Individual Virtues, Social Movements, and Allyship in the Sphere of Intellectual Disability

In this paper, I demonstrate that individual virtues and other individual-level interventions play an important role in bringing about positive social change. I do this through a focus on intellectual disability. While many intellectually disabled people are perfectly capable of self-advocating, some intellectually disabled people experience severe difficulties that can make collective action more difficult to take part in. Allies can assist intellectually disabled people who experience these difficulties. However, much can go wrong in this relationship that can undermine collective efforts for positive social change by thwarting the development of better schemas and practices. Individual virtues and other individual-level interventions can mitigate these risks. I focus on Sally Haslanger's theory of social change. In Section 2, I elucidate her argument for how looping effects sustain unjust social structures, and in Section 3, I explain why she thinks collective action is crucial for disrupting looping effects. I agree with Haslanger about this. However, Haslanger sometimes downplays the importance of individuals correcting their prejudiced attitudes. In Section 4, I argue that prejudiced attitudes and other risks can undermine our collective efforts in the sphere of intellectual disability. In Section 5, I argue that individual virtues and other individual-level interventions can mitigate these risks. Finally, in Section 6, I argue that a focus on intellectual disability reveals many of the dangers of collective action more generally. Thus, individual virtues are always important for social change, even though collective action is necessary. In this section, I give a brief overview of Haslanger's account of how unjust social structures reproduce injustice. Epistemic schemas are one important feature. These are shared tools for interpretation that allow many different people to arrive at the same meanings or frames of reference (Dotson 2012, 30) and they influence memory encoding and retrieval (Bartunek and Moch 1987, 484). They consist of interrelated representations, such as stories, myths, impressions, stereotypes, and metaphors. They are also action-guiding, as how we interpret something influences how we act towards it. While many schemas allow us to navigate the world fruitfully, some do not. Prejudiced schemas are a key instance of this. They further entrench the oppression of a social group by misrepresenting that group. For example, someone under the sway of a sexist schema may interpret women as “slutty” because of what they wear, “bossy” for being assertive, or “hysterical”, rendering them unfit to hold positions of power (Haslanger 2017, 8). Similarly, racist schemas may represent Black men as dangerous, homophobic schemas may represent queer people as sinful, ableist schemas may represent disabled people as living through a personal tragedy, and so on. Unjust social structures are sustained by looping effects between prejudiced schemas, resources, and practices. Following Haslanger, I define a practice as a pattern of learned behavior that enables us to coordinate as members of a group in “creating, distributing, managing, maintaining, and eliminating a resource… as interpreted through shared meanings/cultural schemas” (Haslanger 2018, 245). Resources are all those things that are taken to have value or disvalue, including humans, objects, time, money, labour, and so on (Haslanger 2021, 64). Many interconnected practices form a social structure. Thus, a high school is a social structure, as high schools consist in practices of teaching, learning, sport, fundraising, and much more (Haslanger 2018, 233). Most basically, looping effects occur because we use schemas to interpret the world as meaningful and then we interact with the world in ways that “reinforce that interpretation and response among others” (Haslanger 2018, 247).1 Haslanger has identified three ways in which looping effects sustain unjust and oppressive social relations. First, prejudiced schemas can impact how resources are produced and distributed. This can result in some groups making greater sacrifices while other groups reap the benefits (Haslanger 2021, 40). For example, women are often expected to do a disproportionate amount of childcare as sexist schemas denote that this is a woman's role. This often leads to an unfair allocation of resources, which can loop back and reinforce the schema. Ann Cudd (2006) provides a compelling example of this (cf. Okin 1989; Haslanger 2015). Imagine that two equally talented, educated, and experienced workers, Larry and Lisa, decide to marry and have children. In the beginning, they have equal power, and neither Larry nor Lisa harbors any prejudiced beliefs about “men's” or “women's” work, and both are capable of childcare. Imagine they decide that it is better to have one parent be the primary carer, and further, that the gender wage gap makes it so that Larry is likely to earn more than Lisa. Because of this, they rationalize that it is better for Larry to remain working and for Lisa to become the primary caregiver (Cudd 2006, 148). Alternatively, imagine that Lisa is eligible for maternity leave, and Larry has no paid parental leave available to him. They cannot afford for Larry to take unpaid leave. The skills Lisa develops through her paid leave result in her becoming the primary caregiver (Haslanger 2015, 4). In both scenarios, Larry's higher earnings lead to him having more power than Lisa. The couple's decision, however, was heavily influenced by the way resources are distributed. If how we distribute resources leads to more women becoming the primary caregiver, this can reinforce prejudiced representations of childcare as a woman's job. Second, looping effects occur because prejudiced schemas create conditions under which people enact prejudiced representations of their identity group. For Haslanger, a key concern is that relations of subordination and domination can influence the construction of our identity as prejudiced schemas about people can be internalized. When a schema has been internalized, we often act in accordance with what the