Our Story. But who's words?

In my last blog I talked about the way disabled people’s interests are largely ignored in many  conversations. Conversations of global scale that can affect the disabled population more negatively than most. Furthermore, the lack of trust placed in disabled people as storytellers also means that they are written about in ways that deny their experience, their control, and the alternative ideas they might be trying to share.  My aim here to describe the way disabled people are miss-represented in tales by tellers. The character of the distortion that impacts on Disabled people as storytellers. Myths that contribute to a failure to speak up for Human Rights, thus being legitimately accountable for ending a deepening ‘crisis’ in the UK. I do not use the word crisis lightly, never has its meaning been more apt in terms of world events. As Klein puts it:

Slavery wasn't crisis for British and American elites until abolitionism turned it into one. Racial discrimination wasn't a crisis until the civil rights movement turned it into one. Sex discrimination wasn't a crisis until feminism turned it into one. Apartheid wasn't a crisis until the anti-apartheid movement turned it into one. (Klein, 2014, loc 190)

 

As stated by Deaf and Disabled People's Organisations there has been a failure to uphold the  most basic entitlement to safety. Since 2017, what has been described as a ‘social catastrophe’ by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities UN envoy, has proved a damning call against Westminster. Devolved parliaments acted more robustly to uphold the rights of their citizens. However, the voice of Disabled people has found a place on social networks, and seems to have gained strength over the last 6 years.

 

With the last blog in mind, I wanted to share a little about how conversations are distorted. More specifically the way the privilege and power of storytelling distorts the tales presented in much public writing. I see language as an articulation of power, so put simply the more something is talked about the more real it becomes as an idea. This helped me to explore at how storytelling presented a view of Disabled people, which I found largely did not match up to individual experience or group interest. Currently these distortion seem invisible to many, so making them explicit is in itself an act of disruption.

 

I organised my exploration on 5 levels, five tiers of harm, that help articulate the layered nature of disablism [a subject I have discussed previously]. Following a hunch, I’d noticed that where feminism and anti-racist theory, for example, have provided words for institutional discrimination and global inequality, equivalent words have not migrated to ordinary conversations about disability issues.  The following explores how many talk about Disability rights without legitimacy, in conversations that shape worldwide debates, discourses, conversation, and personal interaction that impact negatively on Disabled people. Together they set the stage − the societal landscape − revealing the patterns in shared culture that go on to mould the many accounts in all the tellings of history.

 

Individual stories

Given that the experience of Disabled people urgently needs to be understood as a minimum when considering matters of inclusive practice, I find it odd how pens redraft words and reshape tales. For Disabled writers it doesn’t suffice to author in an authentic voice, word count conditional, with pages given to those who do it nicely.  Personal experience seems to be accepted, and retold, if the author sticks within the stereotype of ‘plucky’, ‘cheerful’ ‘courageous’ – positively triumphant over personal circumstance. It’s an obvious storyline in many films, plays and books. If you can’t be cured, at least be cheerful and grateful things aren’t worst!? This often self-imposed censorship no doubt influences the choice of who is deemed deserving to be published. Ignored are those truthful pen pushers who speak of rage, anger, and revolt. Let alone systemic and societal complexities, the unreliable authors easily edited out. I am guessing the paid gatekeepers are drawn towards those who inspire, and do so by adhering to society’s expectations. You can speak out, in acceptable way and by colluding with the unsaid, rules set out in elitist spaces. Which leaves activists hunting for alternative podiums, like those the internet now offers for free.

 

Groups and privilege 

Few representations speak of Disabled people as a sizeable group, a population in receipt of a discrimination of specific character – ableism. Writers on many subjects seem reluctant to seek the Disabled People’s Movement for reference -  an articulation of community ideas and political strength. While many pens refer to Women’s Rights, Gay Pride Or Black Lives Matter movements, even where definitions vary leadership is identified – even if ideas are not agreed on. But when it comes to disability many will admit to never having thought of looking. This is most noticeable in texts where the writer chooses to [re]invent a story about Disabled people rather than use a search engine or consult Wikipedia. After changes in legislation, for example, it’s frightening how many words substituted in guidance just, but they do little to address systemic discrimination by altering the meaning of the text. Yet, without trusting the words of self-representation or the ideas of group interests, how can words be written without the abuse of individual power and group privilege. 

