This article posits an updated, broader perspective on the concept of learning disabilities (LDs) than that accepted in the local Israeli literature, revealing how it is immersed in class, ethnicity, and culture. This is shown through historical description, accreditation, and contrasting of the two special education discourses: the "cultural deprivation" discourse and the "LDs" discourse. There are three sections. Part One presents the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological background of the sociological and discursive debate about LDs. The social-constructivist model used in an analysis of the two categories is proposed as an alternative to the clinical-medical model. The definitions of LDs and cultural deprivation accepted in the Israeli discourse are presented in Part Two. The metamorphoses in the discourse about the category of LDs are uncovered through reference to their conceptual and historical antecedents. This part discusses the various understandings and constructions of learning difficulties. Part Three examines the textual representation of parents of children with disabilities in both cases, exploring the meanings of guilt, responsibility, and agency in each discourse. The conclusion clarifies the social and political significance of the distinct textual and rhetorical representations. It becomes evident that the discourse on LDs and the discourse on cultural deprivation are two special education tracks directed at different target audiences: the culturally enriched audience, well-off and educated on the one hand, and the Mizrahi audience of limited means and education on the other hand.

This article aims to stimulate new thinking about learning disabilities than is customary in local literature. Previous educational and psychological studies concerning learning disabilities regarded them as if they were objective categories with formal definitions and criteria accepted in scholarly literature. Contrary to that, this article explores the various conceptions, constructions, and meanings of learning disabilities that comprise the narrative descriptions and explanations of didactic diagnosticians. For this purpose, 50 in-depth interviews were conducted. There are four sections. Part One lays out the theoretical and methodological background of the sociological and discursive debate about learning disabilities. Part Two explores the various main thematic aspects and narrative strategies that were used by the diagnosticians in their construction of their purportedly 'objective', 'a-historical', 'a-political' experts' narrative. The third part reveals the polyphonic multifaceted nature of the learning disabilities construct. The experts' narrative undermines the objective and homogeneous definitions in the literature by uncovering learning disabilities' heterogeneous meaning repertoire. This repertoire consists, among others, of conceptualizing disability as a 'disease', a 'symptom', a 'genetic defect', a 'disorder', an 'educational difficulty', a 'variance', and even a 'gift'. This part also reveals the experts' narrative reaction strategies to the aforementioned polyphonic spectacle. It is revealed that the interviewees' narrative deconstructs the 'scientific factual nature' of the clinical categories. The fourth part highlights a central paradox in the expert narrative: The tension between the narrative stigmatic-labeling aspects and the destigmatic-'liberating' aspects. The claim is made that this tension can partly explain the current popularity of the LD diagnosis. This article is the third in a series of papers that seeks to contribute to the creation of a more nuanced disability discourse by exposing its shaky scientific foundations.

The intention of this article is to problematize the current understanding of learning disabilities by scrutinizing the historical and social context in which they are embedded. The first part of the article lays out theoretical assertions from various fields: sociology of knowledge, rhetoric of science, rhetoric of statistics and historical critical discourse analysis. Integrating these constructionist approaches and through a short historical presentation of the evolution of the discourse and the various critiques that are developed from it, the article reveals the obscurity that surrounds the concept of learning disabilities. In the second part, the article examines one important idiom which forms the basis for the Israeli disabilities discourse: the statistical one which deals with the percentage of disabled persons in the population. Through an analysis of major texts of the Israeli disabilities field and interviews with professionals, it becomes clear how central statistical assertions are shaped into "scientific facts", even when their scientific foundations are quite shaky. The article's aim is to contribute to the development of a more complex disabilities discourse by uncovering its social, historical and cultural contexts. Another aim is to raise awareness to possible uses of statistical knowledge as a discursive and rhetorical tool.

This lecture seeks to uncover the various textual techniques through which binary representations of ‘parenthood’ are constructed in the framework of clinical professional discourse of Israeli learning-disorders experts. Historically this discourse has constructed two contrasting parenthood representations: ‘parenthood of learning-disordered children’ on the one hand, and ‘parenthood of cultural deprived children’ on the other hand.The lecture posits the following main questions: Which textual representations of ‘parenthood’ were constructed in the framework of the aforementioned discourses? Which affinities can be identified between the textual representations and the contextual characteristics of social class, culture, ethnicity and educational capital? And which affinities can be identified between these representations and the explicit or implicit normative messages of ‘blame’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘agency’ embedded in the texts? Discourse analysis was implemented in order to uncover the mutual and contradictory construction processes. The analysis also reveals the stereotypical imputation of ‘normative’ parents with a well-off, well-educated and western origin population, as well as the stereotypical imputation of ‘problematic’ parents with a low class, little educated and eastern origin population. The lecture concludes by situating the texts in the social and historical context of their formulation: The processes of psychocultural othering which operated on low class, little educated and eastern origin parents are interpreted on the historical background of the class and ethnic hierarchical structure of the Israeli society. The conclusion also raises a conjecture regarding a rising new medicalizing ‘othering’ potential, a potential, which was already implicitly embedded in the analyzed historical texts.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his/her declaration of competing interest.