schema denotes. This has led Sandra Bartky to argue that dominant gender schemas can create women who are “docile and compliant companions of men” (Bartky 1990, 73) by “training them to enact the norms of femininity fluently, and to identify with them so that they judge themselves to be defective if they fail” (Haslanger 2021, 36). People will also sometimes enact prejudiced schemas for reasons other than identifying with them. Uma Narayan, for example, distinguishes between forms of compliance that amount to ‘bargaining with patriarchy’, in which women do not believe in the schemas or practices they engage in but do so for reasons such as greater security, and other forms of compliance where one genuinely endorses the schemas and practices they comply with (Narayan 2001). When people enact prejudiced schemas, this allows unjust and oppressive social relations to continue fluently. Third, prejudiced schemas sustain unjust and oppressive social relations by masking which things are of value or disvalue (Haslanger 2021, 59). For instance, parents of deaf children with cochlear implants are sometimes discouraged from teaching their child sign language, as sign language is sometimes viewed as a “crutch” that discourages effective oral communication (Humphries et al. 2012). This implies that sign language is far less valuable than spoken language. However, learning sign language has many benefits, like being able to communicate better in noisy environments; cognitive gains, like improved facial recognition and spatial cognition; as well as being rich with its own culture, art, and community (Bowman-Smart et al. 2019). These benefits can be masked by ableist schemas. This can loop back and reinforce prejudiced schemas because when the value of something is obscured, this can verify the negative representation of it. Haslanger and others argue that social movements offer the best opportunity for disrupting the looping effects that sustain unjust social structures. There are many reasons to think that they are right. First, social movements lend credibility to groups often deprived of it. As Elizabeth Anderson (2014) and Charles Tilly (2005) point out, individuals speaking out against injustice will often be perceived by the powerful as insolent, irresponsible, or lazy (Anderson 2014, 7, 8). These representations are frequently to individual of their However, social movements can some of these representations by their and of to undermine the to interpret as of undermine of or as well as of people in can be and can lend a of to the (Anderson 2014, is also to that women are or that disabled people are when Because collective action can make a group more social movements have a better of disrupting looping effects than individuals Similarly, can the of an and this can make unjust behavior more to social and For example, while to we the schemas to so in a and this to social what was Second, social movements can unjust forms of and way they can do this is through disrupting unjust such as when a social a or movements can also out of unjust practices in ways that individuals As Haslanger an individual may think that the way we practice or is but if they to to a one so that they can afford to they do not have much other but to in these practices (Haslanger in movements can of these by an For example, they can create a or engage in (Haslanger practices can lead to social change, for as both Haslanger and Anderson dominant practices can be sustained if people their (Haslanger in When many people engage in or to an this can undermine the the unjust practice (Anderson 2014, Third, social movements can people from prejudiced schemas. Because collective action is effective at social movements have the to schemas by people Epistemic resources like this are as social movements to a of how they can make better and an of how practices sustain injustice. to these schemas, social movements offer people a way to interpret their own For example, movements women a way of the we as this, was often perceived as The disability also disabled people a way to interpret their own For example, a disability how her with disability her way to that from in If people prejudiced schemas as and are of schemas, they may to enact prejudiced schemas. Finally, social movements can our of what is For instance, one of Black is that the of Black people hold as much value as the of people and that for Black people have been like they are making of more Black has to how Black people are by the for Black to the of the movements have the to of the three ways looping effects sustain unjust and oppressive social relations. Because collective action is so important for social change, Haslanger sometimes downplays the importance of individual-level For example, she injustice is an account of and other individual attitudes at best to what is to (Haslanger 2015, This is because people become when they are for and because injustice may even if individual attitudes change (Haslanger 2015, Similarly, in Haslanger's account of how to social change, she that individuals or about the injustice produced by practices they is a part of the of social (Haslanger in This is because individuals can out of unjust practices. when they their individual has While I agree that collective action is for social change, I about this of the importance of individual attitudes and about injustice. This is because it what is for positive social change. social can the in the section, but social movements can social structures in positive or negative from being I that prejudiced attitudes social movements can undermine our efforts for positive social change. Thus, if social movements are to have the of impact that Haslanger and others them as capable we to to the between those in social movements to that they the resources and practices this individual virtues and about as they can the prejudiced attitudes that can a social I what I was and what people to do and because been in an and because been in the I I all the that they about I to what they to do so I of to the by this group and in et al. 36). have been in where they have and they have and for the of in and 2015, et al. They also the to disability to use in their and with intellectually