Cultural power and the perpetuation of inequity

Systems of advantage and disadvantage. The common assumptions in U.S. society regarding race, culture, and disability take on greater importance when the issue of power is added to the equation. The idea that one group is dominant while others are subordinate, that "systematic advantage and disadvantage" (Tatum, 1997, p. 9) are prevalent in the United States, is not only abhorrent to most Americans; to many individuals, it may seem unbelievable. Based on individual experiences, some people may believe that disparities are real across one dimension, such as disability, but not across others, such as race or social/economic class. However, it is a basic sociological principle that societies stratify their members in terms of "power, resources, and status" (Pilisuk, McAllister, & Rothman, 1996, p. 16). An increasing number of scholars and researchers — including sociologists employing "network-analytic" research methods (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) — have begun to examine the ways in which such dominance permeates institutions and relationships in this country, while remaining "invisible" to many members of the dominant group (Scheurich & Young, 1997, p. 12; see also Duarte & Rice, 1992; McIntosh, 1990; and McLaren, 1995).

Delpit (1995) asserts that inherent in issues of race, culture and class are issues of power. "Those with power are frequently least aware of — or least willing to acknowledge — its existence," while members of subordinate groups are acutely conscious of the disparities (p. 26). Scheurich (1993; see also Maher & Tetreault, 1997) observes that the longer one group is dominant, the more effectively "the styles of thinking, acting, speaking, and behaving of the dominant group… become the socially correct or privileged ways of thinking, acting, speaking, and behaving" (p. 7):

The ways of the dominant group become universalized as measures of merit, hiring criteria, grading standards, predictors of success, correct grammar, appropriate behavior, and so forth, all of which are said to be distributed as differences in individual effort, ability, or intelligence. Membership in a social group and group-related, inequitable distribution of resources and power thus disappear under the guise of individualism. (p. 7)

The pervasiveness of the mainstream American belief in individualism acts as an extremely powerful filter. As Scheurich (1993) describes it:

Among Whites, the idea that each person is largely the source or origin of herself or himself, that is, individualism, is considered a natural facet of life. Within the frame of this belief, individualism is seen as a naturally occurring, trans-historical, transcultural condition to which all humans naturally aspire. (p. 6)

Stanton-Salazar (1997; see also McIntosh, 1990; Scheurich, 1993; and Tatum, 1997) characterizes this belief "not only as mythical and extremely simplistic, but also ideologically geared to preserve the status quo" (pp. 6-7). Rather, he observes, children "are raised embedded in social networks" that can either "systematically engineer their advantage" or "undermine the support flowing from family and community sources" (p. 31). Emphasizing the importance of "institutional agents" such as teachers, mentors, and advantaged peers, he concludes:

The ideological cloak of individualism serves to obscure how the formation of supportive ties to institutional agents… rests on knowledge of, facility with, and deference to the cultural rules, communicative conventions, and network orientations that together are rooted in the social character and ethos of the dominant group. (p. 31)

Racism and "the cloak of individualism." As McLaren (1995) concludes, "Power relations may not always have a conscious design, but they have unintended consequences which define deep structural aspects of oppression" (p. 53). Moreover, some authors note the convenience of the mainstream belief in individual merit. Delpit (1995) observes, "To act as if power does not exist is to ensure that the power status quo remains the same" (p. 39). Those who reap the tangible benefits of privilege have little apparent reason to question what has always been assumed to be true (Tatum, 1997). And, as constructivist learning theory posits, "In order to take on a new viewpoint, one must decide to let go of an old one. There must be a reason to decide to make a shift in thinking" (Shapiro, 1994, p. 7).

