Disclaimer
This information is provided for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, please consult a qualified professional.
It is often assumed that individuals with intellectual disabilities possess inferior intelligence. To be blunt, the reality is less about “inferiority” and more about a significant deviation from what is considered the “normal” social context. Much like those deemed “able-bodied” or “neurotypical,” they possess their own internal logic and unique worldviews.
Imagine a society composed exclusively of those deemed “healthy”—a society where no one has a disability. In such a vacuum, what does “healthy” even signify? Even those currently considered healthy may lose bodily functions through illness or experience cognitive decline due to aging. In a society that demands absolute normalcy, such inevitable changes become unacceptable, leading to the exclusion of the individual.
From this perspective, the existence of people with disabilities often serves as nothing more than a form of risk management for the “healthy.” Protecting those with disabilities becomes equivalent to maintaining a safety net for when they themselves might eventually become disabled.
Shunning individuals because their intelligence is perceived as inferior effectively confines society within the narrow context of “normalcy.” When the “different” is avoided as “abnormal,” society homogenizes. People end up dressing similarly, acting similarly, and living out their lives in a repetitive loop.
A homogenizing society constantly seeks out “different” elements to exclude; without something to contrast against, “normalcy” cannot be identified. Once found, this difference is labeled as an abnormality and rejected. This process of homogenization ultimately causes society to contract.
When the majority of society is constructed around a specific standard of “healthy” intelligence, intellectual disability stands at the opposite pole. If society homogenizes, it loses meaning; if it closes itself within the context of “normalcy,” it becomes stagnant; and if it practices exclusion, it shrinks. The perceived meaninglessness of life, the sense of social stagnation, and the lack of hope for the future are natural consequences of this closure.
This is the core challenge of current social welfare. By “understanding” those with disabilities as “people who are difficult to understand,” we end up avoiding them. Why does this happen? Perhaps because those with disabilities feel “different” and therefore frightening; fitting them into a “comprehensible” framework provides a sense of security.
The unknown is frightening. This applies not only to those with disabilities but to all “others.” However, the belief that fear disappears through understanding is a mere illusion. It is a common story to find that someone we thought we understood is, in fact, entirely different.
Is it truly necessary to understand someone to stop fearing them? Pushing “understanding” to the forefront can often be intrusive. Yet, when faced with the fear of the “other,” the act of seeking security through understanding is often regarded as an intellectual attitude.
In reality, this is not an intellectual pursuit, but rather a display of superiority used to mask fear. This method of understanding is far too defensive. Is it not possible to maintain a respectful, relation-centered understanding while still acknowledging a defensive distance?
