as*sump*tion (e-sùmp¹shen) noun
1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking over: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic. A minor premise.
7.  Assumption. a. Theology. The bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven after her death. b. A Christian feast celebrating this event. c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.
 

        When Assumption(s) are translated into language — Handicap, Invalid, Cripple, Disabled, Physically Challenged — People with Disabilities?  These phonetic, semi-descriptive destructive labels define this group, creating a construct of mass representation. Assumption(s) are based on concepts of Normal, interpreted as  presumed, prescribed truths verses context.  These truths are obviously affected by one's temporal position in history since Disability, and every other aspect of society, is defined through the context of accepted norms and morays of any given historical time, as well as cultural, since cultures have many diverse views.  Who defines the accepted truth of and about disability?  The Government, Doctors, the Medical Model, Corporations . . . an economic argument enters into this context when considering that disability is a colossal business, with massive profits, subsidized by government and insurance —  label anything medical and its price triples.  The economic implications fuel society's negative Assumption, that people with disabilities cost society, specifically taxpayers, an exorbitant amount of money, it becomes legitimized while cementing the concept of  Other, that those with disabilities are not generally considered productive members of society — that unproductive members may be undeserving of society's support. Armed with these rationalizations, it is not difficult for public opinion to advocate for destructive measures in the context of saving all of society.  The disability de-humanizes in the general public's perception.  Doctors’ are trained to respond to sickness, therefore an ongoing disability defines one as ill.  A chronic situation, not considered Normal relegates one into a context of illness rather than an alternative medical situation and immediately places the individual into a devalued Community.  The Medical Model has defined itself during all historical periods as representing an authoritative truth regarding disability.  A disability generates illness, implied within illness is incapacity.  Paternalism is not only justified but mandated by the Medical Model.  Both Agency and Intention are ignored as basic ethical decisions are considered impossible for a person with a disability to consider.  The narrow focus upon which disability is viewed fails to move beyond Assumption, since the Medical Model self perpetuates its expert, trained professional opinions leaning toward paternalism, stealing Self-Direction and autonomy without malice — these Assumption(s) are tried and true based on ages of prescience.  These Assumption(s) are comfortable for most individuals as well.  Those without severe disabilities can find themselves unable to assimilate their prescribed notions of Quality of Life, based completely on their personal constructs.  This is not to say those who do not have disabilities are not capable of empathy, no, there seems to be an inability to shed the Assumpti(ve) constructs that seem to have logically and rationally dictated discernible boundaries between what is considered Quality of Life.  This can be dangerous.  If people with certain disabilities are determined to lack Quality of Life as determined by another's Assumption(s), there is an implicit medical logic that terminates those group's options since their lives are considered not worth living.  From an economic standpoint, this de-stabilization of perceived cost benefit ratios places these groups in a position to suffer and die with society's blessing.  Once a certain disability is targeted as lacking an acceptable standard of Quality of Life, therefore not fit to live, the entire Disability Community is implicated as possibly lacking acceptable Quality of Life.  The pervasive construct of the Medical Model affects all aspects of a person with a disabilities’ life, defining and categorizing this population into a Disability Community .  Ironically, or maybe it is not so ironic, many, if not a majority of people with disabilities resist the categorization of Disability due to the negative connotations this category implies.  “I'm not one of them” resonates clearly.

com*mu*ni*ty (ke-my¡¹nî-tê) noun
plural com*mu*ni*ties
Abbr. com.
 1. a. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. b. The district or locality in which such a group lives.
 2. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
3. a. Similarity or identity: a community of interests. b. Sharing, participation, and fellowship.
4. Society as a whole; the public.
 5. Ecology. a. A group of plants and animals living and interacting with one another in a specific region under relatively similar environmental conditions. b. The region occupied by a group of interacting organisms.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: community problems; community facilities.
 

