Why Access Is A Political Issue?

Introduction

Since 2010 disabled people through campaign networks such as Disabled People Against Cuts have been at the forefront of the fight against Austerity, yet the experience of disabled activists within the political arena still mirrors that of disabled people in wider society where we find ourselves excluded from or marginalised within activities. DPAC’s Paula Peters expresses disabled people’s frustration when she writes:  

“We are not getting the support from large sectors of the Left that we should have. Many ignore our access needs on marches [and within] meetings on a regular basis. The amount of times meetings are held in inaccessible buildings with no lifts, etc.”

A key slogan of the Disabled People’s Movement has always been ‘Nothing About Us, Without Us’ – recognising how nondisabled people in a variety of capacities disempower disabled people by making decisions on our behalf or simply by ignoring our needs and interests. Disabled people are often made to feel as if they are ‘burdens on society’ or have the sense that they are ‘invisible’. Rory Heap, former chair of UNISON Disabled Members, said recently in relation to disabled people’s political engagement:

“… how uncomfortable it can feel constantly having to be the whinging outsider, or the retro pedant going on about the finer points of language, or being once again “accidentally forgotten” on that list of oppressed groups?”

There is an increased awareness of racism, sexism and homophobia within the trade union movement, political parties and society; but the issues surrounding disablism are rarely entertained. Disabled people are part of the resistance movement, but we deserve to be respected, acknowledged and better supported. At times it feels as if our oppressors and allies have more in common than we and they would like. Only through inclusive practice and engagement with disabled people’s experience of disablism will ‘unity is strength’ really mean something. Disabled people wish to end situations where we feel by-passed or forgotten.

Why Access Is A Political Issue?

The materialist based social model sees disability as the creation of social restrictions which result from and contribute to the oppression of people with impairments via systems and structures which serve in the interest of capitalism. The nature of this treatment – often discriminatory – is experienced in a myriad of ways. People with physical impairments and mental health service users, for example, can encounter very different disabling barriers due to how, historically, society has determined the social relations of the membership of these groups. This includes the use of pejorative labels. At a micro level of society, disabling barriers can be viewed as the failure to introduce inclusive practice but this fails to tell the whole story. It is necessary to recognise that at a macro level disablism exists within structures of society and takes on the character of institutional discrimination – e.g. the labour market, legal system, government policy, etc.

The emphasis within all social approaches to disability is simple: look at ways of changing the social organisation of society in order to accommodate people with impairments. This has resulted in an array of ‘interpretations’ of the social oppression approach to disability ranging from reformist to revolutionary. Whilst Left Unity Disabled Members Caucus believes that only a radical transformation of society can put an end to disablement, it acknowledges that our immediate task is to seek ‘betterment’ for disabled people by campaigning for action to introduce forms of ‘inclusive practice’. The emphasis is on reducing or removing unnecessary social restrictions that are disabling barriers to disabled people’s participation within both society and our own Party. Mike Oliver offered a simple framework to work within:

“For me disabled people are defined in terms of three criteria;

          (i)   they have an impairment;

          (ii)  they experience oppression as a consequence; and

          (iii) they identify themselves as a disabled person.

Using the generic term [disabled people] does not mean that I do not recognise differences in experience within the group but that in exploring this we should start from the ways oppression differentially impact on different groups of people rather than with differences in experience among individuals with different impairments.”

This primarily works for developing policies, procedures and practice however on a day-to-day engagement level it may be necessary to invite disabled people to identify specific needs they may have. Branch organisers need to invite people to identity their support needs in a confidential manner if required in order to ensure they are catered for. Key to understanding disability politics is the ability to develop awareness and strategies to identify and address social environments which exclude or marginalise disabled people. Holding a meeting on the second floor of pub is creating an inaccessible environment – a form of apartheid – and this impacts on various social groups not just disabled people. Social justice and addressing the equalisation of opportunity cannot be achieved by taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach; consideration of the diversity of needs is required.

Access is a major issue for a variety of groups of disabled people; those with visual impairments encounter different disabling barriers to those who are learning disabled or have limited mobility. Only by addressing these issues can we develop an inclusive practice. Disabled people’s oppression stems from how society and people fail to take their needs and issues into account. Ignorance is a political weapon against disabled people.

