When Ability Isn’t Quantifiable

I’m going to describe a 21-year-old woman with dyscalculia who I know. Because of her disability, she can’t drive, read a map, tell time, do basic addition, or ride a bicycle. She struggles with her mental health and social life partially as a result of having dyscalculia, and is so directionally challenged that she has to use google maps directions when walking to places she’s already been before. But then there’s this other person with dyscalculia who is getting a college degree from one of the most highly ranked public universities in the country, has won academic awards, has been an honor student for four semesters in a row, has a 3.98 GPA, and has won three music performance competitions. If you’ve read both of these descriptions, you might be thinking that the second person sounds much “higher-functioning” or that the first person’s disability has interfered with her basic functioning to such a degree that she is unable to live a normal adult life. On the flip side of that, you might be thinking that the second person undoubtedly managed to “overcome” her disability and live a complete, fulfilling, and successful life in ways that the first person obviously could not.

Now what if I told you they were both the same person?

If you’ve read my other pieces, you’ve probably already figured out that both of the people I described are me, but I use this now as a way of pointing out the inaccuracy in turning the performance of societally-recognized “function” into a binary and forcing it onto all people with disabilities. Beyond the inaccuracy and over-simplicity, this formulation is actually just not reflective of the experiences of many people with disabilities. But first let’s talk about why it’s harmful. First of all, the construction of this false binary places the emphasis on arbitrary measures of “functionality” and views human beings as machines that can either “work” or “not work” according to a fixed standard. (In reality, human beings are capable of much more than “functioning.”) Secondly, it focuses on how a person’s disability affects those around them, rather than the experience of the person with the disability themself. And finally, “function” (believe it or not,) is a societal construct. If our society chose to define “function” according to capacity for compassion, love, humor, and care for family and friends, much of our lives would look very different. “Functioning” as used in this case is actually code for “performing neurotypicality.” Many people see their disabilities as part of their identity because they have greatly shaped the way we’ve gone through the world and it’s also important to remember that a neurotypical brain isn’t inherently a “more functional” brain and a “more functional” brain isn’t inherently “better.” Whether intentional or not, labels like high-functioning and low-functioning come with inherent value judgments when used in the context of a society that values productivity and the conformity to arbitrary measures of “success” above all else. “Low-functioning” people with disabilities have just as much to offer the world as neurotypical and/or “high-functioning” people. Whether or not the neurotypical world is willing to accept it, the labels of “high functioning” and “low functioning” weren’t created for the benefit of the people with disabilities or mental illnesses, but were created to make those around us more comfortable by appealing to the societal need to label, rank, and categorize based on biased and inaccurate criteria.

This brings us to the reasons why the use of this binary is inaccurate. The truth is that all of the characteristics defined as evidence of “function” actually apply to a wide range of experiences and the outward performances and appearances of people with disabilities cannot all be categorized under one or two labels that were constructed based on the neurotypical need to place value judgements on the entirety of a person’s “functionality” according to their outward performances of success as defined by a culture that values productivity above actual thinking and “success” above the formation of values grounded in strong ethical principles. As I explained before, not everyone with a disability will experience the same challenges in the same way, but it’s possible to recognize that the many aspects of a disability don’t exist exclusively on a linear continuum and that the entirety of how a disability outwardly presents itself in an individual doesn’t always conform to societal expectations for a timeline of skills and benchmarks that are reached at given points in life and must be mastered before any other skill can be attained. This is why ability often isn’t quantifiable, but rather something that is simultaneously tied to individual experience AND shaped by an individual’s resources, life circumstances, and beliefs formed based on outside expectations. The sooner we collectively begin to recognize this, the sooner we can shift away from this kind of binary thinking and begin to truly accept and accommodate all disability experiences.