Scheurich and Young (1997), among others, discuss the ways in which the individualist perspective within U.S. culture works to obscure racism and to "keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete" (McIntosh, 1990, p. 36). The fact that "racism in the U.S. is overwhelmingly seen as an individual phenomenon" (p. 5), they conclude, helps to explain why many mainstream Americans so strongly believe that racism is a limited problem, and react with confusion and hurt when others describe them as part of the problem. Most people do not consider themselves racist; they may, in fact, speak and act against racism. However, Scheurich and Young point out that:

While… individualized, conscious, moral or ethical commitment to antiracism is a significant and meaningful individual and historical accomplishment, the fact that it restricts our understanding of racism to an individualized ethical arena is a barrier to a broader, more comprehensive understanding of racism — for society and for researchers. (p. 5)

Scheurich and Young have identified five categories of racism. The first two, "overt racism" and "covert racism," can be defined "as operating at the individual level." "Institutional racism" and "societal racism" are "organizational and social categories" that "create the social context" for individual racism. The fifth category, "civilizational racism," is one which "creates or constitutes the possibility for all of the prior four categories" (p. 4). At institutional and societal levels, racism tends to operate almost invisibly, "like smog in the air" (Tatum, 1997). Differential treatment results not (necessarily) from the conscious intentions of specific individuals, but from the unexamined agreement that "the practices of the dominant group" represent the norms and standards "to which all others must strive" (Aronowitz, 1997, p. 192).

Many scholars and social commentators point out that, in spite of the changes in law and mores in the past four decades, racism persists in all its forms (Lubiano, 1998; West, 1993). Although many mainstream white Americans tend to view violence (such as the 1998 murder of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas) as aberrations, such events are, rather, fostered by the less extreme, more covert forms of racism that permeate U.S. society (Scheurich & Young, 1997).

Inequities and the rehabilitation system. Much of the discussion about institutionalized patterns of dominance and subordination is couched in broad social terms. Given the statistics regarding the incidence of disability and imbalances in assistance to consumers, there is no reason to believe that rehabilitation is exempt from such systematized inequities. Moreover, any efforts to improve outreach to minority populations must consider the cultural and other contexts in which those efforts are embedded.

A few authors have focused specifically on the systems and institutions intended to assist people with disabilities. Duarte and Rice (1992) for example, conclude that "dominant cultural values related to individualism, self-reliance, and work are evident in rehabilitation legislation, policies, and procedures" (p. 12). Similarly, Harry (1992) notes that "the Education for All Handicapped Children Act couches its mandate in concepts that are uniquely Western, both in terms of a medical model of disability and of a framework of services derived from a technological culture" (pp. 23-24).

Schaller, Parker, and García (1998), in discussing rehabilitation counseling services, observe that the meaning of disability may be constructed differently within different cultures. Yet, "despite a growing recognition of a more comprehensive, environmental conceptualization of disability, rehabilitation counseling continues to use definitions of disability based on pathological and statistical models" (p. 41). They further note that:

Statistical identification of disability lends an air of objectivity in conclusions based on parameters of normalcy defined by a given group. Both the pathological and statistical models of disability, by definition, limit perceptions and interpretations of disability. (p. 41)

Alston and Bell (1996; see also Mohr, 1998) caution that "one attitude that African Americans with disabilities may bring to the rehabilitation process is cultural mistrust" (p. 17). They note that such mistrust is frequently based on negative experiences that African Americans consumers have endured in seeking assistance from the rehabilitation or other service systems. Harry (1992) cites several researchers who have observed "that among low-income Black families, the experience of frequent intrusions by social service workers also contributes to mistrust and unwillingness to cooperate with service providers" (p. 51). She further notes that, "with regard to more ambiguous or mild [disabilities], it has been observed that many African Americans have enduring and well-founded concerns about being misdiagnosed and treated inappropriately by mental health services" (p. 53).

Top

Web Accessibility  |  Site Map  |  Feedback   

NIDRR Project Number: H133A990008
Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 January 2008 at 04:13 PM,
Contents © 1996-2005

SEDL Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)
211 East Seventh St., Room 400 - Austin, Texas 78701-3253
Voice/Text Telephone: 800-266-1832 or 512-476-6861 - Fax: 512-476-2286