The disability rights movement: from charity to confrontation

The paper ” The Disability Rights Movement: from Charity to Confrontation” is an exceptional example of a book review on culture.
Fleischer and Zames (2011, pp. 201-203) define culture with regard to disability. They assert that disability culture is basically a sense of commonality with others. The culture is borne out of the experience and assumes a particular voice in addressing the prevailing societal barriers. Such culture employs disability identity as their mode of empowerment or as a major source of pain; hence, uses phrases such as ‘ pride’ or ‘ scorn’ in reference to their disability. In that case, disability culture tends to posit the relevance of the disabled experience to the larger population, whereby, most of their experiences are captured in the mainstream media.
There are various similarities and differences between disability culture and other cultures or cultural groups. For instance, both forms of cultures can simply be defined as the customs and beliefs of a specific group or society. However, the difference is that the term disability has various connotations to different cultures. For instance, disability culture entails people who have a shared commonality such as been impaired; thus, preventing them from thinking, seeing, hearing, or walking among others. Disability culture and other cultural groups are similar since they share a set of shared goals, practices, and attitudes. For instance, a disability culture might have a common goal to have their rights represented and respected just as other cultural groups. Although they are similar to some extent, they differ since cultural groups are more racial, ethnic, and intellectually oriented. They share similar ethnic or racial practices and values and have a particular way of working or thinking. Cultures might also entail an organization’s set of beliefs, which brings employees together with an aim of enhancing productivity. On the other hand, disability culture centers more on self-value and visibility; whereby, such groups prioritize on being recognized and pursuing common objectives (Fleischer & Zames, 2011; Riddel &Watson, 2014, pp. 194-195).