Date of Award

Spring 5-28-2025

Document Type

Open Access Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts (MA)

Department

History

First Advisor

Maria John

Second Advisor

Olivia Weisser

Third Advisor

Roberta Wollons

Abstract

In 1990, the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) marked a pivotal moment in the American disability rights movement, which began in the 1960s and sought to secure civil rights for people with disabilities. Despite this monumental achievement, this thesis considers how the language used throughout American history and culture to describe people with disabilities, even within the confines of progressive legislation like the ADA, remains deeply rooted in ableist and oppressive historical attitudes. At the heart of this issue, this thesis demonstrates how the medicalization of disability, which has dominated American culture for centuries, continues to frame disability in what disability scholars refer to as a “deficit model” – meaning, disability, at a social level, is understood fundamentally as a deficiency or flaw rather than a product of social and environmental barriers.[1] At different moments in American history, this has led to the creation of dehumanizing labels such as “feebleminded,” “handicapped,” or “retarded.”[2] In more recent decades, efforts to adopt more inclusive or politically correct language – including the word disability itself – have not fully escaped this underlying logic of deficit, nor the historical roots of fear, pity, and exclusion. As this thesis argues, even seemingly progressive language can reinforce societal barriers that limit access to education, basic rights, and opportunities for full participation in society. The continued reliance on ableist terminology perpetuates centuries-old stigmas and stereotypes, contributing to cycles of discrimination, exclusion, and poverty.[3]

By examining the continued usage of terminology that frames disability in accordance with ideas of deficit or deficiency, this thesis presents several key arguments. First, I argue that our understanding of disability history remains incomplete without sustained attention to the role language has played in shaping societal attitudes toward people with disabilities. Moreover, I argue that American history itself cannot be fully understood without the integration of a disability perspective. Second, I aim to establish a broad historical chronology and overview that traces the oppressive and exclusionary origins and deficit-centric etymology of past and present language used to describe and frame disability within U.S. history, laws, culture, and society. Third, I argue that due to the continuance of this deficit model in language used to describe disability, even today, that without acknowledging the harmful linguistic legacy of terminology used to frame disability, that American culture and society (if only inadvertently), continue to marginalize people with disabilities.

This thesis concludes that the term “disability” still bears the burden of its historical connotations, despite attempts to shift away from a deficit-centric view. These residual associations reinforce stereotypes and stigma, sustaining negative attitudes that have long hindered inclusion and equality. While there have been concerted efforts to shift the focus away from deficit models, the concept of disability still carries the weight of its etymological and cultural history, which reinforces outdated ideas of deficiency and incapacity. This enduring linguistic legacy perpetuates ableist attitudes that remain embedded in American culture, institutions, and discourse. By drawing attention to this troubled linguistic history, this thesis, intends, by contrast, to underscore that disability is an essential aspect of human diversity – one that must be recognized, not only for its role in shaping individual experience, but for its integral place in the broader narrative of history and society.

[1] Tom Shakespeare, Disability Rights and Wrongs (New York: Routledge, 2006).

[2] Sayantani DasGupta, “Medicalization,” in Keywords for Disability Studies, ed. Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin (New York University Press, 2015) 120-122.

[3] Andrew Warren, Wanjira Chege, Meghan Greene, Lisa Berdie, “The Financial Health of People with Disabilities: A Report on the State of Disability Financial Security,” (Washington D.C.: National Disability Institute, 2023). https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/the-financial-health-of-people-with-disabilities-report-final-0923.pdf

Comments

Free and open access to this Campus Access Thesis is made available to the UMass Boston community by ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. Those not on campus and those without a UMass Boston campus username and password may gain access to this thesis through Interlibrary Loan. If you have a UMass Boston campus username and password and would like to download this work from off-campus, click on the

Download

Share

COinS