 

Working mindsets and institutional terminology 

Within the forests of texts devoted to professional development, and across academic disciplines, disability is rarely mentioned with reference to Disability Studies. Occasionally the word ‘disability’ is added to a list, sometimes with reference to Equality & Diversity, but the application of theory to subsequent subject matter lacks rigour. I wouldn't say that gender studies or critical race theory helped spell out feminism and racism in ordinary conversation, but over time I think terminology crosses boundaries. To date Jo Wolff’s chapter about disability in Ethics and Public Policy: A Philosophical Inquiry, is one of few examples I can find that seems to articulate an acknowledgement to the Disabled people’s movement, providing an account that acknowledges the storytelling and tellers of the disability movement. In worst examples, I found that some writers while quoting disabled authors attributed different meaning to the words they referenced. In terms of legitimacy – null points!

 

National debates 

While it’s fair to say a growing number of texts now stand against the hardship imposed on the disabled population in the past decade by an austerity narrative. These are no doubt dismissed by many paid writers as individuals railing against the system. Well that is until you look at the numbers more closely. Some have highlighted a distinct change in framing.  Where ‘disadvantage’ is not articulated as inequality / injustice, but as othering those hardest to hear. A story of individual failure that plays into a wider tale about the feckless and the work-shy. A story that  Duncan Smith once told as one of a broken society within which individuals are responsible for poor choices. His perspective is his only truth, as his 2010 speech declares: ‘…driven by the stark reality of what I’ve encountered. As I travelled to many of Britain’s poorest communities I concluded that tackling poverty had to be about much more than handing out money. It was bigger than that. I could see we were dealing with a part of society that had become detached from the rest of us’ (Wiggan, 2012, p. 388).

 

 

Global injustice and unsustainably 

Finally, in a tale that does not make it to the front pages, evidence suggest the impact of unfettered growth on communities and ecosystems alike is huge. In the UK we’re very good at evading demands for equity on the justification of growth and its cost; this seems to further silence the matter of the legacy of colonialism and the exploitation of economic dominance. Where our demands for cheap and plentiful food leaves producing countries to deal with poverty and illnesses this causes. Not only is the experience of impairment dismissed in global debates, but privilege is justified on the grounds of increasing luxury that is neither needed where the want for it is an affliction of affluence. While UN envoys call for redress in terms of disabled people’s Human Rights, the papers clearly have Disabled people down as victims or sinners. Not a great choice, you’ll admit.

 

Looking back, the results of this analysis should not have been surprising. However, as I shared recently, I was taken aback by the stark absence of what I had expected to find as a ‘paper trail’.  Once identified the distortions helped me gather an impression of language in everyday conversation, this in turn helped me explain how and why the culture in certain places was more or less likely to harm the disabled individuals within them. 

 

 

THE ACADEMIC BIT:

While the number of texts analysed can be argued as modest, what surprised me was how quickly I acquired a sensitivity to each distortion. I use sensitivity, as I would to describe a well calibrated instrument, to imply that subjectivity can be developed where needed. The trick, I found, was to try and read under the words, determining meaning not word use or spelling. I fast began to notice that texts that did deal with disability were skewed, mostly illness and impairment were conflated, disability studies were ignored and individual stories were stylised. Having set out to find a distinctive voice and evidence of interaction with networks of disabled individuals, it proved far more difficult than I had anticipated.  There are very few texts published before the 1950s that tell of the personal and working experience of disabled people. Probably because less than three decades ago disabled people were all but invisible on the streets (Berghs, Atkin, Graham, Hatton, & Thomas, 2017). Disabled people had few personal stories in the public domain, and largely they lived in institutions or behind the closed doors of private homes (Humphries & Gordon, 1992). A recursive loop has seen a shift backwards in public consciousness over the last decade (Goodley, 2014), in a culture shift where disabled people are subject to daily attacks and amid far wider vilification (Quarmby, 2011), hate and harassment – [Getting Away with Murder report, 2008]. Even the most minor omissions and micro-aggressions are poisonous as they add up in a myriad ways to harm those exposed to them daily. These can include physical proximity, denial of gender, infantilisation, ridicule, disregard and banalisation. Easily dismissed by some as caring, teasing or friendly, this is clearly not how non-disabled people are treated according to those with an ableist sensitivity. As bloggers remark, the subtle messages communicated by these careless acts are negative and condescending (Lu, 2016). No doubt the product of bias, they are untypical in ordinary everyday exchanges, they are the very personal end of a more indistinct yet sizeable wedge driving hate crime (Quarmby, 2011). This wedge, when lodged deep in the spleen, is neither recognisable nor understood as a multi-layered juggernaut by those who cannot articulate it. 

 

#blogoff #HumanRights #legitimateAccountability #PhudBingo 

 

 

Bibliography

Berghs, M., Atkin, K., Graham, H., Hatton, C., & Thomas, C. (2017, 6 24). Public health, research and rights: the perspectives of deliberation panels with politically and socially active disabled people. Disability & Society, pp. 945-965.

Broach, S. (2018, 2 12). Rights in Reality. Retrieved 10 18, 2018, from Mendip House Not Safeguardin: https://rightsinreality.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/mendip-house-not-safeguarding-failures-but-rights-violations/https://rightsinreality.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/mendip-house-not-safeguarding-failures-but-rights-violations/

Brown, & Leigh. (2018). Ableism in academia: where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society, 33(6), 985-989.

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2018). How is the UK performing on disability rights? The UN’s recommendations for the UK. Equality and Human Rights Commission. EHRC.

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (April 2017). Being disabled in Britain - A journey less equal. Equality and Human Rights Commission. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Frame Works. (2016). How to Talk About Disability and Human Rights. Frame Works. Washington: Frame Works.

Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability Studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. London: Routlege.

Humphries, S., & Gordon, P. (1992). Out of Sight; The experience of disability 1900-1950. Plymouth: Channel Four.

Liddiard, K. (2018, 9 4). Rethinking Disability: Emmerdale. Retrieved 11 10, 2018, from Society Matters: https://medium.com/society-matters/rethinking-disability-emmerdale-a204a48094a

Lu, W. (2016, 10). 13 Microaggressions People With Disabilities Face On A Daily Basis. Retrieved 10 22, 2017, from Bustle: https://www.bustle.com/articles/186060-13-microaggressions-people-with-disabilities-face-on-a-daily-basis

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. Palgrave McMillan.

Manji, K. (2018). ‘It was clear from the start that [SDS] was about a cost cutting agenda.’ Exploring disabled people’s early experiences of the introduction of Self- Directed Support in Scotland. Disability & Society, 1-21.

Morris, J. (2001). Impairment and Disability: Constructing an Ethics of Care That Promotes Human Rights. Hypathia, 16(4), 1-16.

Mouffe, C. (2014). Democracy, human rights and cosmopolitanism: an agonistic approach. In C. Douzinas & C. Gearty (Eds.), The Meanings of Rights: The Philosophy and Social Theory of Human Rights (pp. 181-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'Hara, M. (2017, aug 15). Liz Sayce: ‘The UK thinks it is a leader in disability rights. But it has a long way to go’. Retrieved 10 30, 2017, from The Gardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/15/disability-rights-uk-not-doing-enough?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Priestly, M. (2003). Disability, A Life Course Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Quarmby, K. (2011). Scapegoat [Kindle Edition]. London: Portobello Books Ltd.

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Abingdon: Routledge.

Thompson, N. (2007). Power and Empowerment. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

Wolff, J. (2011). Ethics and public policy: a philosophical inquiry. Oxon: Routledge.