What needs to be done?

Consider the above points in relation to the meetings and events Left Unity organise or are involved in:

• How can disabled people find out about our activities? Is our material accessible?
• Do our activities prevent or discourage disabled people’s participation?
• What are the social environments we work within like for disabled people – level access, easy access toilets, transport systems available, parking, noise levels, clearly signed?
• Do you know how to contact local Disabled People’s Organisations for support and advice?

What is inclusivity?

An inclusive product, service or environment does not exclude any section of society. Inclusive solutions consider all users, including disabled people, and is a positive step towards a holistic, universal system.

The Principles of Inclusivity

• Acknowledge individuals have unique and particular needs in learning, social and work environments.

• Respect each individual’s right to express and present themselves relative to their religion, culture, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender-identity, identity as disabled people.

• Promote inclusivity by reasonably adjusting procedures, activities and physical environments.

• Focus on the learning or support needs of the individual without assumptions or labels.

• Be inclusive in all forms of communication.

• Serve all with sensitivity, respect, and within boundaries of social justice.

Organisation and running of meetings

When considering an accessible and inclusive meeting, there are 3 aspects you need to think about:  

1. Planning and preparation

2. The equipment and information

3. The conduct of the meeting.

 What is disability? If you were to ask a mixed group of disabled and non-disabled people this question the chances are that the number of answers given could almost add up to the same number as those present in the room! The problem is that there are many different and often opposing ways of defining ‘the disability problem’. In general terms these definitions tend to fall into two broad camps; the traditional approaches with a focus on the degree to which a person’s condition or impairment prevents them from fulfilling the roles and expectations usually carried out by so called ‘normal people’ (sic) and social approaches which identify disability as being ‘imposed on top of our impairments by the social organisation of society’.

The main emphasis within this article will be an explanation of how and why the Disabled People’s Movement shifted the ‘disability problem’ away from viewing it as a negative attribute of an individual, towards addressing it as a form of social oppression and how this oppression has developed.

Why definitions of disability are historically specific

There have always been people who, because of injury, disease or genetic makeup, have had bodies that are not fully functional. Research shows that the treatment of people with impairments has varied greatly down the ages however it was not until the development of the capitalism mode of production was there a systematic approach to classifying individuals into distinctive groups.

Gleeson explains:

“…. an important critique has been developed of the root cause of disablement – the capitalist system. Disability in its current form is said to have emerged at the time of the industrial revolution, with the growth of the commodity labour market a key factor in the process of disablement … (thus) the fundamental relationships of capitalist society are implicated in the social oppression of disabled people.” [1]

By the middle of the nineteenth century British society had felt the impact of the Industrial Revolution. The harsh realities it produced created economic and social upheavals which brought about, in turn, moral panics around the fear of illness, disease and depravity. Social reformers sought to replace chaos with control – contours around what was considered ‘normal’ were drawn and those groups thought to be polluting society – outside ‘normality’ – were withdrawn from the public gaze.

The increased usage of institutionalisation, the birth of the eugenics movement and the proliferation of charities contributed towards ‘cleansing’ society of its mad and hapless cripples. Non-conformity was unacceptable and those people deemed incapable of keeping standards associated with ‘normal activities’ – productive and reproductive – had to be ‘taken care of’ in more senses than one.

These processes firmly established people with significant impairments as ‘outside’ mainstream society; however it took the First World War to shape the dominant approaches that viewed disability as ‘an individualised personal tragedy’. Medical practice since this time has focused firmly on how the body ‘functions’ vis-à-vis social tasks and doctors along with other professionals were concerned with the impact of impairments on people’s capabilities. In crude terms, the less someone functioned ‘like a normal person’ (sic), the more ‘disabled’ they were judged to be. Key ideologies such as individualism and normality contributed to the process of identifying ‘disability’ as the negative outcome of a loss of function caused by an individual’s impairment. This view of the ‘problem of disability’ remained largely unchallenged for the next fifty years.

Disability: a personal tragedy or social oppression?

When a challenge did come it came from the ranks of disabled people. Our starting point is to recognise that the Disabled People’s Movement emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s when groups of disabled people began to question why they were either excluded from or marginalised within mainstream social activities.

