones that the provider would make. (Gardner, 1986, p.52)

The proponents of this movement strongly advocate the abandonment of the developmental model (The developmental model says that we learn in stages, one stage builds on another stage. As a person moves from one stage to another his understanding is expanded so he is able to understand subject matter of a more complex nature.) A replacement approach, referred to as the top down model, is upheld by them to be the sole answer to this issue.

However, the danger with the latter model is that it is behavioristic. Those who hold to this view of man, say (in essence) that as people we do not have a mental life, only a physical life. So this means that we are teaching individuals to perform tasks and behave in certain ways even though they may not have any comprehension of what they are doing or why they are doing it. All of this is done so that these people can become integrated into the mainstream community life. This is directly related to Wolfensberger’s concept that we discussed earlier about eliminating behavior that mainstream society does not applaud.

I would like to illustrate with what the integrationalists consider a success story. Let’s look at John, a 23 year old with a functioning level of age 3. He has been placed in a hospital work setting where his task is to fold laundry. John needs constant supervision and because of his slow pace, he isn’t paid for the work. Now let’s look at how they assess John: “Since being placed near non-disabled models, he has learned to behave in appropriate ways vocationally, socially, communicatively, and in related to dress and grooming codes”. (Brown, et al, 1984, p. 264)

Now I want to consider what they say about curriculum development for persons who are severely developmentally disabled:

In sum, all children, including those with severe intellectual disabilities, should get opportunities to progress through normal human development stages and phases. They should also be given opportunities to function as independently and as productively as possible in an array of habilitative integrated environments and activities at age 21. Sometimes these opportunities are incompatible. That is, if they are required to progress through the same stages and phases through which non-disabled students presumably progress, probabilities are great that at age 21 students with disabilities will not be independent or as productive as they could have been if alternative routes to adulthood had been taken. Thus, Normal Development Curricular Strategies must be respected, but carefully scrutinized, modified, or abandoned whenever appropriate, and replaced with instructional strategies designed to minimize rather than maximize differences in adulthood. (Brown et al, 1988, p. 70)

Let us look at how his philosophy impacts the families of the developmentally disabled. Often times these parents are seen as overprotective. As a person with a physical disability myself, I personally know what it’s like to have family members who are overprotective. However, the concept of over protection has been greatly misused and abused when it comes to persons with developmental disabilities. Most parents of the severely handicapped are primarily concerned with their child’s welfare from a developmental viewpoint as opposed to a behavioristic one. Repeatedly studies done by the professional world about parent’s attitudes toward integration show that parents do not favor the professional’s viewpoint. (If interested, please refer to Carney and Orelove, 1988.)

Since most of this philosophy is being promoted from universities, we must understand its value system and the basis of its values.

Earlier education affirmed that truth and the good are fixed and final. It denied that right and wrong are culture-relative. The current view on the other hand, asserts that all ideas and ideologies are relative to culture – all ethical imperatives, all philosophical pronouncements, and all theological doctrines are partisan prejudices of the social-cultural matrix. (Henry, 1983, p.85)

The professionals say that they are upholding the human rights of persons with disabilities and this is why they strongly advocate for the integration of these persons. However, the problem with this position is that since there is no objective basis for truth, we are left with human experience as the basis for human rights. However, as theologian Carl Henry points out, the Bible has a doctrine of divinely imposed duties; what moderns call human rights are the contingent flip-side of those duties. To be sure many Biblical duties, if not all, imply a corresponding enforceable right. The divine prohibition of theft or of removal of a landmark implies an unstated right to property and possession. (Henry, 1988, pp. 148-149)

These people uphold the human rights of persons with disabilities apart from their ability to understand. It is God who gave us a variety of intellectual abilities. This is an aspect of what it means to be made in God’s image. Both Romans 7:7 and James 4:17 tell us that God holds us accountable on the basis of our understanding and ability. When I say God respects our understanding, I mean that He does not ask more of us than we are capable of, nor less. Since we are to reflect His image in the world, we must treat people as He treats us. Therefore, we are to defend and uphold the human rights of persons with severe disabilities in the context of their ability and inability to understand at their developmental level.

