Constructive Welfare: The Social Security Act, the Blind, and the Origins of Political Identity among People with Disabilities, 1935–1950

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Studies in American Political Development Pub Date : 2019-02-18 DOI:10.1017/S0898588X18000172
Jennifer L. Erkulwater
{"title":"Constructive Welfare: The Social Security Act, the Blind, and the Origins of Political Identity among People with Disabilities, 1935–1950","authors":"Jennifer L. Erkulwater","doi":"10.1017/S0898588X18000172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contemporary America, identifying as a person with a disability is one of the many ways in which people acknowledge, even celebrate, who they are. Yet several decades ago, few persons with disabilities saw their condition as an identity to be embraced, let alone to serve as the basis for affinity and collective mobilization. The transformation of disability from unmitigated tragedy to a collective and politicized identity emerged in national politics, not in the 1960s or 1970s, as is commonly thought, but in the 1940s. During those years, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) set out to galvanize the nation's blind men and women, most of them poor and unemployed, to demand the economic security and opportunity enjoyed by sighted Americans. This aspiration for equal citizenship led the NFB into protracted contests with the Social Security Administration (SSA) over aid to the poor and sharpened the organization's resolve to represent the nation's civilian blind. Long before disability rights activists declared “nothing about us, without us,” the NFB insisted that only the blind, not sighted social workers or experts in blindness, were entitled to speak on behalf of the blind. Pioneering an organizing strategy and a critique of American liberalism later embraced by activists of the Left, the NFB rose to become one of the most effective civil rights and antipoverty organizations of its time. Today, however, its story has been largely forgotten.","PeriodicalId":45195,"journal":{"name":"Studies in American Political Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0898588X18000172","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in American Political Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X18000172","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In contemporary America, identifying as a person with a disability is one of the many ways in which people acknowledge, even celebrate, who they are. Yet several decades ago, few persons with disabilities saw their condition as an identity to be embraced, let alone to serve as the basis for affinity and collective mobilization. The transformation of disability from unmitigated tragedy to a collective and politicized identity emerged in national politics, not in the 1960s or 1970s, as is commonly thought, but in the 1940s. During those years, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) set out to galvanize the nation's blind men and women, most of them poor and unemployed, to demand the economic security and opportunity enjoyed by sighted Americans. This aspiration for equal citizenship led the NFB into protracted contests with the Social Security Administration (SSA) over aid to the poor and sharpened the organization's resolve to represent the nation's civilian blind. Long before disability rights activists declared “nothing about us, without us,” the NFB insisted that only the blind, not sighted social workers or experts in blindness, were entitled to speak on behalf of the blind. Pioneering an organizing strategy and a critique of American liberalism later embraced by activists of the Left, the NFB rose to become one of the most effective civil rights and antipoverty organizations of its time. Today, however, its story has been largely forgotten.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
建设性福利:《社会保障法》、盲人和残疾人政治身份的起源,1935-1950
在当代美国,认同残疾人是人们承认甚至庆祝自己的众多方式之一。然而,几十年前,很少有残疾人将自己的状况视为一种需要接受的身份,更不用说作为亲和力和集体动员的基础了。残疾从彻底的悲剧转变为集体和政治化的身份在国家政治中出现,不是在20世纪60年代或70年代,而是在20世纪40年代。在那些年里,全国盲人联合会(NFB)开始激励全国的盲人男女,其中大多数是穷人和失业者,要求有视力的美国人享有经济保障和机会。这种对平等公民身份的渴望导致NFB与社会保障管理局(SSA)就援助穷人展开了旷日持久的竞争,并坚定了该组织代表国家盲人的决心。早在残疾人权利活动家宣布“没有我们,就没有我们”之前,国家残疾人委员会就坚持认为,只有盲人,而不是有视力的社会工作者或盲人专家,才有权代表盲人发言。NFB开创了一种组织策略,并批判了后来被左翼活动家所接受的美国自由主义,它崛起为当时最有效的民权和反贫困组织之一。然而,今天,它的故事基本上被遗忘了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Studies in American Political Development (SAPD) publishes scholarship on political change and institutional development in the United States from a variety of theoretical viewpoints. Articles focus on governmental institutions over time and on their social, economic and cultural setting. In-depth presentation in a longer format allows contributors to elaborate on the complex patterns of state-society relations. SAPD encourages an interdisciplinary approach and recognizes the value of comparative perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Old Patronage during the New Deal: Did Urban Machines Use Work Relief Programs to Benefit the National Democratic Party? Old Patronage during the New Deal: Did Urban Machines Use Work Relief Programs to Benefit the National Democratic Party? “100,000 Unarmed Men in Washington”: Public Opinion and the 1876 Election Compromise The March on Washington Movement, the Fair Employment Practices Committee, and the Long Quest for Racial Justice Immigration Clashes, Party Polarization, and Republican Radicalization: Tracking Shifts in State and National Party Platforms since 1980
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1