The roots of the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) stem from Paul Hunt when in 1972 he wrote a letter to the Guardian inviting disabled people to form a group to tackle disability. Paul formed his ideas whilst living in an institution called Le Court. He and other residents had been involved in a long and bitter struggle with the authorities over the right of disabled people to have control over their lives within the institution and for some representation on the management committee. The significance of this particular struggle was that during the course of their struggle, he and others had started asking some very fundamental questions about the nature of the helper/ helped relationship, the powerless that they were having imposed on top of their impairments, and about why this was the case.

Paul’s partner, Judy Hunt, wrote:

“UPIAS exposed disability as an oppressive relationship, and a power relationship of control. It was these ideas – taken on by the Disabled People’s Movement – that became the important liberating factor in the movement.” [2]

The ideas of UPIAS were made accessible to disabled people and their organisations via one of its members, a disabled academic called Mike Oliver who developed two models of disability – the individual tragedy model and the social model. It is important to recognise that a model is a ‘schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics.’ [3]

So Oliver used the ‘individual tragedy model’ to explore the dominant ideologies and practice in relation to disability in the UK [4]. How ‘disability’ is defined and then employed in law, social policy and day-to-day social and cultural activities has been rejected by the Disabled People’s Movement because it presents disabled people in ways which are often considered negative and, as a result, increases the possibility that a disabled person could experience either discrimination or be forced to accept segregated services. The emphasis is on disabled people’s lack of ability, caused by their condition, which is then measured as a means of explaining (and legitimating) why they are unable to ‘fit into’ the mainstream of social activities.

Disabled people argue this approach misrepresents the facts. The alternative ‘social model’ approach has as its starting point the recognition that often having a condition or impairment does have an impact upon our lives; however this is not the direct cause of people with impairments’ social exclusion. If an individual evaluates their impairment in negative terms, which they may, this is not the same as being judged as ‘tragic’ in societal terms because of the perceived non-conformity of the body or mind and the subsequent absence of social value. It is precisely how people with impairments are ‘made sense of’ which ultimately leads to them not being ‘taken into account’ by given western societies. Thus it is within the social organisation of society; mode of production, societal structures, systems, culture and values, etc. where the social restrictions are created for disabled people.

The social oppression understanding of disability

Oliver explains:

“The more detailed elaboration of the social model stemmed from attempts to apply this insight into practice: firstly, in training of social workers, and secondly, in the design and delivery of disability equality training. … I was trying to provide my students with a way of applying the idea that it was society and not people with impairments that should be the target for professional intervention and practice.” [5]

Disability Equality Training argues that if more time was spent ‘taking into account’ how the design and organisation of things affected disabled people then we might see real change. The emphasis within the social model approach is concerned with looking at the differing ways in which people with impairments encounter what we call ‘disabling barriers’. Disabling barriers are created when not enough attention is paid to the issues which impact on disabled people’s lives. For example, their access needs, the surroundings in which disabled people find themselves in or simply the negative attitudes people hold. Our conditions or impairments may reduce our functional ability, but more often than not, the disabling factor is external to the person and could be reduced or removed by ‘planning disabled people in’ or if needs be, adapting the world in which they want to live.

The materialist based social model sees disability as the creation of social restrictions which result from and contribute to the oppression of people with impairments via systems and structures which serve in the interest of capitalism. The nature of this treatment – often discriminatory – is experienced in a myriad of ways. People with physical impairments and mental health service users, for example, can encounter very different disabling barriers due to how, historically, society has determined the social relations of the membership of these groups. This includes the use of pejorative labels. At a micro level of society, disabling barriers can be down to the failure to introduce inclusive practice, however at a macro level disability is structured and takes on the character of institutional discrimination – e.g. the labour market, legal system, government policy, etc.

