Content uploaded by Barbara J. Dray
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Barbara J. Dray
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social capital’s contemporary contribution and
application to education are visible within a variety of
educational settings and between an assortment of
actors within the educational process. In a recent
review of the literature, Sandra Dika and Kusum
Singh cited several studies that emphasized different
dimensions of social capital in the context of educa-
tion. For instance, studies explored the accumulation
and use of social capital by several types of actors,
such as students, parents, teachers, and school admin-
istrators, to facilitate the realization of science and
mathematics achievement, social mobility, college
enrollment, positive student behavior, the reduction of
student dropout, and instructional change and accessi-
bility to instructional resources. The review by Dika
and Singh, and the recent growth and frequency of
additional studies examining social capital and educa-
tion, illustrate the emergent interest in and signifi-
cance of social capital’s contribution and application
to education as well as its explanation of social and
cultural phenomena within the educational process.
W. Joshua Rew
See also Cultural Capital
Further Readings
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.),
S95–S120.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital
in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 71(1), 31–60.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital.
Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications
in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology,
24, 1–24.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social
capital and public life. American Prospect, 24, 34–48.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic
development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy
framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF DISABILITY
The concept of the social construction of disability has
become popularized as a result of two major factors. On
one hand, individuals with medical and physical
disabilities have been working for their civil rights to fully
participate and have access to society commensurate with
their able-bodied, able-minded peers. On the other hand,
the disproportionate representation of minorities in special
education has created the question of how disability is
socially constructed, and the system may, in fact,
misinterpret cultural behavior or tendencies as disability
rather than difference.
The social construction of disability offers a new lens
for understanding ability and disability as a social con-
struction that frames how society understands and inter-
acts with individuals who behave in ways that are
different from the norm. It is a tool to assist in recogniz-
ing how ability is framed so that people can recognize
and work toward more equitable, inclusive practices and
perceptions of individuals who are different. This entry
discusses the perspective of disability as socially
constructed.
Medical Aspects
Disability can be explained as an objective, medically
based phenomenon or as a subjective, socially con-
structed phenomenon. Both perspectives have an
aspect of subjectivity because disability refers to one’s
“inability” in relation to those who are abled. Social
construction of disability allows one to shift away from
viewing ability as normal toward questioning what
social and environmental factors make some abled
while others are disabled. By definition, individuals
with disabilities have a different way of physically,
cognitively, emotionally, and socially experiencing
and making meaning of the world. Their perceptions
and priorities may be different from what is deemed
“normal.” Does this mean the individual is disabled or
differently abled?
The disability rights movement has highlighted the
need to examine disability through a new lens in order
722———Social Construction of Disability
to change perceptions of individuals with disabilities.
Historically, disability has been viewed from a medical
perspective, suggesting that disability is an absolute
condition that creates boundaries for what people are
able to do and achieve. Thus, individuals with disabil-
ities have been viewed from a deficit perspective of
their inabilities and experience lowered expectations in
relation to their able-bodied, able-minded peers.
According to the disability rights movement, the med-
icalization of disability creates an illusion that an indi-
vidual’s abilities or disabilities set parameters on what
they can and cannot do.
For example, the deaf community asserts that a per-
son’s inability to hear and use oral language is a cul-
tural phenomenon because it shapes how such
individuals understand and interact, in contrast with
the conventional oral or auditory emphasis in the hear-
ing world. Deaf individuals are more reliant on visuals
and use manual language to communicate and interact
with their world; their language is more conceptual,
with hand shapes serving as the foundation for gram-
mar and morphology. When compared to the societal
norms of the hearing world, individuals who are deaf
continue to be viewed as “dis-abled” in relation to
those who are hearing. However, when hearing per-
sons enter the deaf world, they experience an “in-abil-
ity” or “dis-ability” in relation to their “hearing-ness”
or reliance on auditory stimulation and oral communi-
cation rather than use of manual language.
Historically, able-bodied or able-minded individuals
have devalued the thinking or being of individuals with
“dis-abilities” by forcing such individuals to perceive
the world through the dominant society’s view and
uphold the same norms of existence. Who created this
reality of separating people because of their ability? In a
capitalistic society, a stratified system of participation
exists in which individuals are categorized and privi-
leged according to their status and ability. In some soci-
eties, however, all members have purpose and no one is
viewed as better than another. Rather, each member is
valued for what he or she is able to contribute.
In many indigenous cultures, an individual’s “dis-
ability” is considered sacred and provides that individual
with unique abilities that benefit the community. For
example, in one community, an individual who would be
considered mentally retarded in the United States was
appreciated for his gift in preserving and teaching others
the native language of his people. In another indigenous
community, a child who was nonverbal with severe
motor and cognitive delays and had albinism wore a spe-
cial costume and marched at the beginning of the pro-
cession during ceremonies.