Now I want to turn your attention toward the church’s responsibility for people with disabilities. For the sake of this paper, I am zeroing in on the person with a developmental disability; however, the principle I’m about to outline applies to all varieties of persons with disabilities.

I have been working in various capacities with people in evangelical circles who are developmentally disabled for approximately ten years. Based upon this experience, I have made some observations: A) the general Christian community, as a rule, has a kind and compassionate attitude toward people with developmental disabilities. B) The Church responds to social needs where there will be some type of socially tangible reward for the Christian community. (Please understand that I do not make the prior statement with a critical spirit, but as an observation to encourage us to mature as a church.) C) The reason the Church has not responded to the needs of the developmentally disabled in a more comprehensive manner, is that we do not see how these people, with their limitations, can be dynamic instruments for God’s glory in the Church and the world at large.

As Christians, we know that God is the giver of all life. Since we know this, we must ask ourselves, “What is God’s purpose for our lives?” I see this question as having a two fold
Implication. 1) The Bible is very clear about this matter and it teaches us that we are to reflect God’s image in this world. I know one of the ways this happens is when people are “born again”. There are other ways we can reflect God’s image. For example, preschoolers being taught how to take turns are being taught how to reflect God’s image. 2) I believe one of the questions the Church must face is “How are we to help the developmentally disabled fulfill God’s purpose for their lives”? After all, it was the Lord who said, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11)

We as Christians must address these issues and questions I have just posed. If we don't, the world most certainly will. And in effect it already has, as evidenced by the current integration movement. While churches have attempted to address the spiritual needs of persons who are developmentally disabled, we have not looked closely at the way secularism has affected these people.

If we adopt a secular paradigm that promises to maximize the social acceptability of developmentally disabled individuals, we will only end up harming them. The behavioristic model doesn’t teach these people. Rather, it trains them irrespective of comprehension. This method of educating the disabled disregards their human dignity and intrinsic value as individuals who are made in the image of God.

Jesus made it very clear in His teachings that child-likeness is a quality to be prized. Anyone who has worked with the developmentally disabled already knows that God has blessed them with an unencumbered child-like spirit. In contrast, the secular scholars who advocate integration, view those with developmentally disabilities as people who can be trained like an animal. Does this sound extreme? This is not an over reaction at all. When others impose their standards on someone who truly doesn’t comprehend those standards, they have reduced them to the point of simply responding to a stimulus. (i.e. Pavlov’s dog salivating at the sound of a bell)

In conclusion, I do not view this integration issue as affecting the handicapped only. I see it as one facet of a secular world view that continues to make inroads into our society. We need to stimulate the Christian Community to provide a biblical worldview as the only true alternative. At the same time, the church should not abandon the public arena in regards to this very important topic.

References:

Brown, L. Zanella-Albright, K. Rogan, P., et al. (1988) An Integrated Curriculum for Transition. In B. L. Ludlow, A. P. Turnbull and R. Luckasson (Eds.), Transitions to Adult Life for People with Mental Retardation Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 67-78.

Brown, L. Shifaga, B. York, J., et al. (1984) Integrated work opportunities for persons with severe handicaps: the extended training option. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. Vol. 9, pp. 269.

Carney, I. H. and Orelove, F. P. (1988) Implementing Transition Programs for Community Participation. In B. L. Ludlow, A. P. Turnbull and R. Luckasson (Eds.), Transitions to Adult Life for People with Mental Retardation Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 137-157.

Gardner, E. S. N. (1986) Sexuality. In J. A. Summers (Ed.). The right to grow up. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 45-62.

Henry, Carl F. H., (1983) The Christian Mindset In a Secular Society. Portland: Multnomah press.

Henry, Carl F. H., (1988) Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway Books.

McLoughlin, C. S. Gardner, J. B. Callahan, M. (1987) Getting Employed, Staying Employed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.

Wolfensberger, W. (1980) A Brief Overview of the Principle of Normalization. In R. J. Flynn and K. E. Nitsch (Eds.), Normalization Social Integration and Community Services. Austin: Pro-ed, pp. 7-31.