The Discourse of Productivity Among Students and Faculty At Hofstra University: A Focus on Disability Anne Cracchiolo Anth 191 Hofstra University
Cracchiolo 1
Introduction In order for our capitalist society to stay afloat, there must be consistent competition for profit. Since the Great Recession of the late 2000’s resulted in the reduction of nationwide employment, competition for employment post-higher education has been elevated in recent years. Due to this decrease in available jobs that is concurrent with an increase in workload, a considerable amount of pressure has been placed on those people in the workforce. With these heightened, and some have said unrealistic, expectations of those in the workforce, one may wonder how the implications of these expectations affect someone with a disability in their participation as productive members of society. One professor at Long Island’s Hofstra University has even stated, “If I [someone without a disability] find my expectations unrealistic, how much more must that be true for someone with a disability?” With college being a transition point for some into the workforce, it is important to look at these expectations with respect to students with disabilities on a college campus. Research has been done on productivity with a focus on economics, where positive productivity has been equated to the successful manufacturing and addition to value on what has been produced (Tangen 2004), as well as a positive rate of output (Lucarelli and Fumagalli 2008). One study specifically focusing on the discourse of productivity presented findings consistent with the notion that productivity equates to participation in paid work (Ryan 2006: 22). As can be seen through reading these two statements, there is a discrepancy in how productivity is discussed among people in our society. Though research on productivity has been done in an academic setting, the majority of that which has focused on disability has looked primarily at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Little research, however, has been
Cracchiolo 2
done at the collegiate level, interestingly since many people perceive college as an opportunity to increase one’s knowledge in an area of study in order to obtain higher level and often higher paying jobs, as well as prepare students to become “productive members of society.” Hofstra University is known for its history with accommodating those with disabilities, for it was the first University in the Northeast to build a wheel-chair accessible campus in the late 1960’s. Disabilities do not disappear with matriculation into college, and those disabilities that may impair one’s ability to learn or participate in a collegiate atmosphere may need accommodations. Hofstra’s resource center for students with disabilities, termed Student Access Services, abbreviated SAS, has 554 registered students with some form of disability as of March 2016. Of these 554, approximately 92 percent have ADD/ADHD, some form of learning disability, or a mental health impairment. Some of the services that SAS offers to those students registered with their office include assistive technology, housing accommodations with accessible dorm rooms and bathrooms, an available testing lab offering an alternate environment for test-taking, and academic coaching. These resources allow students with disabilities to have equal academic opportunities on Hofstra’s campus and to be productive. I am aiming to look at how the word disability itself plays into discussions of what it means to be productive among both students and professors. This paper will address this problem by analyzing how various students and faculty at Hofstra view and discuss the meanings of productivity for themselves and others, as well as looking at what personal and societal factors play into this discourse. This will be done through taking an ethnographic approach including observation of SAS and conducting interviews within the Hofstra community. I will look at Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory in conjunction
Cracchiolo 3
with Max Weber’s notions of capitalist subjectivity to conceptualize the dialogues encountered through interviews and discuss the consistencies among these dialogues. History & Background/Literature Review Prior to the early 1800’s, those people with disabilities, be them physical or mental, were largely outcaste from society. It was not until 1817 that Thomas Gaullaudet opened the first school in the United States to serve those who were disabled (Constitutional Rights Foundation, n.d.). Even with this, those with mental disabilities were legally and forcibly sterilized under the Eugenic Sterilization Law, first enacted in Indiana in 1907. Just 20 years ago, many of those with mental disabilities may have been sent away and labeled ineffective as contributors to society. Today, however, students with disabilities may be placed in either special education or general education classes as they attend elementary through high school. It may be argued that college helps prepare its students to be productive members of society. Students with disabilities are now regularly attending college and therefore services may be needed to help those students meet the standards that society has set for those in higher educational institutions. Colleges and universities across the country now have resource centers available to those students who may be living with disabilities. Prior to 2007, Hofstra had two programs, PHED (Program for the Higher Education of the Disabled) and PALS (Program for Academic Learning Skills). PHED, established in 1963, focused on providing support to students with disabilities in order to learn equally alongside their classmates, as well as provide the opportunity to those with disabilities to reside on campus. PALS offered support that focused