The emphasis within social approaches to disability is simple: look at ways of changing the social organisation of society in order to accommodate people with impairments. This has resulted in an array of ‘interpretations’ of the social oppression approach to disability ranging from reformist to revolutionary. Gleeson, for example, argues:

“The ‘materialist’ or ‘radical’ social model understands disability to be a logical outcome of the capitalist mode of production… This version of the social model insists that ‘the fundamental relationships of capitalist society are implicated in the social oppression of disabled people’. Logically, ‘the elimination of disablement… requires a radical transformation, rather than a reform of capitalism.” [6]

How disabled people are subjected to differential and unequal treatment must also be addressed in terms of the changing economic and social climate.  Their active inclusion in the labour market, for example, directly corresponds to the demand for labour or the desire to slash public expenditure. The social model of disability developed by Oliver related primarily to the social democratic phase of capitalism therefore the shift in the direction towards Neoliberalism and the savage attacks upon the welfare state has been inadequately addressed at a theoretical level. In terms of the struggle for emancipation, it is perhaps paradoxical that at the very moment disabled people secured some legal protection, the neoliberal agenda was about to bite.

Disability in the age of austerity

It is not enough to simply acknowledge disabled people are disabled by systems, structures and services which either fail to meet or inadequately meet disabled people’s needs. The impact of current government policies – the reduction in public expenditure at national and local levels, the removal of services, the destruction of jobs and communities – will only result in greater hardship and social exclusion.

The creation of Disabled People Against Cuts in 2010 was not a spur of a moment thing; a knee-jerk reaction to what the Coalition was doing. The roots of DPAC were firmly within the politics of the social movement we often refer to as the Disabled People’s Movement. A social movement is defined as a collective identity around key demands for social change. Disabled academic Mike Oliver spoke of the Disabled People’s Movement as a social movement because:

• it was peripheral to conventional politics
• offered a critical evaluation of society
• embraced ‘post-materialist’ or ‘post-acquisitive’ values (e.g. non-exploitative or anti-capitalist in nature)
• had an internationalist perspective

Oliver also stated that a ‘…key feature of the Disabled People’s Movement has been its focus on social exclusion and oppression.’ As a direct consequence of this ‘shared perspective’ disability politics of the Disabled People’s Movement:

a) Placed an emphasis on self-organisation;

b) Had a commitment to radical political action to promote change;

c) Sought to improve the quality of disabled people’s lives and worked to promote their full inclusion into society [7]

It is doubtful that many disabled activists would disagree with this broad picture, although some might suggest that over the life of the movement there were elements within the Movement that moved away from these politics or have subjected them to ‘reinterpretation’. One area that has been subject to detailed ‘reinterpretation’ is the idea of “disability rights” and it can be found in what is nowadays called the Disability Movement.

The rise of the Disability Movement

 Since the early 1990s there has been a growing tendency among charities, public and voluntary sector bodies to adopt both the language and concepts of the Disabled People’s Movement but in the process, gutting them of their original meanings and intent. Antonio Gramsci referred to this process as being, “transformismo”. [8]. It is quite common these days to see local authorities for example speak about supporting the social model or implementing what is called ‘independent living’ however any scrutiny of their policies and practices reveal their approaches are a million miles from those developed by the Disabled People’s Movement. The failure of the Disabled People’s Movement to address this issue and the unwillingness to discuss divisions within our own ranks has produced an unhealthy situation where the community of disabled people are witnessing conflicting approaches towards defending “disability rights” and not fully understanding or appreciating what lies behind these conflicts.

 There is not a single factor that led to these divisions. Tensions existed prior to and after the defeat of the Civil Rights Bill and the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Vic Finkelstein who helped establish the Disabled People’s Movement believed there was a too narrow focus on obtaining ‘anti-discrimination legislation’ whilst others concluded that the DDA was in fact a victory for disabled people – which goes against all the evidence that exists. [9] The differing positions taken on the DDA was the first indication of a fundamental split within the Disabled People’s Movement and it resulted in a tendency emerging with a focus solely on protecting and extending “disability rights”. Here was a clear division between those who stood for radical political action to promote change and a revision of the politics of disability which offered a reformist agenda. Although the actual division is clear, the forces who make up the two camps isn’t necessary obvious. Some disabled people’s organisations and individuals moved away from radical interpretations of social oppression and began to open a dialogue with traditional disability charities such as Scope and Leonard Cheshire Disability who were ‘using the right language’ (sic). People such as Tom Shakespeare argued these organisations had ‘changed’; but time and time again these charities have been found to be employing double standards – speaking about ‘disability rights’ one minute and promoting ‘disability as a personal tragedy’ the next.

