disability in a post-Darwinian world

In class the other day, we had an extremely interesting discussion surrounding notions of disability. We were speaking about the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) which was implemented by the World Health Organization. We discussed the implications of this new understanding of disability, particularly its implications for occupational therapists. The ICF characterizes the notion of disability as fluid. One's level of disability/ability is determined by one's functional ability, which is in turn determined by various factors, such as impairments, environment, and personal factors like resilience. A consequence of this model of thinking is that the notion of 'ability' is much more nuanced and dynamic than conventional black-and-white characterizations of 'abled' vs. 'disabled.'

This spurred a more general discussion about what it means to be 'disabled' vs 'abled'. The class seemed to agree that there is a spectrum of ability on which everyone occupies a space. This got me thinking about whether or not there is a dividing line between abled and disabled. If everyone is on a spectrum, does that not imply that there is no 'disabled' and no 'abled'? Is there no dividing line? I raised my hand in class and spoke up about my discomfort with that notion. 

I felt somewhat insensitive saying what I said, and disclaimed that fact before carrying on, and made sure to acknowledge my privilege as an able-bodied and cognitively-able person. I said that perhaps our notions of disability are based around notions of what a body is 'supposed' to be able to do, from an evolutionary standpoint. Another student picked up the discussion and added that, while she agreed, she felt that society has moved beyond the point where we mark wellness by what our bodies and minds are 'supposed' to be, from an evolutionary standpoint. I agreed with her, saying that I myself would not be around were it not for the advent of modern medical technology. I added that I believe we are in a post-Darwinian world, in which human evolution has come to incorporate technology, assistive devices, and medicine.

I believe that the notion of disability from a Darwinian standpoint still exists - as in, one is considered disabled if one's body or mind does not function in the way that a completely healthy individual's body or mind would function. However, given that we live in a world where assistive technology and medication is the norm, perhaps such a notion of disability is no longer appropriate. However, something inside of me still wants to classify disability in terms of comparing it to a completely healthy individual. But how many of us are actually completely healthy? Where does one draw the line? Does a line need to be drawn?

After that discussion our class had the opportunity to hear three individuals with varying disabilities speak about their experiences. I learned so much from their presentations. One of the presenters was asked about her specific diagnosis, and she answered the question, but first shared that she did not think it mattered. 

This is something that I will carry into my practice - in reality, it does not matter what someone's disability is on paper. What matters is their level of function and their ability to participate in meaningful activities and enjoy life. Rather than classifying people into categories of disabled vs. abled, perhaps we can think more in terms of one's ability to live a meaningful life. Perhaps the label of disabled vs. abled matters less than I thought it did. 

I welcome conversation/debate on this topic. I especially am interested in hearing the opinions of people who identify as disabled/differently-abled.