Cracchiolo 4
on those students with learning disabilities. In 2007, these two organizations merged into what we now have as SAS. Even with these services, those students with disabilities (of course varying case-by-case) may encounter road blocks in achieving goals enforced by society. So from where do these goals emerge? Living in a capitalist society results in an emphasis being placed on Americans to compete for work and add value to the economy. One person in particular had a major influence on what has now become our capitalist society in the United States. Scottish economist, Adam Smith, is known for his contributions to capitalist theory where he notioned that pursuing one’s self interests with little government intervention would in turn serve public interests (Bassiry and Jones 1993: 621-627). Smith also emphasized divisions of labor, where through divvying up duties, more production could occur, specifically represented in the factory work of the Industrial Revolution. His work has been considered a precursor to the assembly line credited to Henry Ford. Smith’s definition of “productive” consisted of making some sort of contribution to the wealth of the nation where value was measured on the basis of tangible things (Vargo & Morgan, 2005). A problem is currently facing those entering the workforce as well as current workforce participants: they are stressed with the expectations to live up to societal standards of productivity due to capitalist ideals of monetary exchange and competition that have been imbedded in American culture. Productivity is often discussed in conjunction with one’s performance,whether it be in an educational or employment setting. That research that has taken place in the educational setting has often looked at the academic skills of school-aged children with learning disabilities to gauge their performance or “productivity.” One study conducted sought to compare children with
Cracchiolo 5
language learning disabilities to both their chronological- and language- age peers. Their productivity was measured through word count, words per minute, complexity of their speech, and grammar following the presentation of spoken and written video summaries from other students (Scott & Windsor 2000). In another study of school-age children, productivity was measured in classroom accomplishments such as improving motor skills or correctly answering a question (Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, & Wood 2007). These accomplishments were noted and seen as progressions in the direction toward academic standards of productivity. Views of teachers have been studied, as well as students, where productivity may be measured in success. One study looked at what teachers deem necessary for student successes, taking into account general versus special education. It looked at the celebrated academic milestones on an individual level of students in these two different types of classes. The results yielded that, in both cases, self-control, cooperation, and assertion were all seen as necessary for success (Lane, Wehby, & Cooley 2006). In the American Academy of Pediatrics journal, Melvin D. Levine, Frank Oberklaid, and Lynn Meltzer published a study that drew a connection between low academic productivity and developmental dysfunctions. The areas used in measuring productivity in this study were fine motor, expressive language, configurational retrieval memory, sequential memory, and selective attention. Those in the study who exhibited inefficient productivity fell under the title of “ developmental output failure.” The language used here is mechanical and dehumanizes someone who may fall under this title. Children are deemed “failures” in early stages of education and described in terms one may use to depict a broken refrigerator. The results of this study were that a decrease in levels of productivity resulted in a later manifestation of a developmental problem ( Levine, Meltzer, & Oberklaid
Cracchiolo 6
