Disability and Sociology: Anatomy is Not Destiny

Talking about disability through a sociological look brings with it the urgent imperative to analyze the secularization of such a phenomenon, understanding it from other than mythical and supernatural bases. The endeavor proposed by this task requires tracing the constitutive elements of sociology itself, a process of the utmost seriousness. Nisbet [1], in a seminal text, defines sociology as a modern science of core and base. Its appearance is related to the context engendered by the English Industrial Revolution (economic transformation) and the French Revolution (political transformation), and the consequent advent of political etymologies rooted in the ideas of progress, individual, contract and reason, which marked a space of split towards the social ties of the Medievo. Roughly speaking, sociology is concurrent with the future of individualistic rationalism, the genesis of industrialization, and the assumption of the state as a cardinal disciplinarian of social relations, whose analytical focus lies in the rational explanation of the world. Its emergence is linked to a series of specific events and circumstances, coinciding with the final moments of the breakdown of feudal society and the consolidation of capitalist society.


Introduction
Talking about disability through a sociological look brings with it the urgent imperative to analyze the secularization of such a phenomenon, understanding it from other than mythical and supernatural bases. The endeavor proposed by this task requires tracing the constitutive elements of sociology itself, a process of the utmost seriousness. Nisbet [1], in a seminal text, defines sociology as a modern science of core and base. Its appearance is related to the context engendered by the English Industrial Revolution (economic transformation) and the French Revolution proletariat). On these elements the Sociology finances its leather of relations. Since then, the incessant task of building a system of thought that renounces the supernatural explanations of everyday phenomena towards scientific and rational clarification has been the same. It is therefore misleading to think that the primordial each in a given historical period, the name, the idea of deviance as sin, the deviation as a crime and subsequently the deviation as disease, the which, however, does not mean that the thought assent to a linear perspective on certain event.
History is one and diverse, and phenomena are interpreted from a myriad of concomitant positions, hence the importance of the Gramscian concept of hegemony, understanding it as a set of ideas and power structures that clothe themselves with dominant authority and cognitive guidance historical era. In the typically modern way of thinking, the body that expresses differences beyond those taken as variations of human nature itself is no longer understood from mystical evidence or providences from the sphere of the divine, into the etymological field of biological inaccuracies.
This phenomenon is uniquely portrayed by Foucault [5] when he points out that with the prevalence of the medical narrative about the body, a new discourse authorized by modernity, much of what concerns the supernatural has lost its strength and meaning and what was previously seen as punishment or wrath of the gods came to be coded as pathology derived from certain clinical conditions.
Since the eighteenth-century medicine has established itself as one of the fields of knowledge in close connection with state power, intuition of violent repression about the body and, above all, to deviate from certain previously established pattern.
It is about this scenario and only in its spectrum, according to Canguilhem [6] that we witness the birth of the abnormal body, an abnormality seen as a derivative in irremediable antagonism to normality, which should not be confused with the naturally most probable, even because this concept is defined in a normative and hierarchical way. The normal is a dynamic and controversial concept that also involves what is supposed to be, the basis of which is clearly axiological. For Canguilhem [7], there is no normal and pathological in themselves. The pathological is not the absence of norm, but another norm. Even so, in his view [7], theoretically it makes no sense to take our life from an alleged relationship between the normal and the pathological, because "the concept of normal is not a concept of existence susceptible in itself to be measured objectively. The pathological must be understood as a kind of the normal, since the abnormal is not that which is not normal, but that which is a different normal. Thus, the abnormality cannot be seen only as negativity, amorphous phenomenon and latent passivity, because although it can represent, on several occasions, a reduction in creative potential, never left and never cease to materialize a new life marked by original physiological constants.
It is therefore a groundbreaking experience concerning the living being, not just a diminutive fact or in subtraction contributions. It is not a variation of the health dimension, but a new dimension of life. The natural never ceased to be cultural. These relationships are not even envisioned by classical knowledge in the field of disability, not least because one of its main bastions of discrimination, to cite, would be the concept of the ideal type or average man. Without norm there is no ideal type. Without this, there are no deviants.
What if there are no deviants how to justify the intrinsic social inequality experienced by various groups? In order not to have to answer this question and to confront the very structure upon which it rests, the capitalist system creates thousand mechanisms in order to demarcate a supposed objectivity of the norm. We seek the norm at all costs, which is ideologies through a rigid process of technical instrumentation that intends to make visible and quantifiable the differences and deviations previously interpreted as divinatory fruits. A natural order is established, which coincides with the dominant groups, and seeks to numerically demarcate all that is distinguished from this order.
