Ableism - Yorkshire Ambulance Service

With huge thanks to Yorkshire Ambulance Service for inviting me to talk to your trustees on matters of ableism. As ever 1000 words and 20 slides do not convey 2 hours of magical chaos that is a conversation! 

 

 It no longer comes as a surprise that there are contrasting views between those who have rarely had a need to think about disability, and those who have experienced the way their difference- or those of loved ones - has been dealt with by society. There’s a journey, many mention, in finding 'Disabled' a comfortable identity. Parents of disabled children willl tell you of the ongoing battles to education, health and support. The idea that non-disabled individuals, organisations, and institutions throw their doors open, or that paths to education, health, leisure, justice are clearly signed and barrier free is the stuff of fairytales. There’s no parallel world where disabled people are showered with riches, quite the opposite fighting  to have your needs met and human rights acknowledged, is a tedious battle.

 

A fair world

The words I hear most often is "I never knew what I needed to know". Many will say they’ve never had to think about what ‘disability’ means,  they been happy to assume the problem dealt with, that with laws and legislation have redressed inequality and injustice.  
  
When prodded initial responses are that disability a personal or a health issue, the remit of specialists and institutions, but not the matter of professional commitment or organisational duty. Thus ableism is rarely viewed as part of core purpose or the strategic conversation of boards addressing the societal impact of organisational activity.   Sadly, these beliefs often sit far deeper in our hearts, than in a our heads as thoughts. Therefore what is assumed is rarely challenged, leaving the stereotypes we don’t expose hidden so deep they can’t be contradicted. The landscape we live in, the culture around us - conversation, text  and media - informs our mindscape.as we bathe in words and images we rarely question.

 

Being nice is not trust 

Being nice does not equate to being trusted, when in text and conversation, what disabled people say is judged according to more established ideas. Hate crime literature is clear, the common response to "I have been harassed, abused or attacked" is "I doubt it was mean, you're joking!"  Disabled people get used to being challenged in ways colleagues, professionals, family members and close friends do not. 

 

I undertook my research, because as a trustee, I was continually baffled by the lack of reference to the voice of disabled people, D/deaf and Disabled People's Organisation’s or Disability Equality in strategic conversation. While the people around me were sometimes fluent in their ideas of feminism, they had no language to articulate the discrimination imposed on the disabled population.

 

Privilege

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘privilege’ as a right, advantage or immunity, belonging to person, class or office, giving that individual special advantage or benefit. Pease (2013) defines privilege as an unacknowledged position often left unarticulated or unchallenged. This unearned advantage, he suggests, limits people’s capacity to be reflexive in thought, and ultimately allies in the fight against disabled people’s oppression.  Privilege thus may be viewed as a coin: on the one (positive) side, situation affords control while on the opposite (negative) side it secures the very elitism that adds critical pressure to all layers of the social hierarchy.  This may help to explain why disabled people can be as ableist  when using their ability to secure authority over others [supremacy].

Able Privilege, is the unearned advantage of not facing ableism, the absence of the prejudice, discrimination and injustice weighing on the disabled population.  A position often left unarticulated and unchallenged.   Able-privilege is not about impairment/difference or identity, but about whether you face ableism on a daily basis. The privilege is to be able to never have to worry about your differences being a significant problem to others. Ableism, akin to racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, classism…. You don’t have to experience ableism to stand against it.

 

Equating to colour-blind, not acknowledging the prejudice, discrimination and systemic inequality the disabled population face means the issues linked to their human rights can be ignored. The continued battles for equal access to education, health, social justice, employment, leisure, family & community choices and participation. When people ignore that disabled individuals face substantial barriers then reasonable adjustments, fair treatment and pragmatic equality is more likely to be denied. 

 

Definitions

I  work to two definitions based on what I’ve read:

Ableism: a specific type of oppression, akin to homophobia, racism, classism, ageism, and sexism, held in the culture and language that inform society’s debates.

Anti-ableist: a defined position against ableism, the characteristic oppression that disabled people face - feminist or anti-racist.  Strategic ideas, for example, with an anti-ableist legitimacy involves explicit reference to the Disabled people’s movement and D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations as tellers in a storytelling that holds their interests at their heart.