1981: 24). The jargon used in these studies represents a societal notion that those who do not perform specific tasks to a certain standard fall under a category of insufficient or “failure.” The authors do note in the latter study, however, that “consideration of developmental output failure may require us to broaden our view of success and productivity in this age group. It may be argued that all children have a rightful claim to success” (1981: 25). Through arguing for “a rightful claim to success,” the researchers recognize that the labeling of a child early on as a “failure” may be incorrect, for the views of productivity during the time of the study may not be inclusive of all of the ways in which people can be productive. It is important that the views of productivity broaden, for my research looks to discover some of the varying views of productivity and what broad societal norms influence these views. In evaluating what constitutes a productive member of society, I found a large portion of the literature focused on the workforce. One discussion of productivity outlines the meanings of what it means to be productive, stating that “every citizen should be productive, meaning that they should do paid work”(Ryan 2006: 22). With this, productivity has equity to employment. The elderly are no longer seen as productive, and children, even though not employable, experience discourses on productivity at a young age by simply being asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”(Ryan 2006). This question instills goals into the minds of children, where the hope is for them to grow up, become employed, and contribute to society. In our capitalist society, working and adding money to the economy is equated to productivity. It may even be said that “contributing to society” can be equated to “contributing to the economy.” Those with certain disabilities may encounter times where these expectations that society equates
Cracchiolo 7
with productivity are out of reach. Thus, even though performance seems to be a common ground for measuring productivity, those performances may be impossible for some to execute. In a country that promotes equality on the grounds of freedom and preaches the “American Dream,” how is it that there still exists the issue of unequal opportunities for its citizens to act as “productive members of society?” This point may best be supported through an explanation of the “social model of disability.” Three models exist for understanding disability: social, medical, and religious. The social model refers to society’s actions, or lack there of, increasing the limitations of an impairment and restricting one’s ability to function well in society. British sociologist Tom Shakespeare notes that the social model of disability provides a structural analysis of the social exclusions experienced by people with disabilities (Shakespeare, 1997: 214). The social model makes a distinction between “impairment” and “disability,” where an impairment constitutes some sort of physical limitation, a disability coincides with social exclusion (Shakespeare, 1997: 215). Through this model, society is responsible for one’s disability, not his or her impairment. In our society where being productive in the sense of performing tasks worthy of monetary exchange is valued, the lack of opportunities for those with disabilities to perform these tasks is out of their control, and it may be stated that the responsibility of the lack of one’s “productivity” on the basis of disability falls on society. The environmental factors that limit people with certain disabilities are often not discussed in our society. This may be because our discourse is made up of the need to be politically correct. This can be seen in discussions about multiple controversial issues, not only disability. One example of this is in surrogate motherhood. Though compensated for carrying a child on behalf of someone else or donating one’s egg to a fetus, surrogate mothers often do not
Cracchiolo 8
state this as a primary reason for their choice to contribute to the birth of a child. Rather, a cultural script seems to exist, where the motivations that these women state as their reasoning for being surrogate mothers “reflect culturally accepted ideas about reproduction, motherhood, and family”(Ragoné 2013: 386). Acts of “meaningful suffering,” “heroism,” and “sacrifice” are valued in our society when it comes to family. As a result, their motivations for being surrogate mothers are demonstrated as being out of good morals rather than financial incentive, for contributing to childbirth with money in mind is seen as outside of the norm and insensitive. A cultural script seems to exist in talking about disability as well. Positive overcoming narratives may be represented in the media, though the issues that those with disabilities may face due to societal limitations are not popular topics of discussion. When they are brought up, ways to speak around the subject rather than about it are more common. It is apparent that, among the research conducted, consistent definitions of productivity exist, though why are these consistencies present? Through looking at Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, the answers to this question may be explained. Bandura’s theory incorporates observational and interactional learning to explain why people behave the way they do. Used often in criminological theory, the Social Learning Theory emphasizes the effects of human interaction on the internalization of thoughts and behaviors. Those that are internalized then become aspects of one’s being, and learned world-views are reflected in behavior (Bandura, 1969). I believe this is at work in the discourse of productivity. People have learned and internalized the meanings behind words in a variety of ways, whether through word of mouth, in an academic environment, or visually encountering a practice. The meanings of the word “productivity” may exemplify that internalization.
