Problems: reasoning from the perspective of the ubiquity of dependence
The word “dependence” can make people uncomfortable. After all, as Peter Beresford notes,
“While modern policy has been framed in terms of care, little attention seems to have been paid to what people might feel about the idea. The reality seems to be that while care might be regarded by many of us as a good idea in principle and something that some people might need at some time, few of us identify with it for ourselves and actually want to be ‘cared for’ in this sense. There is a strong reluctance to see ourselves or to be in this position, because it implies dependence. Care is a concept that is primarily associated with children.”
Just like the sense of “care” in the above quote, dependence can make people think that they are in a bad position. We should be able to stand alone. We ought to be independent. Gods forbid that anyone need support when her own bootstraps are screaming to be pulled up.
I’m going to claim that something like this refusal to see dependence (or care, which I think is a moment of dependence) in a positive light stems from the same place as what were (previously) established gender roles: the “Man” protects, provides, supports (i.e. does the supporting); the “Woman” needs all the above from the “Man”. Simplistic, maybe, but illustrative. Who wants to be the Woman in that picture? The passive, the supported, the dependent…
I believe there are (at least) two different responses to someone who would object to characterizing the condition of our connection in society something as dependence. The first is by way of refuting the very existence of the “Man” (to continue with the terms and scenario outlined above): very simply, he doesn’t exist. Now, by this I mean beyond the fact that our sense of equality has tarnished the very image of this “Man”. By now he is an anachronism, or is supposed to be.
This reply might initially seem suspect since it appears as if I am rejecting the conclusion of the objection rather than a given premise (i.e., that a Man is supposed to be independent; therefore, he cannot be dependent or, if he is, he is not happy about it). But we are precisely arguing against the notion that anyone is supposed to be independent. Outside of the gendered concept that a culture establishes, there is no way to claim that either sex should be one and not the other. We cannot here appeal to any a priori sense of “Man” because it will be damned to be circular, so long as we keep appealing to the notion that a “Man” who is, indeed, a Man, must be more than a dependent. If we look at a descriptive notion of the idea of a “Man”, we are by no means committed to the idea (biologically, or, even psychologically) any single condition that would place any man in the position of having to be either a “Man”, or, because he cannot meet the independence criterion, that he has passed into the space of the “Woman”.
The second is by way of challenging the dynamic: what support do we actually need? Again, there’s no appeal we can make by way of analytically determining ahead of time (again) the necessity of one sex needing something not required by the other as persons. Both sexes need air, food, shelter, etc., etc., etc. Both sexes have something to trade (eg., work for money, work for food) for their biological necessities. Even if the trade is not “work”, money provides a way of sustaining existence but not because it sustains it itself, but because it is good for something else (assuming someone is “independently wealthy”, and doesn’t have to work). So, if the circumstances permitting the trade are the requisites for continued existence, we can see that neither sex necessarily comes to the table with something that can’t be traded for continued sustenance because what the trade is, hasn’t even come into the picture…
***
I think, in general, that we ought to be wary of responses like, “I don’t want to be dependent, because I don’t like the way it feels”; or, “it comes with too much negative stigma, therefore we must not be dependent people (because only a few are, and I’m not like them…)”; even, like Beresford, that there is “strong reluctance” to be considered “dependent”. An objection stemming from such emotive considerations, that is assigning a merely emotional connection to truth, wouldn’t get us very far.
No one, no one, gets to be considered entirely self-sufficient. Not even the people in Life Below Zero, who need others to make their snowmobiles, guns, etc. True, they might not feel the same kinds of social pressures that those of us in more urban environments feel, but that doesn’t mean that they’ve achieved a mythical level of independence.
What is it that makes thinking of ourselves as “independent” so desirable anyway? What about the idea of “standing alone” is so comforting,so self-sustaining? Axiologically, there doesn’t seem anything essentially better or more valuable about the person who stands alone. Does the general stand alone because he understands the battle from a different perspective, with different knowledge than the others in the army? That doesn’t seem reasonable. The general only is a general because he has an army to look after. Without an army, he’s a person with another occupation. No position that can be attained within a society requires “independence” of any kind (save maybe the independence that comes with adulthood and taking on a new political role within a society), but none of what I want to argue depends on eradicating the idea of independence. I want to point out the truth of the notion of independence (an entirely qualified condition) by way of the truth of dependence (also an entirely qualified condition).