 Many of the organisations who were involved in the ‘Hardest Hit Campaign’, including Disability Rights UK, sent out mixed messages to both disabled people and the Coalition. [10]  This ‘disability rights’ approach spearheaded by leading disability charities had been supported by Tony Blair’s Labour government via its ‘rights and responsibility’ agenda which had effectively marginalised the waning Disabled People’s Movement. What emerged was the formation of a ‘Disability Movement’ which sought to present disability as an ‘opportunity’ within the marketplace. [11] The notion of ‘disability rights’ became little more than a question of consumer rights and these charities were quite happy to take part in the Conservative government’s benefit reform programme whilst at the same time criticising the assessment processes with the introduction of the biopsychosocial model of disability. Suddenly social oppression was assigned to the dustbin; we were informed that everyone favours ‘inclusivity’ – this in an age of austerity where disabled people were becoming less and less able to access mainstream provision or live independently. An Orwellian nightmare was unfolding before our eyes.

The reality of the current situation

There are services run by local authorities that are not run in the best interests of communities – including disabled people – but simply taking an axe to them does not provide us with an opportunity to change the service nor provide a better one. The cuts are taking us away from and not towards any notion of building a more inclusive society; cuts are reducing our ability to expose the disabling nature of the society in which we live. Cuts right across the board are hampering ordinary people’s ability to take control over their lives and many disabled people, though marginalised within the mainstream now, are experiencing increased exclusion from all mainstream social activities. Cuts have resulted in premature death caused by worry, increased poor health and inadequate support arrangements.

Since 2010 within the field of social policy, supported by reports from the mass media, there Is a “common sense” understanding that ‘disabled people are dependent creatures who are unemployed and on benefits’ and the focus is on ‘those with the greatest needs’ (sic). [12] A key corner of ‘disability politics’, namely Independent Living, has been politically gutted under Neoliberal policies.

On August 24^th 2017, Disability News Service reported that an international committee of disabled human rights experts have delivered a series of withering attacks on the UK government over its failure to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The committee’s chair, Theresia Degener from Germany, told the UK government’s delegation that its cuts to social security and other support for disabled people had caused “a human catastrophe”, which was “totally neglecting the vulnerable situation people with disabilities find themselves in”. [13].

Perhaps now more than ever before, it’s time to articulate within mainstream politics what the Disabled People’s Movement has been arguing for over forty years: disability is a form of social oppression.

NOTES

          1.      Gleeson, B. J. 1997. Disability Studies: a historical materialist view.             

                    Disability and Society, 12 (2), 179-202.

          2.       See, http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Hunt-J-a- 

                     revolutionary- group-with-a-revolutionary-message.pdf

          3.       See, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=model

          4.       Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement, London: Macmillan

          5.       Oliver, M. 2004. The Social Model In Action: If I had a hammer?                                                   in Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and

                     Research edited by Colin Barnes and Geoff Mercer 2004. Leeds:

                    The Disability Press, pp. 18-31.

                    Available at: http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Barnes-                                implementing-the-social-model-chapter-2.pdf

          6.       See, Gleeson, page 196.

          7.      Oliver, M. and Barnes, C. 2012. The New Politics of Disablement,

                    Palgrave Macmillan: London

          8.       Cox, R. W. 1996. Gramsci, Hegemony and International

                      Relations: An Essay in Method, in R.W. Cox and T.J. Sinclair, 1996.

                    Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press                                Page.51

          9.       See, http://pf7d7vi404s1dxh27mla5569.wpengine.netdna-

                      cdn.com/files/library/finkelstein-The-Social-Model-of-Disability-and-the-

                      Disability-Movement.pdf

         10.       See, http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/williams-findlay-                                                 Lifting-the-Lid-on-Disabled-People-Against-Cuts-D-S-final.pdf  2011

`        11.       See, https://dpac.uk.net/2012/12/a-question-of-intent/

         12.       See, http://www.dpac.uk.net/2012/04/a-tale-of-two-models-disabled-                                     people-vs-unum-atos-government-and-disability-charities-debbie-jolly/                                   March 2012

          13.      See, https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/uk-faces-un-examination-                               government-cuts-caused-human-catastrophe/ .