Cracchiolo 9
Due to living in a capitalist society, the meanings of productivity that are often internalized may reflect those ideals. Capitalism refers to an economic and political system where trade is controlled by private owners. The is the system at work in the United States. German sociologist, Max Weber, drew from Marxism. Weber emphasized the idea that “the ‘understanding’ (Verstehen) of meaning is essential to the explication of human action”(Weber, 1930). He shared with Marx an interest in industrial capitalism and its origins. Weber deemed a disciplined labor force and the standardized investment of capital as the two implications of a rationalized capitalistic enterprise. The drive people have to accumulate wealth, Weber argues, is a result of protestant thinking. He notioned that it was due to the Calvinist belief that humans were predisposed by God to be saved or damned. Weber stated this resulting in “A feeling of unprecedented inner loneliness,” leading to the rise of capitalist spirit (Weber 1930). The internalization, like Bandura’s notions of social learning, of a hard-working, self-generating, and rational being are reflected in Weber’s idea of the capitalist labor force. In this way, the subject, or person, becomes a reflection of those in power. It has been seen in previous research that a subject may be an apparatus of the State. In a study published about Japanese mothers and obentos (Japanese lunch-boxes), it was found that the preparation and consumption of the obentos reflected ideologies of the state: order, discipline, and purpose (Allison, 2013). In our capitalist society, where labor is valued, I infer that the body is then an apparatus of the state. It is our bodies and employability that reflect our value in the workforce, though the implications this has limit those who possess impairments that are not accommodated by society, and in turn they lack equal opportunities to fully participate in society.
Cracchiolo 10
Research Design This research was conducted at Hofstra University with students, as well as professors. I determined specific groups of people to interview, which are stated below: - Students with disabilities - Students without disabilities - Professors within the mental health, disability studies, and sociology programs - Professors in the hard sciences Students without disabilities provide a comparison to those students with disabilities, while they are still in the same academic situations. The purpose of interviewing professors within the disciplines of mental health, disability studies, and sociology is that they provide views from those who are well aware of the necessity of programs like SAS, where these topics are taught and discussed in their classes; whereas those professors who are not in disciplines which discuss the specific social needs of members of society would likely provide views of productivity that vary. In the hard sciences specifically, labs require physical work, where some physical disabilities may act as barriers to an individual performing those required tasks. Research will be conducted with the following questions in mind: - How do students define productivity for themselves? - How do discourses of productivity vary among these groups of people? - Is there a difference in the sensitivity professors have toward the needs of those students with disabilities as opposed to those without due to their educational background? Are these differences reflected in their syllabi? Cracchiolo 11
- What do people define as a productive member of society? What factors influence these answers? Though academic articles provided explanations of the concepts of discourse and productivity, interviews played an integral role in providing the data from which conclusions were drawn about how the two come together. In answering the questions about discourses of productivity among students and faculty at Hofstra, personal perceptions made up the majority of the research. Articles and theories also came into use in operationalizing the concept of productivity and knowing what keywords to listen for in interviews. Research Methods Because discourse is subjective, qualitative and language based-research seemed to be the most appropriate method, where participant observation occurred and interviews were conducted while listening for keywords in relation to the individual’s meaning of productivity. While listening for these keywords, I also looked at the consistencies both among and between the groups of people. I spoke with a somewhat even number of each of the interviewees mentioned in the research design, approximately 10-15 interviews of the previously stated groups of people. Those interviews that I believed would be the most difficult to access were those students who have disabilities, though such disabilities are not physically identifiable. I asked people I know if they or someone they know fits this criteria. However, this was not the case. A large portion of people I selected randomly had some form of a mental or learning disability. Participant observation took place at Hofstra’s Student Access Services, where I sat in the testing lab for the purpose of looking at some ways in which Hofstra aids in assisting those students who have disclosed their disabilities to the university. Here, as well as at various locations around Hofstra
Cracchiolo 12
University’s campus, I conducted ten formal along with three informal interviews, where the data collected was entered into a field log. This data was organized by date. Below are the interview questions asked to each group of people: Questions for all interviewees -‐ What is your area of study? -‐ What does a productive day look like for you? -‐ Do you think there is an expected dialogue when talking about disability in a sensitive fashion like this? How do you think that affects people’s responses to some of these questions? If yes, can you explain how this expected dialogue may go? -‐ What do you think constitutes a productive member of society? -‐ What do you think is the purpose of college? Additional questions for students without disabilities -‐ Do you think what you consider a productive day for yourself is equivalent to that of a student with a disability? Why or why not? Additional questions for students with disabilities -‐
What kinds of services do you access through SAS?