        Kai Erikson’s essay, "Notes on Trauma and Community," raises a distinction concerning “the location of the term”(pg 184) trauma.  The distinction between the Medical Model definition, referring to the finite causal impact of a trauma event verses “'the state or condition caused by such a stress or blow’” is an important distinction specifically in the context of what I shall describe as “The Pseudo-Disability-Community”.  This temporal delineation is as interesting as the cliché argument of the chicken or the egg, who proceeded who, and as irrelevant.  In the medical distinction, the physical change is considered the trauma, the moment my Spinal Cord was injured.  On the other hand, living my life within the context of the implied changes a Spinal Cord Injury would produce is trauma in the context of the differing world view my psyche transitioned into, largely affected by the Assumption(s) made by every person I interacted with.  The physical change is a temporal indicator, and there are acute traumatic changes experienced from the initial injury.  The impact of the holistic changes an individual experiences will have traumatic implications as long as he or she is conscious.  In the context of  Community, the Medical Model definition of trauma in a way deconstructs the possibility of Community since the forces of disabling conditions occur in a myriad of dissimilar ways, whereas Community is inherently implied in the statement,“`the state or condition caused by such a stress or blow’” since there are a mass quantity of similar, shared experiences.  This raises questions since this group of individuals are thrown together categorically — as are genders, races, theorists etc. depending on the representational context.  As a group, The Pseudo-Disability-Community are defined by Assumption(s) that may or may not be relevant to a particular individual.  This is a causal Community with no definitive shared history or traditions, therefore Community is a misleading representation of the individuals who fit into this group context.  One might ask of the Medical Model, is trauma with minor or no discernible chronic implications considered disability?
        Approaching an incident of a disabling trauma, whether the disability is congenital, genetic or acquired,  is a definitive turning point in a human life — affecting all facets of reality, including: identity, physical and mental stability, Socio-economic status, esteem (both Self-esteem and Social-esteem) — it is an exhaustive list.  Yet where is the actual trauma situated?  Is it the event or the chronic affects and effects of the said event?  The traumatic is experientially based on long term interactions with cultural constructs, and for the Pseudo-Disability-Community, the societal definition of Normal is based in the language of devaluation and shame.  Words and phrases such as handicap, invalid, cripple, birth-defect define and describe the community of people with disabilities.
        Since cumulative experience, based on memory, leads to an established identity per individual andCommunity, in the context of the Pseudo-Disability-Community and those who make up this group, when evaluating the shame and devaluation this categorization carries with it, one may question the tenets of originality.  On the one hand, people with disabilities are considered Other, a context of extreme originality, as is the case of the marginalization of this group from the perception of groups considered Normal.  Since memory is considered a building block for identity, leading toward distinctions of originality, what happens to the connections between trauma and truth when memory, probably contaminated with negative perceptions and imagination, defines all aspects of originality?  Can a constructive interpretation of originality be even considered when generalities bias and color even initial thought processes?  Can the Pseudo-Disability-Community exist as a Community when many of the integral individuals never self-specified this categorization?
        The Pseudo-Disability-Community is actively marginalized by culture in general, and as in any Community, there is a specific hierarchy and an internal marginilization of targeted groups by the larger Community, such as the comparison between those with cognitive verses strictly physical disabilities.  “At least I'm a productive member of society — I'm not retarded.”  By devaluing persons with Mental Retardation, etc. overall devaluation of the Pseudo-Disability-Community is inevitable since general Assumption(s) are applied to the entire group.   As factions of the Pseudo-Disability-Community attempt to create boundaries — discernable edges that elevate their status toward Normal — the opposite effect occurs.  Since there is the prevailing notion of Other, the entire Pseudo-Disability-Community is defined by those outside of their group, who mostly encourage a negative connotation of the concept of Other.

oth*er (ùth¹er) adjective
 1. a. Being the remaining one of two or more: the other ear. b. Being the remaining ones of several: His other books are still in storage.
2. Different from that or those implied or specified: Any other person would tell the truth.
 3. Of a different character or quality: “a strange, other dimension . . . where his powers seemed to fail” (Lance Morrow).
4. Of a different time or era either future or past: other centuries; other generations.
5. Additional; extra: I have no other shoes.
6. Opposite or contrary; reverse: the other side.
7. Alternate; second: every other day.
8. Of the recent past: just the other day.

noun
 1. a. The remaining one of two or more: One took a taxi, and the other walked home. b.  others (ùth¹er). The remaining ones of several: After her departure the others resumed the discussion.
 2. a. A different person or thing: one hurricane after the other. b. An additional person or thing: How many others will come later?

pronoun
1. A different or an additional person or thing: We'll get someone or other to replace him.
 2.  others (ùth¹er). People aside from oneself: “the eyes of others our prisons; their thoughts our cages” (Virginia Woolf).

adverb
In another way; otherwise; differently: She performed other than perfectly.
 