More Than A Left Foot

Introduction to this Blog

I am establishing More Than A Left Foot as a blog after a series of requests to set one up. People who have read Facebook posts by me felt the ideas, arguments and politics I have been writing about deserved a wider audience. Over the next few months I intend to blog edited versions of material I have featured elsewhere and the odd new piece. It is my intention to blog under the authorship of Red Crip Rant, my true identity is not a secret, it is simply I wish to maintain a specific identity as a blogger

My aim is to offer a take on political, social and cultural issues from the perspective of an ageing disabled political activist who has been engaged in politics since the 1970s. Due to my commitments I am not going to commit to having dialogue with individuals, although I will seek to clarify points or signpost where I can. My commitments also mean I cannot promise regular clockwork blogs – when I can produce a blog, I will. Welcome to this journey of discovery; I will when the time is right, explain what lies behind the blog’s name; but in the meantime, enjoy.

More Than A Left Foot

I, the disabled person

If you’ve come here expecting one of those blogs that details one person’s triumph over tragedy; you know the type, it goes on about how they’ve bravely battled against all odds to succeed, may I suggest you save yourself a huge disappointment by leaving right now.  

Whilst I refuse any association with the label “special”, I can’t deny that, like almost every other human being, there’s an unquestionable uniqueness which has played a major role in shaping my life. My uniqueness is probably due to a cocktail of genes, experiences and influences which are both known and unknown. There’s, of course, one aspect of my make up that has helped create the type of man I am.

From the moment I was dragged into existence by a pair of forceps, my relationship with the world has been largely informed by the fact I was born with Cerebral Palsy. Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, I want to stress that I’m not talking so much about the impact of the condition on my life, but rather the social and political consequences of being a person with a physical impairment living in a society that actively works against the interests of people like me.

I want to stress this point again; my life has been largely shaped, not by the impact of the CP itself, but rather the social and political consequences of being a person with a physical impairment living in a society that is largely geared up to meet the needs and some of the desires of people without significant impairments so that they can fully participate within that society.

Disability, I want to argue, is a site of struggle. Disability isn’t a personal attribute, an indication of an individual’s non-conformity to ‘able-bodied normality’; it’s a form of social oppression.

I believe it’s in fact the nature of society; its natural and organised landscape, the operating socio-political structures within a capitalist economic system, supported by cultures and values that actually disable certain social groups. Disability is not only socially constructed through oppressive notions such as ‘normality’, it is also socially created by the societal landscape that marginalises people with impairments within, or excludes them from, mainstream social activity.

I’m not going to outline in detail here how society excludes or marginalises people with impairments; however, I am going to make it clear that my identity as a writer who is disabled, will not be fully understood or appreciated without having consideration of my experience of disablement.

In terms of language, the word disability has two roots: in dominant culture it is associated, as I have said, with denoting people with impairments’ failure to conform to societal notions of normality. This is done as a measurement of ‘function loss’; however this is overlaid with ideological meaning: hence, “The less I function like a normal person – whatever that is – the more disabled I am judged to be.”

Not only is this a crude, one-dimensional form of reductionism, is it ultimately oppressive. How the ideological purchase of normality impacts on people with impairments may take specific forms, I would suggest other social groups also experience the oppressive force of so called: “normality”.

The other root sees disability as a form of legalised  disenfranchisement. John Stuart Mills, for example, in his essay, The Subjugation of Women, spoke of ‘women with disabilities’. At one time, I saw this phrase as a way of trying to externalise disability – seeing it as the outcome of negative social interactions.

In hindsight, this was a mistake. In common parlance, the term people with disabilities became yet another euphemistic phrase within the blighted politically correct landscape. It is assumed that by ‘seeing the person first’ or by ‘seeing the person not the disability’ one is dismantling the ideological premise that maintains our oppression: ‘disability is an individualised, personal tragedy’ – anyone who really understands the legal definition of disability, must call into question this type of negative appraisal that becomes sugar coated.

