 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
The Clockwork of Attention Deficit Disorder: Mechanisms in Illusion - Page 4
By Xiaolei Shi
Yet, even with the possibility of over-diagnosis, Lawis acknowledges that a fundamental incompatibility exists between the mindset of the children and that of the outside world which "often disrupts the normal life of the family"(10), which in turn legitimizes ADD as a social issue that needs to be addressed through family, community, and in extreme cases, medical intervention. Therefore, to Lawis, a denial of the existence of ADD would be a gross under-diagnosis. Similar claims are made by Russel A. Barkley, author of Taking Charge of ADHD, who also explores the consequences of under-diagnosing ADD. Barkley contends that "failure by the adults in a child's life to recognize and treat [ADD] can leave that child with an unremitting sense of failure in all arenas of life" (8). As a retort to the growing skepticism toward ADD, Barkley claims that "many legitimate disorders exist without any evident underlying disease or pathology. [ADD] is among them" (10). For Barkley, the symptoms of ADD are "pernicious, insidious and disastrous in its impact on a person's ability to manage the critical day to day affairs through which human beings prepare for the future" (24). What is important to note in Barkley's claim is that one should not perceive ADD symptoms as youthful exuberance and interpret them as a natural process of development. In this, he would disagree with Burgess' suggestion in the Preface to A Clockwork Orange, that social deviance is simply a matter of maturity and can be outgrown: "[s]enseless violence is a prerogative of youth, which has much energy but little talent for the constructive [but there] comes a time . . . when violence is seen as juvenile and boring" (vii). Much like Davis 's assertion that the "construction of disability is through the deconstruction of a continuum" (12), Barkley is suggesting that there needs to be clear separation, albeit subjective, between legitimate human growth process and the presence of a disorder. For Barkley, the functional well-being of the individual in the future provides the standard by which to evaluate a child for ADD. However, Barkley makes the assumption that ADD continues into the adult life, which would hinder a person's "ability to manage the critical affairs" in a future where this ability is essential. Thus, for Barkley, the litmus test for deciding whether a person has a disorder ultimately rests on how well the individual will function within society. Hence, this attests to the role of societal expectations in Barkley's claim. Barkley simply restates Bradley's assertion on the practical uses of Benzedrine, and the undeniable cultural reasoning behind such a conclusion is again apparent.
Barclay clarifies his definition of ADD using a case study of seven-year-old Amy, characterized as "angry, resentful and belligerent when her parents tell her not to do something. Her peers and their parents find her blunt comments rude and her play behavior selfish" (26). Psychologists "found her to be of normal intelligence, without any learning disability," which eventually led them to conclude that Amy exhibited clear symptoms of ADD. Certain "dietary and disciplinary measures [taken by the family had] little effect" (26). Ruling out other disorders, diet, and disciplinary factors, Barkley concluded that the disorder was inherent in Amy, the biological basis for ADD indirectly proved through the elimination of all other possible contributing factors. Barkley therefore defines ADD to be a disorder that "fully inhibits [children's] behavior to rules of social conduct ¾ not simply etiquette, but fundamental morals of the time." While Barkley's definition appears stronger than Lawis' claim that ADD is a disorder that "disrupts the normal life of the family," it is still confined within the boundaries of time and the social definition of morality. Barkley's definition appears stronger because it claims that the behavior indicative of ADD deviates far from the normal. Therefore, the strength of the argument is based upon the social construction of the concept of normality- little girls should not challenge the social structure by being "angry, resentful and belligerent," but should be tactful and comply with the wishes of their parents - as "an ideology of containment and a politics of power and fear" (Davis 4). Hence, both the strength and reasoning of Barkley's definition for ADD lies inexorably within societal definitions of "normality."
Contrary to Barkley's claim that ADD exists as a disability, Lawis clearly states that ADD "is not a handicap" nor a "sign of inferior intelligence, criminal tendency or immoral behavior" ( 5). Lawis recognizes that there exists a general cultural stigma towards that of ADD, as perpetuated by Barkley, and elaborates on the "self-fulfilling prophecy" of such a belief. "When the adults in a child's life become completely focused on the negative behavior, the youngster's self-image deteriorates.