        Disability relegates one to a state of Other(ness), of dislocation from society as a whole.  During Erikson’s discussion of mass trauma in the context of community, she states that victims generally enter an altered consciousness stage, an epistemological crisis, “feeling that they have been set apart and made special”(186).  People with disabilities generally describe this feeling, and society mostly presents an extreme dichotomy of either heroism or patheticalness; people with disabilities are viewed as special.  Basic Assumption(s) of disability as defined by the Medical Model, force one to either elevate or devalue a person with a disability rather than view he or she by any other trait besides Disability.  Having a visually discernable disability automatically tags one as Other — there is no escape from the visual realm and the concept of appearance as dictating representational originality.
        Included within the concepts of Other and Community, is the implication of assimilation.  Pure assimilation is destined to fail as originality, the possessive connotation of being considered Other, would negate itself by pure assimilation into a whole.  Since many people with disabilities have been segregated, either placed in Nursing Homes, Asylums, Schools and numerous institutions or are physically excluded from mainstream Community life due to physical, environmental and attitudinal barriers, the concept of assimilation seems balancing and Normal(izing), without an investigation of the holistic implications.  Whereas assimilation is positive in many aspects, particularly in regards to equal access, assimilation requires relinquishing of Other(ness) — an impossibility for people with disabilities whose inherent originality is steeped in disability.  American society generally operates dialectically, an us and them dichotomy that falls into place depending on each particular context.  Viewing society holistically provides empirical evidence that pure assimilation does not exist — yet Civil Rights in the context of Disability is an overwhelming argument for assimilation.  Disability is an aspect of identity, though I do not want to imply it is integral to the structures of either identity or originality.
        The temporality of identity, as far as growth and change, in the context of acquiring a disability can appear to shatter identity since all known, comfortable constructs become alien.

nor*mal (nôr¹mel) adjective
1. Abbr. norm. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical:  normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Abbr. norm. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
3. Abbr. n, N, n. Chemistry. a. Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution. b. Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
4. Abbr. norm. Mathematics. Being at right angles; perpendicular.
5. Abbr. norm.. a. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development. b. Free from emotional disorder.

noun
Abbr. norm.
1. Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal.
2. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.
3. a. Correspondence to a norm. b. An average.
4. Mathematics. A perpendicular, especially a perpendicular to a line tangent to a plane curve or to a plane tangent to a space curve.
 

        Normal is one of the most subjective, changing constructs in society.  I know I would not be considered Normal by the above broad range of definitions.  I am not perpendicular.  Am I functioning or occurring in a natural way?  I roll.  I consume synthesized medications to live.  I certainly have many observable abnormalities and deficiencies — according to whom?  Again, the Medical Model dictates a certain criteria of Normal(ity), yet accepted forms of aesthetics and beauty would exclude my physical appearance, bodily functions and, locomotion from an elevated stature, obviously, but my physicality would relegate my status as very low.  Basing a context of worth on any determined construct of Normal(ity) is dangerous as norms shift and grow daily.  Self-esteem should never be based on a norm since norms are extraneous and self-acceptance is inherently resisting predetermined norms.
        I find it interesting to view photos pre-Spinal-Cord-Injury and post-Spinal-Cord-Injury.  In a completely visual context there are blatant differences in physical appearance between the two sets of photographs.  What of the temporal implications?  Pre-Spinal-Cord-Injury exists from birth to age 17 years, 11 months and five days; I am not sure of the hours since the exact time of my injury is not documented. Every photograph since June 1, 1984 depicts post-Spinal-Cord-Injury from a visual mode.  Obviously, humans arrive at different developmental stages after reaching certain ages, living through different experiences and cognitively growing to new levels.  Can I ascertain cognitive levels of identity through the photographic representations?  I am not sure.  Can my self-worth be determined by these images?  Definitely not.  Acquiring a disability changed me — it did not wreck me.  My identity was and is in flux.
        Am I typical?  I fear this classification  — who would be proud to be considered typical?  The boundaries of typical preclude originality.  Do I conform and adhere to the defined norm based on Assumption?  No.  The Medical Model defines me as ill.  I refuse to be ill because I cannot move my legs, urinate or feel my toes.  I will always be me.  If one is not Normal one is Other.  I am Other.

Erikson, Kai.  "Notes on Trauma and Community." Trauma.  Explorations in Memory.  Caruth, Cathy.  ed.  Baltimore, MD:  Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Microsoft Bookshelf 1998:  Dictionary.