disabled as they that was being about them that they not et al. These are a of the many of While many intellectually disabled people can others experience severe difficulties that can make collective action more difficult to take part in. For example, some intellectually disabled people are of the experience of people who such difficulties is as we to that to them do not out of groups also to be much of the of social movements is on their disabled people may also with collective on their Allies can when intellectually disabled people experience these difficulties. However, on also intellectually disabled people to risks. These and how to mitigate are what I will focus on the of the First, power a power is and often have more power than intellectually disabled people to ableist schemas. For example, may be as more because are sometimes to intellectually disabled people the they sometimes have the power to what intellectually disabled people are to or to can the of to schemas. Second, intellectually disabled people are frequently to severe credibility as ableist schemas often them as or the may be influenced by prejudiced schemas about intellectual disability for example, they hold If are influenced by ableist schemas, then injustice may the development of schemas. injustice when a is as less because of on the part of the towards the If this in then any by intellectually disabled people be or may the of that they are than intellectually disabled if intellectually disabled people are as may not be as for and be even may even because they their intellectually disabled For example, and that the of intellectually disabled people in groups sometimes when their to work, with they or leave the against their and 2015, 4). may be about this because they to their intellectually disabled However, out of for a can lead to being to what are to them. these things can the development of schemas. Third, if to give to an intellectually disabled this can undermine the the has in their or in their own to injustice If is in the relationship between intellectually disabled people and their be able to in schemas. groups often focus on schemas that to the ways intellectually disabled people are For example, they intellectually disabled people themselves as people who can out on important or as people who can to a working (Anderson and may also to their disability as an of their to be and and 2015). Allies who undermine the of may these more positive of intellectual disability. This and efforts for positive social change, as intellectually disabled people who these go a way that ableist schemas them. Finally, when to intellectually disabled people schemas or resources, the experienced will be to the of injustice. This is because will be an gap that some intellectually disabled people of the resources to interpret their own experience because intellectually disabled people who experience severe difficulties can sometimes their with the of some of the that occur in this will be of as a to to shared resources a community by her (Dotson 2012, In other intellectually disabled people who the of others to to our community are this opportunity when efforts go However, are between at or schemas and of injustice and injustice. For example, injustice when people to about the resources by a group. This that the group not experience an When a at schemas is an gap experienced by Second, the injustice of injustice and injustice is the unfair of a group from the practices through which we to our shared When an to with intellectually disabled people this is a at to that any injustice at all in this as and schemas is a difficult and may be the of even if no injustice is a or to or schemas a as these resources are in the for This is why I argue that collective action in the sphere of intellectual disability can be so when efforts some intellectually disabled people can be schemas or the opportunity to create them. may be that the risks I have identified in this are better of as what can go wrong when intellectually disabled people on others who are not their and for instance, argue that to be an one take that mitigate oppression and 4). They also to those by oppression and like in groups can be with as it is to how this be other than an of intellectually disabled people may on others who are not their that an account of collective action is not for an account of how to positive social change. also to to the individuals who take part in collective when those individuals are in the schemas that a social If we do then prejudiced attitudes social movements can schemas from being or may result in prejudiced schemas that looping effects. Thus, I agree that the risks I have identified will often when intellectually disabled people on others who are not their However, I do not believe that intellectually disabled people on others who are not their is the This is because someone can take that mitigate the oppression intellectually disabled people experience in while of the in other and someone like this can be as an so as they take that mitigate Allies do not to be they to take that are When their to engage in like and of that may be to from and disability is a where like this are likely to both because communication difficulties can make it for to how they act and because the in the intellectually disabled community can influence how act in different For example, intellectual disability different people in different and this may impact what intellectually disabled people from their or if they them at There is also a amount of in the intellectually disabled different intellectually disabled people will be different of This that even who are well about the intellectually disabled people can act in ways that undermine efforts for positive social change, as what one intellectually disabled to well may not can be to which is why I think the risks in collective action can the of on others who are not I argue that the risks in the individual virtues and other individual-level that injustice social movements is a of is important to In that we can injustice by becoming more of the that influence our credibility we can the we offer to such that our credibility are more and with we can a point where our credibility are However, that