The deaf is a normal person subtracted from the faculty of hearing. Oppositions define it. The homosexual is, above all, a nonheterosexual. The woman not a man. The black one not white. The blind a non-seer. The wheelchair a non-walker. It is the absence that defines those who depart from the supposed norm. In this sense, every reference to the possible order is intrinsically accompanied by the aversion of the possible reverse order. The different from the preferable is not the indifferent, but the refutable, the obnoxious, the one to avoid. More than one definer, the norm holds an implicit element of segregation. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the norm never erases the difference, quite the contrary, it demarcates it at an early stage and then considers it of lesser value. Disability is not denied by society, but explicitly recognized for later being bombarded by deleterious meanings of the most diverse species. The combination of these elements makes Canguilhem [6] consider the idea of normality as a cutoff point in the process of social inclusion or exclusion expressed by capitalist societies. What escapes it can only be included margins, an inclusion by exclusion.
Of course all societies throughout their history have defined patterns of inclusion and exclusion, but in none of them have we seen limits as rigid and narrow as those imposed by the capitalist system and its maxim of the useful and productive body, as we have pointed out earlier, demarcated no longer by the divine and mystic, but by the medical and biological. Unique in this sense is Davis's [8] reasoning, for whom after the emergence of the concept of norm, the state that people longed for was an unattainable ideal. To resemble the creator spiritually was the goal, but everyone knew that such objective would never be reached. No one was extirpated for it.
With the advent of modernity and the norm the power relations and raison d'être of the ideal man change completely. Being ideal now meant having a body fit for machinery and industrial paraphernalia.
Failure to reach this somatic and psychic stage was the reason for the highest social refusal, a sign of discredit and disability, of dependence. The norm, under the auspices of capitalism, gives rise to a quasi-gardening culture where one cuts and prunes all the elements that are not considered major.
The strengthening of this essentially abstract, almost metaphysical concept acts as a conservative force that explicitly

Am J Biomed Sci & Res
Copy@ Gustavo Martins Piccolo aims at preserving social structures. The material fills with the ideological. Those who distinguish themselves from the norm are debased by the norm and end up experiencing psychological and socioeconomic conditions of extreme, often irreversible disadvantage, whose improvement would fall hypothetically only to the arms of medicine. Deviation from the norm is only corrected by medical practice, which turns the deviated into patients, those who resist submissive, who depersonalize themselves. It is on the path of these relationships that disability will be worked on and conceptualized in modern societies: a problem of order and medical derivatives, an individual deficit that can only be remedied through clinical and therapeutic designs. So deeply rooted in our minds and everyday practices, this conceptualization seems to constitute an unquestionable form of explanation of disability, a naturalistic vector that amalgamates a simple cause-and-effect relationship materialized in the idea that this condition carries an intrinsic disadvantage to its biological condition.
However, there is nothing natural about such a relationship, because as we point out, it is a product built under the auspices of the consolidation of the capitalist regime and its modus operandi.
Medicine imposes itself on deficiency only and exclusively on modern tropes. Thus, as naturalistic as it may seem, the medical explanation is nonetheless a heuristic device for characterizing disability, as is, albeit from other perspectives, the social model, which we will portray later. Whether or not referring to this supposed heuristic device, the values, knowledge and explanation fingered on this phenomenon unequivocally follow the path of these perspectives, even when we are not even aware of the existence of these explanatory models, as Oliver That there has been a transformation in the understanding of this category in society is indisputable, however, we believe that the biologist approach should not be the last word in terms of disability.
There is no linearity between the predominance of medical knowledge over the religious as correlating with a more democratic attitude towards the phenomenon of disability. If we look closely at history, we realize that many of the self-fulfilling prophecies about the incapacity for social inclusion of people with disabilities have been delineated exactly from the medical perspective. This perspective has defined in terms of synonymy deficiency and disability. These are identical terms in this field, accentuated by efficiency and capacity.
