C OMPARATIVE

SOCIOLOGY
Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164 brill.nl/coso

Introduction
Culture and Disability:
Advancing Comparative Research

Heinz-Dieter Meyer
State University of New York-Albany (SUNY),
EAPS, ED 316, Albany, NY 12222, USA
hmeyer@albany.edu

Abstract
Cultures differ greatly as to which specific conditions they recognize as a disability,
how they interpret matters of causation and consequence, and which kinds of
remedy they believe adequate. The papers in this special issue of Comparative
Sociology explore the institutional and cultural variation of disability as well as the
underlying causes, including a culture’s degree of individualism / collectivism.

Keywords
individualism, collectivism, religion, culture, institutions, disability policy

Disability is one of those human conditions that is at once universal as well

as strongly shaped by cultural context. That is to say, while most cultures
display an awareness of phenomena that distinguish an individual with
physical or mental limitations from the majority of peers, cultures differ
greatly as to: which specific condition they recognize as a disability, how
they interpret matters of causation and consequence, and what sort of
countermanding actions they stipulate. Disability is thus “culturally con-
structed.” It is endowed with significance and meaning in the context of
particular shared beliefs and established (and occasionally challenged)
through the act of collective cultural interpretation.
Needless to say, these culturally produced norms and categorizations do,
in turn, powerfully affect the lives of the disabled and their families. They

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156913210X12536181350999

158 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164

also say something about a community’s standards of solidarity, for how we

deal with individuals whose participation in society is affected by their
physical or mental restrictions is important not only for the quality of life
of the individuals concerned but also for signaling our standard of civiliza-
tion (Weizsäcker 1988). There is, indeed, a growing global awareness that
disability policies can be read as an index of a society’s willingness to pro-
vide for its most vulnerable. Denial, stigmatization, and segregation into
special institutions, which only a few decades ago were the main methods
of dealing with disability, are less and less accepted as official policy.
Still, even in otherwise quite similar countries and nations, the living
conditions and treatment of persons with disabilities frequently differ dra-
matically. In one country a person may be able to partake in modes of self-
organization, while in another she may be restricted to government
handouts. In one country, persons with disabilities may have rights, in
another they may have to petition for every benefit they need. One coun-
try’s policies may consider a range of physical and mental conditions as
disability, while in another only the most severe limitations count as such.
For comparative sociologists, interested in understanding the causes of
institutional and policy variation cross-nationally, disability offers an
intriguing field for study. Yet, this potential for cross-national discovery
and understanding remains, to date, largely untapped.

“A Babel of Discourses”
That disability research has disappeared from the mainstream of sociologi-
cal research is reflected, among other things, in the fact that in ten years
(1996–2006) two sociological flagship journals (American Journal of Soci-
ology and Annual Review of Sociology) carried not a single article with the
word “disability” in the title or abstract. Similarly, the 43 journals listed by
JSTOR as belonging to the sociology journal family list a total of ten arti-
cles for the same time period, eight of which appeared in two journals
( Journal of Health and Social Behavior ; Journal of Human Resources). In
other words, what little research on disability sociologists are publishing, is
crowded into narrow outlets quite a distance away from the sociological
mainstream.
The lack of sociological attention contrasts sharply with the abundance
of work carried out outside of sociology. Notice, for example, that there are
 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164 159

over 50 English language journals on disability. Also, the annual book pro-
duction on the topic is burgeoning. Amazon.com lists over 100 new books
with the keyword disability that were published in 2007 alone. But the
large quantity of attention paid to the subject is not reflective of theoretical
coherence or high resolution theorizing. Rather, the field resembles a
“Babel of discourses” (Williams 2003:125) in which highly specialized
work takes place in a fragmented environment without strong cumulative
effects. While some of sociology’s basic axioms have become standard ref-
erence points in disability studies of virtually any stripe – that disability is
socially constructed, that disability is readily subjected to processes of
dominance and exclusion – the sociology that informs disability research
seems often to end with the contributions from sociologists like Goffman
and Foucault. While the seminal contributions of these writers – question-
ing dominant conceptions of normalcy and inclusion/exclusion – have left
their mark on the field, other classical lines of sociological inquiry, espe-
cially those that require comparative approaches – culture, religion, institu-
tions, professions – have been plumbed less energetically and effectively.
Needless to say that these themes (of culture and institutions) are the
special, albeit not exclusive, province of comparative sociology. The papers
published here may thus be read both for the substantive insights they
offer individually, as well as for the direction to more systematic compara-
tive work in which they point.