the of is to be an effective for injustice. out that while on may a to for the we to think that our are and If we we have those 2015, 59). even if we do an in our it is likely that the that us to the in the will make us a judge of how much we to their credibility I in but if I can I to I where I I all of I no no no no I language fluently. with I take I language. I I than and if I will make that I will to take I will to of children and I will make that will who will take of child I the I and are I was a is that is the in the wrong in this is not a of from is a of from the the If this with and with they have that their of further many of its reveals the importance of do this, themselves in become with their communication and to genuinely what is important to this can in their efforts towards the of or in them schemas when their is also a of individual For example, with and as well as and who will not this to be is also by out that to be be and to that they are so that groups the can be on 2012). is also As is to where our but is to and them that remain and to learning about the of the 2021, about these may difficult where that they have been in oppressive social structures. This individual from those to and those to who engage with the community they are in with are less likely to their power or undermine and individuals who on correcting the that influence their are less likely to injustice. focus on collective action this. the leave the and the and we can all what we think of them and things like things we to sometimes for a in Anderson and 2017, in what I us like three other the workers, them do all the They things in Anderson and 2017, This that who practice can to and the of to schemas. the same time, who practice can when their is the of to these schemas. While individual virtues are always they are likely important when with people who have or intellectual This is because intellectually disabled people cannot for they much more heavily on to others of the things that to them. However, I that one for how people the and of intellectually disabled people how social movements take of these and the role a or some of the of a one being with or the we a and can part or all of a own the own as if it the own and The of the to is that it makes it that the of be to the intellectually disabled not the The of the and the from the intellectually disabled point of and it is what they if they it As they not the is taken to be the and the intellectually disabled not the is their of the has been to much For instance, out that do not have of their As how are to part or all of a own their own is not 2015). and are also They point out the between the a has their to the a intellectually disabled has and 2012). also against it to that intellectually disabled people may have rich and that people can at best to if is I when to social the to the role is a If is then to what the is for the they do this, or other of the the cannot and This is like the role cannot be or or but can When some of the skills or the risks are often much more severe than when a is Thus, even if is the to the risks of collective If the are and is not then are for the of intellectually disabled people in social As if the role people play is to be to a intellectually disabled way of and to this way of a form others can then we do not as and as we are others a relationship with the who her way of and who have to her best intellectually disabled people who have with others often have people capable of this, but this individuals who are to themselves in the of the they for Because are so many risks with work, other for that do not on of important For instance, and argue that we the of if we a of or we for a higher if a on of a intellectually disabled from what others and even with like this in to the role someone in their at being a people with intellectual will be in a While the that when intellectually disabled people on many of the risks with collective I believe that this reveals the of individual virtues for social change more generally. Many of the risks in other social and these risks are even in the of This is because social is by and power 2021, For example, often more power than Black the As a the by the have sometimes been for the Black women while to represent all women and in the Black often more power than such as as she a in the she to create In the queer people sometimes that their is in the the queer community develops These power can also lead to of injustice. For instance, Black sometimes that the schemas they are or This can result in social movements that schemas that do not for those the group or that forms of As these risks are individual virtues and other individual-level interventions are important in all social I argue that this Haslanger's account of how to social change. This is because the of disrupting unjust forms of our of and schemas is when individuals the virtues or For example, Haslanger that social movements can social change by practices to the unjust practices that (Haslanger in However, if people social movements are not of how practices sustain and if they have to for the prejudiced attitudes that their then we not be that the practices they create will distribute resources more If the development of better schemas is through of power or then the schemas by the social may continue to social and others may continue to enact prejudiced representations of their identity group. If what to some people in a social is the social will not our of what is valuable to those the social Individual virtues and other individual-level interventions the of this This is why they play an important role in social change. action is for social change, but this not that individual virtues and other individual-level interventions play a role in the I this through a focus on intellectual as the risks that can undermine our collective efforts are Individual effective of the we are and other individual-level interventions the important role of these risks. This is why individual virtues and other individual-level interventions are crucial for positive social change. I like to for her in the in this I also like to and both for their on of this This was by an by as part of the the of The no of