A perverse conceptual binarism that keeps the opposite pole of social enjoyment is maintained through the definition of an ideal type, which reserves to those who deviate from the dominant patterns of behavior, functionality and aesthetic contributions all kinds of possible storms that make their full insertion difficult society. Within this perspective, the linear transfer of the social nonadjustment of the disabled person to his physiology and deviant body is notorious, that is, a complex social issue is addressed as the sole and exclusive responsibility of the individual. When we start from this normative assumption, we imply the idea that people with disabilities will only integrate into society when they transform their deteriorated organic condition and regain a supposed state of normativity. Therefore, any possibility of intervention that is not focused by medical knowledge is removed. And it is to this set of prerogatives presented that Oliver [11,12] calls the individual model of disability.
The alluded body of knowledge enjoyed unwavering prestige until the throes of the twentieth century, when in its last quartile it begins to be criticized viscerally, at least as regards the naturalness of discrimination against the disabled. Not surprisingly, therefore, that even in areas such as sociology, epistemologically interested in symbolic production and materials of social conflicts, echoed and still echo almost unison voices of a speech composed of theoretically unrelated lines the historical constitution of disability, reiterating the position taken by Oliver [9] that over decades and decades, disability has been treated as a pre-sociological theme by much of the human and social sciences, which considered it a social problem only when medicine had previously diagnosed and scanned it. It is not part of a foundation that has been eaten with impunity, so the sociological basis in interpreting disability, when it was rarely considered, ultimately referred to the novelty interests of medical definitions, thus, at most, sociology colonized by the parameters of the biological. It was necessary to conceive and not just describe the phenomenon, it was urgent to outline a social model of disability.

For a Social Model of Disability
The cornerstone of the theoretical construction of the Disability Studies/social model of disability pulses from the conceptual rupture of any alleged causal link between disability and impairment-injury already materialized in the far manifest granted by UPIAS, being singular the words of Finkelstein [13], that "disability is imposed upon our disabilities by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society. People with disabilities are therefore an oppressed group in society". This view is shelter in Oliver [12] and Barnes [14], which highlights the failure in-lesion theoretical scheme of the social model can be, broadly speaking, regarded as a body characteristic such that skin color or sex.
Exemplary is the practical and concrete definition of the distinction between injury and disability made by Morris (1991, p.25), for whom, in short terms we can define disability and disability quite simply. The inability to walk represents an injury, while the inability to enter a building because entry can only be done by a flight of steps is a disability. An inability to speak is an injury, but an inability to communicate because proper technical aids are not available is a disability. An inability to move a body is an injury, but an inability to get out of bed because adequate physical help is not available is a disability. Disability is a product of social exclusion.
In this theoretical architecture it becomes perfectly understandable to have an injury and not to experience the disability, whose achievement depends on the degree of flexibility of society to adapt to the most diverse differences, materiality clearly far from becoming practical. This creates a new concept of disability that has the peculiarity of being both native and analytical. Analytical because it allows the analysis of a certain set of phenomena, in this case disability, and only makes sense in the body of a given theory, anchored in the need to bring sociology to the explanation of disability, whose basis is given in the lineament of writings of Marx. Native for being a category that arises from the very experience of the group in question. It is the experience of disability that comes to be seen as a bridge to its definition, so that concept also acquires a practical, effective, historical, objective and   Of course, the emergence of a new man will only really materialize with the dawn of a new society, however, and this is of fundamental importance only when people with disabilities are able to point out the path to which dialectics objectively their development is that they may awaken to the awareness of the process itself, and this implies a suspension of all that has been said and done about being deficient in society. Only then can disability arise as a category derived from history and its consequent dismantling as an assumption derived from the praxis itself that unclearly alters social structure. This is the unprecedented desire of the social model to build a body of knowledge that can effectively be called emancipatory research on disability. Therefore, the logic of the social model is about revolution rather than reform, or using a word from Finkelstein [13], a strategy of emancipation rather than compensation.
The ultimate goal of the social model, according to Barnes [18] is nothing less than the creation of a world in which, regardless of disability, age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social class, job status, all can coexist as equal members in the community, without oppression and discrimination, and confident that the needs of each individual can be fully accommodated, moreover, the opinions expressed by these subjects must be recognized, respected and valued regardless of their position in society, even as in such a society division would no longer dictate the course of social relations and the very notion of Inequality would be seen in a series of existential crises, tending to disappear. This will be a truly democratic society, characterized by genuine and meaningful equal opportunities. It will continue to produce and increase its wealth yet direct its vector to the collective rather than the private. This equity will generate greater possibilities and, therefore, will broaden the focus of freedom over the human, as it enables effective growth through the appropriation of the characteristic differences of each subject and culture.