Individualism, Collectivism, and Disability

That culture impacts the construction of disability is accepted as common-
place among sociologists, but the how and why of this causal relationship
remain largely unexplored. In the first article Heinz-Dieter Meyer, draw-
ing on the well-established distinction between “individualism” and “col-
lectivism” as cultural orientations (Triandis 1990; Hofstede 2001), probes
the relationship between individualism and a culture’s recognition of dis-
ability. Drawing on Hofstede’s well-known individualism / collectivism
index, he finds evidence that individualist cultures recognize disability –
measured at the level of learning disabilities of school children – more
readily than collectivist cultures – even after controlling for a nation’s
socio-economic development. This confirms the notion that individualist
cultures tend to give priority to the claims of the individual, while in
160 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164

collectivist cultures the claims of the group (family, peers, work group,
company, nation) trump those of the individual. In individualist cultures
an individual with a disability can be seen as a person who deserves partic-
ularly expansive assistance. In collectivist cultures, by contrast, the individ-
ual’s role is subordinate to the group, with the former owing lifelong loyalty
to the latter.
One of the interesting differences between more and less individualistic
cultures is a different weight given to the individual learner on the one
hand, and the group of individuals with similar disabilities on the other.
Germany (and to a lesser extent Japan) have traditions grown around what
Germans call “therapeutic pedagogy” (Heilpädagogik) (see Powell, this
issue). Therapeutic pedagogy focuses on the specific disability and the req-
uisite techniques. At the center of attention is not necessarily purely cogni-
tive learning, but the overall amelioration of a person’s quality of life. The
idea is to have national centers dedicated to most of the known learning
disabilities where cutting edge technologies and pedagogies are applied
and developed and, frequently, research undertaken. To the German or
Japanese observer this practice has nothing to do with ‘segregation’ of the
students, but rather with an optimal concentration of available knowledge
and resources. By contrast, in the American climate of “inclusion” such
specialized institutions are harder to legitimize. As I discuss below, for pol-
icy makers these are interesting tradeoffs between individual inclusion and
optimal pedagogical treatment in specialized institutions.

Institutions and Professions

Institutional arrangements affect the treatment of disability in various
ways. For example, institutional arrangements allocate power to different
actor-groups involved in the process of recognizing and treating disability.
The paper by Tiina Itkonen and Markku Jahnukainen comparing the
special education regimes of Finland and the United States, alerts us to
the difference between a special education system shaped by educators
(Finland) versus one designed by politicians and enforced by the courts
(USA). As the authors point out, in the United States special education
has been framed as a ‘civil rights’ issue (following close on the heels of
Brown versus Board and the anti-segregation movement). It is also consis-
tent with American’s strong individualistic culture where the idea of ‘equal
 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164 161

rights’ provides a more readily mobilized resource than the ‘quality educa-
tion for all’.
Modeling special education on anti-discrimination legislation prompted
by the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown versus Board, reflected
the assumption that only the highest levels of the political system could
secure effective education for special needs students. As with desegregation,
educators were not consulted or involved. The comparison with Finland – a
less individualistic country than the US with far lower litigation around
special education issues – suggests that educators are interested in results,
not formal rights. In the US the emphasis has been on ‘compliance’ with
the law, less so on the substantive improvement of the student’s abilities.

Religious Weltbilder and Disability

The relationship between what Weber called “religiöse Weltbilder” and the
social construction of disability has to date received scant attention. Both
Weber and Durkheim believed that religious beliefs powerfully influence
behavior. Protestantism, for example, made higher demands on the indi-
vidual’s self-direction than other religions, especially Catholicism. The
Calvinist notion of pre-determination had far reaching influence on peo-
ple’s belief in the benign consequences of industrious behavior. However,
Protestants were also at risk to be more intensely frustrated if the desired
success did not materialize – explaining both the higher level of economic
productivity and wealth and the higher rates of suicide in Protestant
communities.
Is there a similar effect of religion on disability? We may observe that
there is a high correlation between cultural individualism and Protestant-
ism (Inkeles and Sasaki 1995). Predominantly Protestant countries like the
United States, Canada, Australia, and England exhibit more expansive dis-
ability policies, and, as Sharon Barnartt (this issue) shows, also higher
numbers of disability protests. Protestants also have a long history in pro-
moting the idea that all members of a society must be able to “walk in
public without shame” (Adam Smith [1776] 1937:821). On the other
hand, the helping hand that Protestants have often extended to the poor
and disabled has sometimes also turned into a dividing hand, associated
with the segregation and exclusion of people with disabilities in the name
of reason and effectiveness.
162 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164

This ambivalence towards people with disabilities is also characteristic of

other religions, including Confucianism and Buddhism that have shaped
social development in Asia (Murakami and Meyer, this issue). Confucian-
ism / Buddhism had a more powerful effect on the recognition of disabili-
ties through their retarding effect on the development of civil society and
civic initiative, which have been key prerequisites for the rights-based
activism and self-organization of the disabled in Western countries. The
paper by Murakami and Meyer shows that along this line, these religions
may have had a retarding effect on the development of disability regimes.
That paper also shows how cultural collectivism translates into practices
that make recognition of disabilities difficult.