 

I work as an anti-ableist, which means in seek in my practice, and my writing, to articulate an opposition to the ableism in the world around me. Notwithstanding the experience of individuals, and while allowing them choices of identity, I act to disrupt the institutional and societal narratives that perpetuate ableism. 

 

Tolerance is not acceptance

‘Nice people’, rather than anti-ableists, will be more likely to view their willingness  to tolerate disabled people as a good thing. Sadly, this does more to ‘other' those then only accepted on a conditional basis. This falls far too short of acknowledging the population of 1 in 10, 9 in 10 experience hate crime. Without a definition, there is no way of identifying the characteristic discrimination imposed on disabled people. If we don't speak about ableism, it doesn't exist, because it is not something we give time to - or that we acknowledge. 

 

Erasure

Disabled authors have gone to great efforts to define their experience, by doing so they encourage us to focus on the injustice they face.  Moving beyond issues of identity is critical, because while the predicament of impairment or difference and personal prejudice is significant, recognising experience does not go far enough to explain the startling figures that characterise the inequality the disabled population face. It is culture that is toxic, with ableism so pervasive many cannot put a word to, despite the harm it does it's and omnipresence. The negative ideas, however small add up, and the storytelling that surrounds us gently seeps negatively into our hearts.  In the same way that critical race theory has given us a language to articulate the structural racism people face, critical disability theory has led to a now growing terminology for the societal discrimination imposed on disabled people as a population.

 

Misrepresentation is most evident in the textual world, where a noticeable silencing acts to tell us that disabled people are untrustworthy. 
Disabled people are not recognised as authors, thereby denied a voice as writers of knowledge in documents that reinforce their marginalisation. 
Misrepresentation is most evident in the textual world, where a noticeable silencing acts to tell us that disabled people are untrustworthy. 
Disabled people are not recognised as authors, thereby denied a voice as writers of knowledge in documents that reinforce their marginalisation. 

 

Developing Alliship

Being an ally, in the anti-ableist sense, means developing a fluency around matters of group interest. See I'll always save a room for you!  Professional wisdom is a beautiful thing, especially when applied to working practice and workplace relationships. While not forgetting that identity and activism is hugely important, as they are the first step in acknowledging personal experience, the fight against injustice is also important. Therefore, an outward looking stance, on that faces different oppressions, frees us up to stand beside, not above or in front of, those most disadvantaged by them.  I stand against marginalisation, not because of my experience, but because denying alternative views adds insult to the experience of discrimination and inequality.

 

As an ally, I can voice my anger against racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, and help protect family and gender choice, without rejecting anybody’s personal experience. However, I will need to acknowledge the voices of other groups face in order to take a stand against different discriminations in turn. I can’t agree without others without understanding their perspective! My allyship as a sister, a friend, a colleague and a neighbour is in the action I take to minimise the harm that heads their way.

 

My do do list:

Years ago when I began delivering training I followed the methods of the day, giving professionals lists of ‘bad’ words to avoid. Sadly, when doing a piece of research on respectful language, I found out that professionals felt confused by this and afraid to talk to disabled professionals. I have also been confused by ‘don’t say’ lists in other subjects which left me fearful of conversations about racism, classism or homophobia.  In many conversations recently, several non-disabled professionals also said they feel they can’t talk about disability because they don’t know what to say and they haven’t experienced it. I do not experience racism, but I believe I’m part of the problem if I can’t articulate it adequately.

So this is my ‘do’ list, an attempt to respond to the comment “what can I say?

Do do list

Organisations  present as cultures that disable workers,  yet professionals need to feel able to participate fully – whether or not they have impairments themselves. To avoid the myths… a ‘do’ list responds to the comment “what can I say?!”

 

Do ask colleagues what they need to participate. Before a conversation about reasonable adjustments is possible, it is always a good idea to ask easier questions about flexible working. A question most professionals can answer allows disabled people the choice of whether to disclose – or not. 

Do talk about the size of the disabled population, stressing vast numbers, huge inequality, lack of visibility and wide variation. This helps contradict the assumption that disabled individuals are few and far between. A separate group to those people facing sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, family and partner choice.