The creation of this new world is not called by any anticipated
terminology. It is up to men to define their destinies and the name they will give them. The pressing need is to overcome capitalism and build a reality on other foundations. Of course, the creation of a new world will be an arduous and difficult process subject to falls, collapses and new falls, but rising is always necessary. One must look forward, forward. Many will call it utopia. But, as Oscar Wilde [19] has rightly pointed out in his "The Soul of Man under Even because, as Oliver [21] asserts, only an effectively democratic society will hold a libertarian concept of disability, since in the production of their own life men contract determined, necessary and independent relations of their will, relations that correspond to a certain stage of the development of material productive forces. In capitalism such relations will never realize the emancipatory yearning in its fullness and maximum possibility.
Therefore, people with disabilities can no longer free themselves from the class that exploits and oppresses them while at the same time freeing society from exploitation. Exploitation societies which

Copy@ Gustavo Martins Piccolo
The production of disability, therefore, is nothing less than a set of activities specifically oriented towards the production of a good, the disability category, supported by a series of political actions that create the necessary conditions for these productive activities to take place and be supported by a discourse that legitimizes them.
According to Oliver [12], his criticism is directed at this company and the structure that underpins it, so he reiterates that it makes no sense in terms of political struggle to improve the condition of all people adjective the deficiency of their own lesion. That said, in the words of Oliver [12], As for the specificity of the terminology that I will use in my speech as a tool to fight against any form of Accordingly, the idea of using disability as a generic term is not to erase differences, but to create a common ground for the sum of forces of these differences with regard to the critique of capitalism and the pursuit of a rigorous theory of disability embedded.
In Marxist canons. It is evident that deficiencies differ among themselves within different categories and also within the same divisions as to the needs that each person may present. The need for housing of a physically disabled child working-class daughter living in overcrowded conditions in a housing estate is not the same as that of a physically disabled child, but a daughter of the elites. On the one hand housing is almost an absence. On the other, a presence that can boast to certain levels of luxury. People's needs and differences are distinct because they are fundamentally historical and not biological, even though this sphere interferes with their attainment. People do not exist simply as disabled. Are disabled and men or women, workers or unemployed, black or white, native or migrant, etc. Therefore, the difference exists and is undeniable.
This has never been a problem and never has such a relationship been forgotten by social model theorists. The key point, therefore, is not its existence, but who defines difference as difference?
How should we understand the difference? How does difference designate the other? What norms are assumed from which a group is marked as different? How are the boundaries of difference constituted, maintained or dissipated? What is the nature of the assignments that are taken into account to define a group as different? Does the difference differ laterally or hierarchically?
These are the fundamental questions, some developed, others to be developed as part of the realization of the social theory of disability.
The theme of disability from a sociological perspective subverts, including the much-declaimed Marxian aphorism that the anatomy of man is the key to the anatomy of the ape by pointing out that in bourgeois society it is the most developed historical organization, most distinguished from production, which allows to penetrate the articulation and relations of production of all forms of missing societies, on whose ruins and elements it is built, and whose traces, not yet surpassed, it dragged along, developing all that was previously only indicated, thus taking all its form significance etc.
The anatomy of man is the key to the anatomy of the monkey.
What in the lower animal species indicates a higher form cannot, on the contrary, be understood only when one knows the higher form. The bourgeois economy provides the key to the economy of antiquity. In terms of economic analysis, this proposition is valid to the present day, but as far as human development is concerned, it is extremely flawed and its inadvertent and misleading use has allowed a series of comparative excrescence that most refer to evolutionary knowledge of the human being than anything else when we are referring to disability studies. As Rousseau rightly pointed out, man is born twice, first to exist and then to continue the species; first as being itself and then as being for itself, the general rule of humanization that differentiates human beings from any other species. In this sense, human beings are unique, incomparable and whose development has remarkable turning points. Being deficient in a society that is still unprepared architecturally and socially indicates remarkable developmental pathways that cannot be compared to any ideal type. Part of this necessary and possible development is hampered by the difficulties created about the disability of being in the labor market, the achievement of which represents the most democratic that would exist in building public policies for people with disabilities. The goal of any modern democracy is the same in everyone: to build a society in which work is the rule rather than exception and that this principle applies to absolutely everyone. Anatomy is not destiny.