Additional questions for professors -‐
Do you ever take additional time to address options for students with disabilities besides the required section in the course syllabus?
-‐
Do your expectations for students vary with regard to disability? If yes, how so?
-‐
Has there ever been a case where you found yourself unable to accommodate a student with a disability? If so, can you elaborate?
Cracchiolo 13
The kinds of questions that were asked in interviews were geared toward learning about the interviewees’ disabilities or lack there of, whether or not those with disabilities access the available student services, if/how professors have varying expectations for students based on disabilities, and how the interviewees define productivity. Data and Analysis “Public interactions are governed by mainstream scripts” (Lacy, 2007). These scripts may be interpreted as political correctness. There is an expectation in our society to be politically correct, as to avoid offending one another. This is a concept imbedded in people throughout life through social interactions and learned social behaviors. This is the premise for the Social Learning Theories of psychology and sociology. Through socialization, social norms and rules are learned and internalized; through that internalization, rules and world-views become a part of one’s ego-identity and ideologies emerge. A major pattern that emerged in the data collected through interviews was that of political correctness. A simple definition of this concept is “agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people”("Political Correctness," n.d.). Being politically correct is extremely important for institutions and corporations in particular as to avoid any possible grievances. One way that this is seen at Hofstra is in the syllabi, of which any given student may receive four or five each term. Each syllabus must contain a section on the University’s policy on disabilities. This section briefly outlines the University’s available services for those students with disabilities, as well as references the American with Disabilities Act. Containing, as one professor describes, “legalistic and bureaucratic” jargon, the Services for Students with Disabilities component of syllabi is rarely discussed and often brushed over
Cracchiolo 14
when discussed in class. Those students whom it is meant to assist and inform see it as a “copy and paste, required to be there to protect the school,” as one student noted. This lack of discussion in the classroom reflects the issue of a lack of discussion in out in the community. People are silenced when it comes to talking about disability, and push any issues that should be confronted head on under the rug. People have a tendency to avoid questions that may invoke complex feelings (Ortner 2005). The lack of discussion about disabilities is an issue in our society because, as a result of the necessity to filter one’s speech, one interviewee stated that “people do not have the language to do so.” When confronted with questions on a controversial subject, we are taught to speak around the issue; therefore, the words and phrases that are necessary in order to confront a topic, such as disability, are not in our language reperotoires. Here, I found it important to make the distinction between responses: 1) People with disabilities 2) People without disabilities but who have had exposure to those with them throughout their lives 3) People without disabilities who have had little exposure to those with them throughout their lives In response to the question, how do you think people without disabilities respond to questions about those with them and their levels of productivity? one interviewee stated that, “people without disabilities tend to be more anxious and don’t know how to talk about it.” One’s exposure to disability education and personal experience with disabilities or lack thereof inform what people do and do not say. As a result, silencing occurs, where people feel the need to filter
Cracchiolo 15
what they may think and feel. For example, the politically correct response to the question, how do you feel about accommodations for people with disabilities in the workplace? may be, “Everyone deserves equal opportunities and all necessary accommodations should be made to the best of an employer’s ability,” as one student answered. However, according to a professor at Hofstra University in the social sciences, “there are some people that may feel people with disabilities get off easy in working environments.” This statement may offend a large population of people, and is therefore seen as politically incorrect. There seems to be a line that is not to be crossed when looking at how language changes alongside a topic of discussion. When asking interviewees questions that may produce controversial answers, such as In what ways do you think a productive day for someone with a disability may vary in comparison to one for you? there was a lack of depth to answers. The answers I received tended to show consistencies of vagueness and hesitation. Using generalized vocabulary, some of the answers to this question are as follows: “Get all work done that they wanted.” “Completes anything on their checklist.” “Doing everything they wanted to in the morning.” As can be seen through these answers, there is no specificity of tasks to be completed. One person even followed up their answer with “Is that a good answer?” These ambiguous answers combined with the hesitation in answering this question implies that people are aware that a controversy exists around this subject, though through our cultural script of political correctness, direct answers may be avoided and the issue of a lack of discussion is not being attacked head on.