The true meaning of this politically correct term, ‘people with disabilities’ may well be subjected to a liberal mask, however, its impact upon disabled people’s lives is unmistakable – we remain ‘the Other’, our bodies and minds negated by the words, images and deeds of those who judge us by how burdensome we are to society or by our freakiness,

Now, having already lost those who wanted to hear a heroic story about some happy-clappy disabled person, I’ve probably added to that list others who will no doubt characterise me as either having a chip on my shoulder or as someone representing the type of disabled person who displays signs of being bitter and twisted. 

Being externally characterised in this way is something disabled people are quite familiar with. During my life I have been referred to in a variety of ways, ranging from: “that spastic”, “a cripple”, “handicapped person”, through to a police officer seeking to wind me up by asking a colleague, “is it human?”

The language used to refer to me and, of course, other disabled people, has been employed to convey how I have been both ‘seen’ and ‘made sense of’.

From a personal perspective this pejorative language has fed into a process of shaping an externally imposed identity on me. One thing I know for sure, I have little or no control over or its impact.

Through this type of language then, I have been ‘described’ by others.

I’m not quite sure to what degree I would support the view of Edward Sapir, the anthropologist, when he said:

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection.

I found that interesting because I do feel some, more than others, are ‘at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society.’ In saying this, I am applying it to a narrower application than Sapir intended.  However, as I’ve already implied, I believe there has been a language developed over time that is associated with the meanings and imagery given over to “disability” which aids the cultural nature of disabled people’s social oppression.

This might sound perverse, but personally, I’d rather be called a cripple or a spastic, than a person with a disability. Whilst these words have become seen as offensive; do they actually devalue or distort who or what I am any way as near as a term which simply writes me off? Isn’t the phrase, people with disabilities, far more judgemental in terms of how it sees our impairments and their impact on our social relationships? Is it really my speech that disables me?

When I say I am a disabled person I am not talking about my physical difference or impaired functioning; I am making a political statement – rejecting an imposed identity – thus embracing a new identity and culture, and in so doing, offering a direct challenge to the oppressive relationship I have with society.  In truth, I’m showing utter contempt for a society which remains incapable of accepting people with impairments as we are, unable to question so called, “able-bodied” normality, steadfast in its refusal to dismantle the structural and organisational barriers faced by people with impairments.

And, as a disabled writer I would add to this, the failure to acknowledge disabled people’s lifestyles and culture.

I, The Disabled Writer

I’ve spoken about how I see myself as a disabled person, now I wish to contextualise this in terms of being a writer – a disabled writer. A colleague of mine from within the Disabled People’s Movement once wrote:

       As long as we regard our impairments as tragedies, we will be pitied…                 

       As long as we feel ashamed of who we are our lives will be regarded

       as useless…As long as we remain silent, we will be told by others

       what to do. 

During my teens, probably not consciously, I embarked down a road that meant I was never going to be silent, well, not for long anyway.

Using poetry, and later prose, I began to express my inner thoughts as well as articulate a view of the world that ran contrary to the happy-clappy images perpetuated by the pathetic looking dolls and collection tins own by the disability charity, aptly named, The Spastics Society.

My writing career was almost ended at seventeen when my boarding school Headmaster, banned me from writing poetry. My youthful, wide-eyed take on the natural transition out of childhood into adulthood was branded pornographic. Yes, I had dared to speak of the desire to run naked through a field of long grass. The assumed perverted meaning of this imagery remains a mystery to me even to this day.

Perhaps the idea of a young cripple possibly having sexual feelings was too much for this dour one nation Tory. Whatever his problem was, he continued to subject my radical spirit to the most brutal forms of mental abuse for the next two years. It began with the poetry, progressed onto denying me the same opportunities as my classmates and ended with humiliation; the only senior pupil without a perfect badge. Imagine the impact of having to do three hours homework on your own whilst the rest of your class were tucking into a three course meal.

One of my teachers did encourage me to write, even went so far as getting me an agent; but I wasn’t really ready for that. Most of my adult life I’ve continued to enjoy being a wordsmith; however, a number of years ago, I was offered a place on a mentored scheme for disabled people. Naturally, I seized it with both hands and through this my career as a playwright begun.

As I’ve already indicated, living with CP means confronting a disabling world, therefore my experiences within life are shaped by this twin reality. My writing is bound to be influenced too, even if my text happens to be void of any disabled characters or disability related theme. In most of my blogs I believe disablement will be lurking not too far away.

.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton