Impairment and disability: a world of difference

The d/Deaf and Disabled People's movement in the UK has used the term disabled for many years. Many use it to make clear that it is the disablism and ableism disabled people face that qualifies them as disabled. As a group, a population world wide, we are disadvantaged by a characteristic oppression - ableism - and therefore its is our communities that have a problem. Not us. The disadvantage imposed on the disabled population comes through environment and culture. while personal difficulty shouldn't be minimised, its more complicated than personal difference or isolated issues. Yet, because impairment and disability are often used interchangeably, disability is mostly understood as synonymous to the personal characteristic, cognitive functioning or physical deficit of the individual.  The following applies disability theory to language. Often referred to in Disability Studies as the Medical Model and Social Model, I use it to framing language as practice - a personal super-power in public spaces.

 

The Social Model as self-referenced language 

As a shorthand, in disability equality, the Social Model refers to the shared understanding, and activism, of politically committed disabled individuals, and their allies,  in working to redress the impact of ableism in policy and practice.  Please appreciate not all disabled people agree, like those within the feminist movement there are radicals, moderates and non-subscribers! However, particularly for those working in the public spheres (writers, campaigners, educators, activists), they use of specific ideas to convey the empowerment of the disabled population. 

As part of my Ph.D research, I read over 900 journal abstracts on “disability”. I then used a blend of personal experience, research evidence and professional wisdom, in my analysis. I found that I could feel - to a growing extent - whether the articles I read honoured the voice of disabled people by aligning to the interests of the Disabled people's movement. Even where I felt authors struggled with words, reading under them, I saw meaning that was the voice of an ‘ally’. In this blog I use older ideas related my work on dialogue to help share a few ideas about the language used to discuss matters of disability. 

Although, five different types of dialogue have been identified, I've grouped them here into two categories for ease: public and private.  When I talk about disability I first consider whether my conversation is for general broadcast or personal interest. I can then more easily differentiate between what I feel the world needs to hear - disablism; or whether it is a private conversation in which I need to respect the privacy of lived experience and/or personal predicament. So for example, I'll talk about disabling barriers in training, however privately I'll talk with a known person or group about the experience of living with depression. These aren't hard and fast rules, or definitive categories. Equally, the boundaries are not clearly defined, but on the whole it's a rule of thumb that's as good as any.

For many the term ‘disabled’ has become positive and empowering, as it denotes the recognition of oppression and affiliation to a civil rights movement. Used as a verb - I am disabled by attitudes; he is disabled by systems, he faces disabling structures - it recognises disability as a social oppression - something external to the person. Significantly, it also acknowledges something that can be changed to further inclusion – through the inclusive practice of acknowledging and removing barriers.

Some people hold the view that ‘Disability’ is not a description of a personal characteristic. A disabled person is not a ‘person with a disability’ as the person does not own the disability in the way that you might be ‘a person with brown hair’. Consequently, some people understand that the opposite of ‘disabled’ is not ‘able-bodied’ or ‘abled’, but ‘non-disabled’ or ‘privileged'.  So for these people the use the word ‘disability’ describes the social reaction to difference. Disability is not banned or bad, but ‘impairment’ is used more mindfully to talk about medical conditions,  diagnosis or description of functioning where it is required – probably privately or with anonymity.  

Extending terminology about disability will help us all to talk with more certainty about:

- the disabled person - their skills, experience, qualifications and particular knowledge

-  disablism -  the barriers, negative attitudes and working practices faced by disabled people but not by their non-disabled colleagues within organisations, sectors or professions (eg fear, lack of awareness, avoidance, micro-aggression, stairs, complex or incomplete policies)

-     ableism – the misrepresentation or silencing in text; the documents, communications, accounts and wider storytelling of the organisation.

 -  impairment, condition, difference or functioning – private information, the disclosure of which is a disabled individual’s choice to disclose: the same is true for their identity as a disabled person

-   inclusive practice - an ongoing process of adjusting equitably to diversity.

 

It is all very good news, as addressing the prejudice, discrimination and inequality disabled workers face makes our world.

Understanding the critical difference between different terms allows the speaker/writer a choice to talk separately and clearly about:

·      a named individual => the person => bob

·      impairment => functioning => difference

·      disablism => institutional discrimination => structural barriers   

.      ableism =>  society’s inequality and injustice  => oppression

Some love the simplicity of these examples: 

Examples of Impairment	Quadriplegia Polio Cerebral palsy Blindness Depression Deafness
Examples of disablism	Buildings without ramps Poor health provision Bullying, name-calling Segregated education Workplaces without lifts

Disablism can be likened to racism, sexism, homophobia…. In the most simplistic way, one could say that the disabling effects of our culture is imposed on  disabled people. Their cumulative weight may be in addition to the pain, effort or predicament that may be caused by a disabled individual's difference. However, in the public sphere, everyone can do something about tackling disablism, whether we have an impairment or not. Allies, to my mind, denotes those who acknowledge the ideas of the Deaf and Disabled people's movement, D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations, and those keen to acknowledge the voice of disabled people who as a group have be silenced throughout the years. I often return to my introduction to an earlier definition: "Disability... the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary social organisation which takes little or no account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities". (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1976). Not because it's perfect, but because it began a conversation that changed meaning not just words.

 Using disability to mean impairment denies the complexity of both individual experiences AND  cultural injustice. The negative of unhelpful ideas relating to care and cure can do damage, when words often used in the media describe the lives of disabled people as worthless or incomplete. The way I read it there is so much confusion around terminology that sometimes we are too scared to talk about issues that affect us all.  Power is still in the hands of professionals, with  many non-disabled - doctors, educationalists and social workers - still insist on using politically correct - rather than appropriate - terminology. Research suggests political correctness  confuses issues, advocating terms such as physically challenged, visually challenged etc.  Such expressions detract from the real issue: who is being challenged here? Disabled people certainly do feel challenged by other people’s lack of tolerance and by the barriers that make it harder for them to participate. 

The nub of the issue does not concern ‘good’ or ‘bad’ words. Respectful language need not be either negative nor positive, in my opinion, it does needs to articulate an understanding of the oppression disabled people face - ableism - with enough clarity to make courageous conversations possible.

Do read more: Disability equality training