Do highlight the discrimination imposed on disabled people. Articulate professional identity separately, because respecting choice helps us focus on addressing unfair disadvantage.

Do make the assumption that disabled people have fought, and that to be visible an individual will have probably overcome huge barriers to achieve the life goals many can take for granted, there’ll be many more with impairments that you will not notice. 

Do refer to D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations as the voice of the disabled population. Individual experience is just the first step, the bare minimum, you need to learn an articulation of institutional discrimination and systemic inequality people face.

Do refer to the societal and environmental aspects of discrimination – ableism – in the same way as you would have a speak in anti-racist or anti-sexist terms.

Do state often that organisational culture, and more broadly society, does not do enough to speak of the discrimination and inequality the disabled population are subject to – this failure to uphold human rights is ultimately a cost to all communities.

Do ask about identity, but allow individuals not to. This is far more respectful once a professional relationship has been established. Disabled individuals will have different words for experience, knowledge and wisdom on these issues – as do feminists. Allow for choice, and respect personal boundaries. Illness, impairment and difference, contrary to society’s storytelling, are private matters.

 

Disability Equality before awareness 

Seeking and responding to ‘lived experience’, is essential yet an unsatisfactory minimum, as it only addresses the prejudice and barriers at individual level. Furthermore, we can’t ask every labelled learner in turn what they understand by discrimination, without imposing on their time and generosity. We have to trust the voices those who have also gained research evidence and professional wisdom on these matters.  Disability equality give us frame, a language, like torchlight in the darkness, that highlights a specific sensitivity to ableism. As feminism gives us a sensitivity to sexism in the male gaze.  Through its lens, disability equality helps us question the ableism in ideology by highlighting misrepresentation in discourse.    The Disabled people's movement in the UK has used the term Disabled for many years.  Disabled, rather than people with disabilities, is used to emphasise the idea that Disabled people are disabled by the world rather than having a difference. Also, the oppression imposed on disabled people has a character. For many this can be viewed as a form testimonial silencing apparent in the telling of globe-local our stories. While storytelling may seem neutral, many authors, unwittingly, tend to focus on personal experience, and if trusted at all, use their own assumptions to replace the evidence or the working wisdom of academics and professionals identifying as disabled. For a growing number, therefore, using the term disabled, reflects a journey - a step into a movement. It is a choice to write, and co-author, on shared interest: speaking with activism and with intent to disrupt.

 

Disabled people themselves express as their interests - the story they tell. The civil rights movement, disabled people have organisations who tell a story of shared interest. The disability activist and scholar, Oliver, refers to alternative ways of questioning experience:

the medical model as asking the question: ‘What is wrong with you?’.

And, the social model as asking the question: “What is wrong with society?’

 

Accountability 

A definition of accountability, that refers to the character of discrimination, helps articulate and intentional intent within organisation purpose in everyday practice.    Suggested by Sinclair’s writings, the idea of a chameleon serves well as a metaphor for accountability. Because, as an animal that can change its colours to represent its surroundings, as the picture illustrates the beastie still manages to clearly display a response to discrimination  without changing its being.  An organisation wishing to represent its human rights imperative, can choose to state the interests of the disabled population within its accounts by making them explicitly within its storytelling, thereby still keeping its  integrity and purpose.  This implies its responsibility to also provide a trustworthy account of that dialogue. If the dialogue is skewed, the population is mis-represented, then those that are entitled to have a voice in the conversation are effectively silenced. The account is no longer proof of legitimacy, as it does not articulate equity, a shared decision about interests and fair participation in stewardship. 

 

A legitimacy gap 

A shorthand for lack-of-accountability, the gap is often a prejudiced response, a reaction to myth, rather that acknowledgement of voice.  The legitimacy gap refers to the amount organisational storytelling differs from interests [Disabled People's Organisation].

 

Leadership  teams who acknowledge the significance of disability equality can more ably respond in personal, organisational and public conversations by talking of barriers and injustice from an organisational perspective.  Pragmatic equality, or justice for disabled people, at the very least requires that discrimination does not add to the other injustices in the world. Another way of thinking about it might be to say that a world that is (pragmatically) equal in respect of disability should contain the same degree of inequality between disabled people as there is between non-disabled people (Wolff, 2011).