Cracchiolo 16
People’s answers became much more descriptive and specific when taking the word disability out of the question. In asking what a productive day consists of for the individuals being interviewed, I received answers such as those below: “Go to all of my classes, get at least one assignment finished” “Thinking about the future and being proactive about the future” “Showering, getting my homework done, styling my hair” As opposed to previous answers, interviewees responded to this question in list fashions of what makes a productive day. They were more inclined to offer specifics about being productive. However, the items on these lists do not show much variation from one another, even though they represent those answers from students without disabilities as well as those with. Therefore, in describing a productive day for oneself, students with and without disabilities offered similar responses. This implies that when the word “disability” is introduced into a discussion, it instills a moment of discomfort for those participating in the discussion, which I infer is due to its controversial nature in our society. When the questions shifted to being broader, there were clear differences between those answers received by students with disabilities or those without who have had high exposure to disability in comparison to those without disabilities and without much exposure. The question to which I received varied responses was What makes a productive member of society? This is the data that informed my research the most and made it clear that our system of capitalism affects discourse. The majority of responses I received through those interviews conducted with people without disabilities included some kind of reference to becoming as independent as possible. When asking people with disabilities or with close bonds to people with disabilities
Cracchiolo 17
about what it means to be a productive member of society, the answers crossed over slightly, but there was more to the answers I received. There was also a consistency in the desire to make an impact. One woman with ADD answered the question as follows: “I hesitate to say go to work, make money, do taxes..people who don’t do this still make an impact on society, they can leave a footprint, which I think is what makes a productive member of society; making any impact that someone else can benefit from.” This shows me that people subconsciously are aware that capitalist expectations may not be attainable for everyone. In discussing the same question with a professor of mental health at Hofstra, he laid out what he believes society views as productive: independent, employment, paying bills, and raising a family. He emphasized that we strive to teach people to be independent, though there is no such thing. “Everyone relies on something,” he stated, “there is no such thing as truly independent.” The goal is rather to be as functional in society as possible, or, what he deems, intradependent. By using the prefix “intra-” rather than “inter,” this professor makes it a point to show that full independence, where someone relies on nothing but themselves, is not possible. However, where interdependent refers to relying on someone or something else, intradependent may mean relying on a system in which one functions. This, I believe, is what this professor meant by “intradependent.” When someone has a disability, is close to someone who does, or even participates in an area of study that discusses social limitations, they become more aware that what is expected of them as members of society (working, making money, paying taxes) is not always possible and offer alternative ways of being productive. Those without disabilities and who have had little exposure to them often did not state opinions other than “contributing to the betterment of a company,” or “assisting the
Cracchiolo 18
economy with spending and buying.” One interviewee without a disability did state “making an impact” as an answer to this question, though directly followed her answer with “by being employed.” The answer that struck me the most, however, was that a productive member of society is “someone who doesn’t just sit all day; they get up and do something.” The use of the words doesn’t sit and gets up exclude a large population of society: those who are physically unable to fully use their lower extremities. I do not believe the interviewee meant that those who physically cannot get up are not able to be productive members of society; however, this language and word usage has become a kind of figure of speech. It is used without understanding the implications of the literal words being said. This language is imbedded in our culture; we are taught that it is not a good thing to “just sit around.” It is associated with laziness and being unproductive. Without that barrier of disability on one’s mind, he or she is likely not to consider this as a road block to becoming employed and making money. However, this is what is engrained in children in our culture, from first asking the question: What do you want to be when you grown up? The necessity to work, make money, have a family, and be independent is learned through daily interactions with one another: seeing parents go to work, experiencing the dynamics of one’s own family, reaching those milestones of independence. Because capitalism is how our society functions, it’s ideologies then become part of our superegos, our being. Similar to how Social Learning theory discusses internalization of norms through socialization, Max Weber’s notions toward capitalist subjectivity refer to the internalization of an inner drive to work hard, self-generate, and be rational. This stems from his views of Protestantism, where salvation is connected to God. Protestantism and capitalism therefore go
Cracchiolo 19
