The intersection of disability, feminism, and RT/TR

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to explore the intersection between disability, feminism, and recreation therapy/therapeutic recreation (RT/TR). Historically, RT/TR has been a discipline attractive to women because an ethic of care is characteristically associated with RT/TR and the moral development of women. However, frustrated by the lack of respect accorded RT/TR, practitioners (mostly women) have endorsed the medical model with the hope that it would provide a source of appreciation. Unfortunately, the results of endorsing the medical model have yielded only an illusion of respect and further caused the negative construction of disability and play – contributing to the stigmatization of both. The effects of stigma have been oppressive at the intersection: RT/TR is a field where a stigmatized population (disabled) is assisted by a marginalized group (women) using an “irrelevant” human activity (play). The alternative is to “come out” with the merits of play and inclusion as worthwhile results of RT/TR.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article a pour objectif d’explorer l’intersection de l’invalidité, du féminisme et de la récréothérapie/des loisirs thérapeutiques (RT/LT). Historiquement, la RT/LT constitue une discipline attrayante pour les femmes, car elle est associée à une éthique de soin et au développement moral des femmes. Toutefois, déçus par le manque de respect accordé à la RT/LT, les praticiens (majoritairement des femmes) ont endossé le modèle médical en espérant que cela leur procurerait une plus grande considération. Cela n’a malheureusement pas eu l’effet escompté. En effet, l’endossement du modèle médical n’a eu pour conséquence que de créer une illusion de respect et d’aggraver la vision négative de l’invalidité et du jeu. Ce qui a contribué à leur stigmatisation. Cette stigmatisation a été oppressante à l’intersection: RT/LT est une discipline dans laquelle une population stigmatisée (des personnes handicapées) est assistée par un groupe marginalisé (des femmes) dans le cadre d’une activité humaine non productive (le jeu). L’alternative est de s’affirmer et faire valoir les mérites du jeu et de l’inclusion en tant que résultats appréciables de la RT/LT.

KEYWORDS:

• Disability studies
• feminism
• intersection
• recreation therapy
• therapeutic recreation

MOTS-CLÉS:

• Étude de la condition des personnes handicapées
• féminisme
• carrefour
• récréothérapie
• loisirs thérapeutiques

Notes

1. Disabled person is the preferred terminology of the disability studies movement instead of person-first terminology; it provides separation and distinction from the curative approach of the dominant culture.

2. One cannot help but resurrect Paul Haun’s (1965) observation: “I am so fully persuaded of the value of recreation as recreation for the ill or disabled person that I am alarmed at the possibility of its being unjustly discredited through lying claim to an effectiveness it cannot possess” (pp. 60–61).

3. What are the origins of the ethic of care? Is it innate or acquired? Gilligan’s (1982) theory of moral development claims that women tend to think and speak in a different way than men when they confront ethical dilemmas. This theory also suggests the feminine ethic of care and masculine ethic of justice. Regardless of its genesis, innate, social construction or a personality trait, essentialist or not, authors agree that an ethic of care is and has been part of the female identity in Western culture (Garland-Thomson, 1997; Gilligan, 1982; Henderson et al., 1989).

4. Also known as the poor farm or custodial models of care.

5. Not especially good news relative to the requirement of physician referral as a necessary component of active treatment (Passmore, 2010) and evidence of medical necessity.

6. The reader should take note of the fact that the apparent lack of respect among health care administrators occurred in one of the few states where licensing in RT is required. One might have imagined more respect for RT if licensing were such a persuasive political force.

7. Now RT/TR must “sell” services to reluctant buyers (health care administrators)? The remedial effects of RT/TR are neither self-evident nor logical; instead marketing and sales staff are required.

8. “Diversional” is explicitly used in reference to leisure, play, and recreational outcomes in the most current version of the ATRA’s (2013) Standards for the practice of recreational therapy.

9. Assessment and evaluation and self-promotion/marketing (euphemistically called “Advancement of the profession”) comprise a significant portion of the national certification examination for RT/TR (NCTRC, 2014).

10. Harkins and Bedini (2013) suggested that RT/TR pursues even more credentialing to enhance marketing.

11. The oppression of professionalism has distracted women from the real issue – the lack of value of the work of women and the trivializing of leisure, play, and recreation as essential parts of a good life.

12. How many times have practitioners heard: “Gee, I wish all I had to do was play with patients all day.” Practitioners should accept the “challenge.” Allow other staff, for example, to plan and implement an activity; even better, allow them to plan and implement an inclusion initiative to see just how “easy” the job is. See Connolly (1984), Devine and Lashua (2002), Green and DeCoux (1994), and Stumbo and Peterson (2004), for examples of the intricacy of planning and implementation necessary.

13. Garland-Thomson (1997) noted a literary shift in writers, from apologizing and seeking sympathy for disabled persons to asserting disability as an authentic identity in the postmodern era, symbolized by ADA. “The rhetorical framing of bodily differences thus moves from a politics of sympathetic advocacy to a politics of affirmative identity” (p. 107).

14. See Lane (2010) on “troubled person professions.”