***
The example I used earlier, the privileging of certain kinds of gender roles provides illustration for why privileging independence in the sense of being abled, similarly can’t be used to deny privilege to the disabled as though they are merely dependent. Plenty of dis/abilities can be worked through (in the sense that many of us can work, participate in society, learn, etc., etc.) without being forced to wade through Brobdingnagian obstacles. For instance, before my neuropathy, I worked in plenty of jobs that were facilitated merely vis-à-vis my hearing-aid (which is an expensive piece of equipment, granted, but it does not require replacement every year). That’s not to say that I didn’t struggle at all; as a hairstylist, for instance, daily success depended upon communication with clients, not all of whom spoke clearly, or loudly enough. It’s easy enough to see where something might go wrong in that formula. However, I worked plenty of other jobs that depended upon a physical component that I can no longer offer to potential employers.
But the point of establishing the ubiquity of dependence isn’t to prove that some kind of person can be expected to do one thing, while another type cannot. Categories of this kind are not useful when trying to develop social equality. Pick what you will, no matter what criterion you pick will, as Michael Bérubé writes, “leave some mother’s child behind”. Any kind of dis/ability, then, as primarily indicative of the human person will leave someone out. I’m trying to work out the conditions that enable us to support each other, develop lives within society that are important and socially productive. Thus I’m not going to reason out some human characteristic that appropriately situates individuals within a given society; no one is condemned to anything (save their freedom and responsibility). There is, however, a social characteristic that puts us all on a level playing field when it comes to our social productivity/cooperation and, therefore, claims on justice. This is the condition of our dependency on others.
***
There’s another problem: another idea that seems to come connoted with the idea of dependence, and that is that somehow the dependent being, person is a jellyfish of sorts, stripped of will and choice, and condemned to a life being guided by others. “Making one’s way” in the world is supposed to convey the idea that one chooses their own destiny. Become the master of your fate! How? Well, the independent person doesn’t have to contend with this problem; every act of the independent person is one that is naturally embedded in that person’s ability to choose and thus construct/determine the course of their world, their situation. The dependent person, in contrast is the bare product of their environment, dragged along, willing or no, to the end of their circumstance; they must conform their desires to the will of their independent caregiver so as not to complicate, too much, that person’s independent life. The choices available to the dependent person are severely constrained. Why?
And so the social model of disability comes in to play. If society disables, then the dependent disabled (for instance) is at the mercy of the social structures of that society that determines (in part, at the least) their life’s choices. Of course the relative wealth of a given society can change those circumstances more in one direction than another, if the will is there. The connectedness of the current configuration of the world helps to make my point clearly. Even the demons of some multi-national corporations, for instance, depend upon middle-class consumers to make any kind of bottom line important. We are not privy to an economic structure that supports people merely going off on their own. But though the corporation depends on a consumer, the middle-class consumer (let’s say) can choose to make different choices, shop organically/locally; thus the relation doesn’t really go both ways. The corporation can make different choices, too. They could pay a fair wage (rather than depressing current minimum wage structures); they could be motivated by maintaining a responsible position towards the environment, making people, both those employed by them and their consumers, the important end of their endeavours rather than merely the bottom line.
I don’t want to offer an extended critique here of the corporation, but I think enough has been said to make the point. Even should one claim that the multi-national corporation is an inevitable/indestructible entity, there are still choices available to both parties. Weak analogy? It’s a complicated situation.
I’ll need to define choice and circumstance better, I think…
***
Reasoning from a perspective that asserts the ubiquity of dependence, then, comes with many issues, not the least of which is overcoming prejudice to the idea, not even the state/condition, but just the idea of dependence evokes a strong response from people. People are anxious not to be conceived as such, but would rather accept (in some cases) a debilitating form of independence rather than admit that we can, none of us, escape without help from many others. But if we’re worried about equality, if we’re worried that some citizens are being left behind because they cannot drag themselves after, then we need to give our heads a shake. We’ve no reason not to embrace the possibility that as dependent social beings we require a ton of assistance in myriad ways, and that this is absolutely alright.
I WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS HERE THAT GIVE ME OTHER OBJECTIONS/PROBLEMS/CONSIDERATIONS WITH THE IDEA OF DEPENDENCE AS THE EQUALIZING CONDITION OF SOCIETY.