Culture and Disability
In the past twenty years, disproportionate representa-
tion has become an increasing concern as students of
color continue to be overrepresented in special educa-
tion, whereas White students are underrepresented.
Disproportionate representation refers to an unequal
percentage of students being represented in special
education in comparison with their representation in
general education. As a result of these trends, some
educators contend that the current method of identify-
ing students with disabilities and the structure of the
education system place students of color at a disad-
vantage. Many researchers challenge the dominant
model of education, arguing that it does not emphasize
and often disregards the importance of cultural and lin-
guistic factors that influence how people learn and
make meaning of the world. Traditional views about
how to educate students reflect the dominant society’s
history, culture, and language and create a privileging
pattern that may lead to the misidentification of
students of color as “disabled.”
A sociocultural approach to disability critically
examines the factors that construct a student’s disabil-
ity in an effort to understand why the student is experi-
encing failure and how educators can provide choices
for academic success. The social environment in which
a student exists directly affects how that student learns
to learn, process information, and form opinions about
his or her life world. From a sociocultural perspective,
to understand the individual, it is necessary to under-
stand the social relations of the individual. How people
behave and interact is in part a reflection of their social-
ization. So when children come to school with a differ-
ent set of experiences and norms of behavior, this is
partly a reflection of their socialization and not their
in-ability or dis-ability for learning.
Social Construction of Disability———723
Culture and learning go hand in hand because edu-
cation is a tool for transmitting culture, and culture is
the lens through which people view the world and cre-
ate knowledge; it shapes how they learn. Culture not
only influences how students think and learn but how
teachers teach and how the educational system is set
up to teach and assess what is learned.As a result, if an
individual does not learn in ways commensurate with
what is deemed the norm, there is potential for being
perceived or constructed as disabled.
Barbara J. Dray
See also Disability Studies
Further Readings
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special
education: Building reciprocal family-professional
relationships. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Schneider, C. E. (2005). The able-bodied hegemony: The
social construction of disability. In The initiative
anthology: An electronic publication about leadership,
culture, & schooling. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
http://www.muohio.edu/InitiativeAnthology
SOCIAL FOUNDATIONS
OF EDUCATION:
FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES
Feminist scholars have contributed significantly during
the past forty years to the interdisciplinary development
of the social foundations of education through their
teaching, writing, performances, and activism. Many
philosophers, historians, sociologists, and anthropologists
in the social foundations field have worked diligently to
counteract the omission of women’s thoughts and work
from teacher education programs.
The lack of emphasis on women’s issues and per-
spectives can be explained in part as reflecting the
dominant male hegemony in the culture. Also,
although the teaching of children and youth has been
overwhelmingly a female profession, professorships in
the social foundations of education were held primar-
ily by men until recent years. Most coursework perpet-
uated study of the history, philosophy, and sociology
of education from male perspectives.
Feminist writers and teachers seek to disrupt
White, male, Protestant, Western European, hetero-
sexual, middle- to upper-middle-class domination of
ideas and practices within education. They wish to
heal dichotomies, such as the mind/body split and
valuing the intellect and reason over knowledge
gained from emotion, intuition, and imagination.
Connecting issues of power and control to educational
success or failure, feminist thinkers investigate sys-
temic problems long institutionalized in schools. They
urge that varied sources and kinds of knowledge be
respected as legitimate within the teaching/learning
process. In addition to recognizing the needs of girls
and women in academic environments, the cultural
wealth of diverse students from families and commu-
nity connections contributes to the construction of
new knowledge.
Feminist scholarship has recovered some of the
writing and activism of teachers from past eras. Using
insights from historiography, which critiques how and
why certain histories are written, Kathleen Weiler
documented the experiences of teachers in California
during the early decades of the twentieth century.
Similarly, Kate Rousmaniere preserved the effects of
school reform efforts on teachers in New York City
during the 1920s. In Reclaiming a Conversation: The
Ideal of the Educated Woman, Jane Roland Martin
examined the work of Mary Wollstonecraft, Catharine
Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman, three women
whose work was instrumental in developing early
philosophies of education.
Continuing the work of historical restoration, sev-
eral scholars focused on women’s influences on the
early development of pragmatism, as espoused by John
Dewey and others. Pragmatism centered on integrating
the needs and experiences of the students into the learn-
ing environment. Women whose work affected this
movement include Jane Addams, Lucy Sprague
Mitchell, Elsie Ripley Clapp, and Alice Chipman
Dewey.
Feminist theories also add emphasis on moral
issues related to teaching and on the ways that
women’s thinking differs from that of men. Writing by
Carol Gilligan and by Mary Belenky and colleagues
represent groundbreaking work in these areas. New
curricula for girls in grades K–12 in mathematics and
724———Social Foundations of Education: Feminist Perspectives