Disability Policy: Local and Global

Barnartt’s in-depth study of the international development of disability
protests cautions observers that the data to date do not support strong
assumptions about globalization as a center-periphery diffusion process.
Rather, disability movements in different countries and regions of the
world seem to develop largely within local opportunity structures.
This does not mean, however, that there are no long-term secular trends
at the global level. The Japanese case is an example that the rights-based
innovation in special education policies pioneered by the United States
had a powerful echo around the world. In both China and Japan the 1982
United Nations “year of disability” prompted strong (and successful) reac-
tions from local groups calling for an overhaul of their countries’ disability
policies, which until then had been a neglected backwater of social policy.
More recently, the OECD’s proposal for a more uniform classification of
disability (see Itkonen and Jahnukainen, this issue) has the potential of
creating greater unity of practice across the globe.
As the last example shows, globalizing influences need not always origi-
nate in the United States. The globalization dynamic may also affect the
United States as a receiver country. Thus, there are signs that the rigidly
legalistic and compliance-oriented special education policy in the United
States is cut back in favor of a more flexible and pragmatic “Response to
Intervention.” Under such policy students become eligible for extra learn-
ing assistance without having to be classified as “disabled” in a lengthy,
bureaucratic, and exclusionary diagnostic process. This new policy of
 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164 163

“Response to Intervention” (RTI) is quite similar to the practice Itkonen

and Jahnukainen describe as long-established in Finland.

Policy Implications: Exploring the Tradeoffs

The studies published here confirm the idea that individualistic cultures
seem to be associated with a rights-based approached to disability. This
tradition has produced a historic change of public expectations that dis-
ability shall not mean social exclusion – whether in the arena of public
education, transportation, or housing. On the other hand, rights-based
approaches to disability can lead to inflexible and bureaucratic implemen-
tation and compliance regimes that produce their own attendant prob-
lems. In the United States an individualist orientation has produced a
standard of “least restrictive” environment for students with disabilities,
which measures the support for a particular disabled student against an
abstract model of a ‘normal’ individual. This leaves parents, teachers,
administrators, councilors and other support personnel to navigate the
potentially vast gulf between the practical and the ideal. Initiative and
power are placed in the hands of the disabled and their advocates who are
often pitted against the public authorities to insure the best possible treat-
ment for the disabled.
On the other end of the continuum we find what may be called a “needs-
based” approach. The needs-based approach starts with the concrete indi-
vidual and his / her manifested difficulties, then providing assistance a step
at a time. Here, teachers, social workers, and other government employees
are the main authority. They often act in what they perceive is the best
interest of the individual, but are not beyond acting paternalistically vis-à-
vis the disabled and their representatives.
When viewed together, the articles assembled here document what may
be seen as a worldwide, collective learning process in which the tradeoffs
between rights and needs, individual deserts and public constraints are
explored and negotiated. Today, we see the emergence of social norms at a
global scale that redefine what it means to be civilized vis-à-vis the disabled
among us, demanding that we accommodate but not segregate, be gener-
ous but realistic, act fairly but not overbearing, and support the autonomy
and uniqueness of each disabled individual with dignity and tact. How
to translate these multi-facetted standards into feasible public policy is a
164 Introduction / Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 157–164

challenge under the best of circumstances. But it is a challenge that can

clearly benefit from the insight afforded by comparative sociological study
research.

References
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inkeles, Alex and Masamichi Sasaki. 1995. Comparing Nations and Cultures: Readings in a
Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, Adam. (1776) 1937. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House.
Triandis, Harry C. 1990. “Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism.” In
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 37, edited by J.J. Berman. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Weizsäcker, Carl F. v. 1988. The Ambivalence of Progress, Essays on Historical Anthropology.
New York: Paragon.
Williams, Gareth. 2003. Theorizing Disability. Pp. 123–144 in Handbook of Disability
Studies. Sage Publications.