hand-in-hand because in both cases, the individual is responsible for success, whether that be moral success in religion or economic success in capitalism. From what I have gathered, these theories may be at work alongside one another in the discourse of productivity in American society. Though many interviews informed this notion, there was one in particular that brought this together. I asked interviewees the question What do you think is the purpose of college? Again, I received answers that varied depending on one’s area of study and personal experience. The following answers to this question were stated by business and economic majors: “Produce employable people.” “Gain life skills.” “Get an education while preparing to work.” These answers go back to a central idea of the workforce and productivity. However, those answers by students and professors in the social sciences and those students with disabilities caused a different pattern to emerge. These interviewees tended to view college as more of a societal requirement. A professor in the social sciences stated that “education becomes a requirement for participating in society.” Another professor in the social sciences deemed college as “learning how to learn. It is important to be able to think and navigate the world, some of which is learned in college and some learned through life experience.” A student with a learning disability had a strong opinion on this subject. She stated, “Our country overemphasizes college. It’s almost impossible to get a job without a piece if paper that cost you $100,000. It’s all about what’s written on a piece of paper and not the actual person.” These answers reflect a recognition of productivity as not being a fixed concept; that going to college and becoming employed is not the only way to be productive, though that is what is expected of
Cracchiolo 20
people by society. One professor in particular of the social sciences stated that there needs to be a distinction made between the worker and the citizen in this discussion of productivity. She defines the citizen as someone with the rights and responsibilities as a member of society, or the agent. The worker, on the other hand, is exploited for the profits of institutions as a resource. These two terms may be differentiated by power, where the same professor stated that many people may see college as “necessary to be a manager, not a worker.” This reflects the idea that being in lower level, working class jobs is not as important as managerial jobs. They are not seen as being at the same caliber with positions of power, which is how our industries are run. If productivity is equated to economic value, and those in higher-paying positions have more power than those in lower-paying positions, then it may be inferred that positions of power are equated with higher levels of productivity. When social limitations exist in our society, acting as obstacles for marginalized groups, including those with disabilities, some of those high-level, higher-paying, and high “productivity” positions may be near impossible for those in the marginalized groups to achieve. These are the inner workings of living in a capitalist society: the individual efforts at the bottom aid in the profit of those in power at the top. The body has become an apparatus of the state, where the likelihood of achieving those expectations deemed successful in American society is contingent upon one’s both physical and mental abilities to climb the corporate ladder. Conclusion One way discourse is defined is specific ways of talking about environments and their futures (Mühlhäusler and Peace 2006). Another is how people say things and the consequences that are attached to what is said. Evaluating discourse breaks apart phrases and unveils the
Cracchiolo 21
underlying meanings of what people say; this is what was done through my research. The conclusions that may be drawn from the data are that there are keywords associated with explaining the meanings of productivity. Some of these keywords and phrases include “employment,” “paying taxes,” and “contribution.” Much of the existing literature discusses productivity in these ways as well. In searching for the consistencies in dialogues encountered regarding disability and productivity, those who have had more personal or academic exposure to the inequalities in our society tend to note more expansive ways to be productive. It is apparent that productivity has been deemed equitable to monetary contributions by people in our society, likely due to the emphasis capitalism places on the capabilities of people to perform duties aiding the economy. The internalization of rationality and independence that Weber emphasizes in his work seems to be present in our Western capitalist society. When asking the question what constitutes a productive member of society? those without as much of that personal or academic exposure to physical inequalities provided monetary-based answers, placing contributions to society as equitable to contributions to the economy. Responses like this result in the marginalization of a large community within the U.S. that may not physically or mentally have the abilities to meet capitalist expectations. To examine this further, I followed up with three interviewees who provided answers that corresponded to capitalist ideals. I took out the reference to productivity in the question and just asked what constitutes a contributing member of society? Their answers were more consistent with those stated by people with disabilities or close relations to those with them. This change in language implies that it is not only the meanings of productivity that vary among students and faculty at Hofstra, but it is the addition of the word productivity in the conversation that results in a change in answers. Where there were
Cracchiolo 22
keywords found to describe the meanings of productivity in this research, it is the term “productivity� itself that has an effect on what people deem as being contributing members of American society.
Cracchiolo 23
REFERENCES Allison, Anne. 2013. Japanese Mothers and Obentos: The Lunch-Box as Ideological State Apparatus. In C. Brettell & C. F. Sargent (Authors), Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective : 250-262. Boston: Pearson. Bandura, Albert. 1969. Social Learning Theory of Identificatory Process. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. 213-262. Bassiry, G. R., and Jones, Marc. 1993. Adam Smith and the Ethics of Contemporary Capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (8) : 621-27. Konrad, Moira., Fowler, Catherine., Walker, Allison., Test, David. and Wood, Wendy. 2007. Effects of Self-Determination Interventions on the Academic Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 30 (2) : 89. Lacy, Karyn. 2007. Blue-chip Black: Race, class, and status in the new Black middle class. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lane, Kathleen., Wehby, Joseph., and Cooley, Cristy. 2006. Teacher Expectations of Students’ Classroom Behavior Across the Grade Span: Which Social Skills Are Necessary for Success? Council for Exceptional Children. 72 (2) : 153-167. Levine, Melvin, Oberklaid, Frank. and Meltzer, Lynn. 1981. Developmental Output Failure: A Study of Low Productivity in School-Aged Children. American Academy of Pediatrics. 67 (118) : 18-25. Lucarelli, Stefano. and Fumagalli, Andrea. 2008. Basic Income and Productivity in Cognitive Capitalism. Review of Social Economy. 66 (1) : 71-92.
Cracchiolo 24
Mühlhäusler, Peter. and Peace, Adrian. 2006. Environmental Discourses. Annual Review of Anthropology. 35 : 457–479. Ortner, Sherry. 2005. Subjectivity and Cultural Critique. Anthropological Theory. 5 (1) : 31-52. Political Correctness. n.d.. In Merriam-Webster. accessed www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ politically%20correct Ragoné, Heléna. 2013. Surrogate Motherhood: Rethinking Biological Models, Kinship, and Family. In C. Brettell & C. F. Sargent (Authors), Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective : 385-393. Boston: Pearson. Ryan, Anne. 2006. Post-Positivist Approached to Research. Post-Positivist Approaches to Research. 12-26. Scott, Cheryl. and Windsor, Jennifer. 2000. General Language Performance Measures in Spoken and Written Narrative and Expository Discourse of School-Age Children With Language Learning Disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 43 (2) : 324-339. Shakespeare, Tom. 1997. The Social Model of Disability. In L. J. Davis (Author), The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. Strawbridge, William. Wallhagen, Margaret. and Cohen, Richard. 2002. Successful Aging and Well-Being: Self-Rated Compared With Rowe and Kahn. The Gerontologist. 42 (6) : 727-733. Tangen, Stefan. 2005. Demystifying Productivity and Performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 54 (1) : 34-46.
Cracchiolo 25
Vargo, Stephen. and Morgan, Fred. 2005. Services in Society and Academic Thought: An Historical Analysis. Journal of Macromarketing. 25 (1) : 42-53. Weber, Max. 1930. The protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.
Cracchiolo 26