London 2012, Redefining Disability And The Abandonment Of The Social Model

During the Paralympics ‘Disability’ was the word on everybody’s lips. However, whilst attention was transfixed on Disabled athletes from all over the world, the term ‘Disabled’ was being rejected, denied and redefined everywhere you looked.

While listening to BBC 5Live’s coverage of the games I heard a Paralympic swimmer talking about his work going into schools, talking to children and challenging perceptions.  He reported that he would regularly ask the kids who was more Disabled, them or him, when swimming.  His point was that he was a much better swimmer than them, even though he is Disabled and they are not.  His message that we all have different abilities in certain situations is hard to disagree with.  However his choice to challenge the whole definition of what is Disabled is something that concerns me.

However, this is not just a product of a poor athlete caught a bit on the hop by a radio presenter, looking at him with big wide eyes, waiting for him to say something profound about only having one leg (insert your favourite impairment here).  No, Philip Craven the President of the International Paralympic Committee appears to have a major problem with the term ‘Disabled’.  So much so that he publicly campaigned for the word to be totally absent from any of the games’ coverage.  In the London Evening Standard of 17^th April 2012 he is quoted as saying:

“The term disability is something I don’t like. The use of the D word collects together some mythical group and marginalises them. We have to recognise that everybody is an individual. It doesn’t matter if you use legs and I use wheels”.

This is an outrageous and offensive statement to me as a Disabled person who has grown up with a shared experience with other Disabled people of a world that, despite Oscar Pistorius running very very fast, still discriminates against us.  It was not a mythical group that I drew strength from when wrestling with my identity in my teenage years.  Nor mythical were the pro-active members of the group that united together to campaign for the rights that Disabled people enjoy today.  The word ‘Disabled’ does not marginalise us, a society that is unwilling to adapt to difference is what marginalises us.  A society which, however, is continuously improving and becoming more accepting must also be more confused than ever over what is acceptable language to describe people like Sir Philip Craven and me.  We learn from Craven in this next quote that he does not seem to gain as much as I do from being united, with others, by the experience of being disabled. 

“Don’t use terminology that gives a negative impression. If you need to talk about the blind, visually impaired, deaf or wheelchair users, no problem at all. What the blind person needs is completely different. What the deaf person needs is completely different. So get rid of that D word.” (London Evening Standard April 2012)

This is a mind-boggling statement, considering that Craven is the President of the organisation that oversees the running of the Paralympic Games which requires elite athletes to be Disabled in order to qualify to compete.

One of Craven’s main reasons for disliking the word is that in other contexts ‘Disabled’ means broken or inactive.  The word ‘Black’ has similar negative linguistic baggage when used in some contexts however Black people, instead of rejecting it, own the word and have redefined it as positive when describing their community.  So too I propose Disabled people are self-confident enough to accept that language moves forward and definitions change within society.                  

A major redefinition of the terms ‘Disabled’ and ‘Disability’ was indeed attempted, but as a recognition of unity, inspired by the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960’s.  In 1975 the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) sought to establish that the reaction to disabled people by others, was in fact the disabling factor in their lives rather than their impaired bodies.

"In our view it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society." (UPIAS, 1975).

This approach was later termed ‘The Social Model of Disability’ and actually redefines Disability as being in a position where the society around you excludes you on the grounds of your impairment.  International law, UK anti-discriminatory legislation and Disabled academic studies all use the definitions that The Social Model outline.  In this way, even if you are being introduced to The Social Model for the first time reading this, it has revolutionised the way we all view Disability.  However, the definition of ‘impairment’, the physical condition, and ‘Disability’, the barriers erected in the path of those that have impairment, have not been assimilated into everyday usage.  Moreover when Paralympians suggest they’re not disabled in a pool due to their excellence in swimming it would seem that by implication they are defining being Disabled as being useless.                     

The misguided simplification of the term was evident in a debate on Newsnight, August 30th 2012 -the eve of the Paralympics, where comedian Francesca Martinez claimed boldly that we all, referring to the entire population, have disabilities.  The general gist of what Francesca argued was that everybody has things that they are not so good at. I would suggest that terming things that people are not adept at as ‘disabilities’ is tremendously unhelpful.  Francesca has cerebral palsy but rejects the label preferring infuriatingly to refer to herself as “wobbly”. 

The idea that individual Disabled people can play fast and loose with definitions because the label partly describes themselves, ignores the lengths we have come in terms of Disabled rights.  It is united under the label ‘Disabled people’, which describes our oppression as well as our physical state, that we have been recognised - if very limitedly - as a group with things to offer to society and in a roundabout way has allowed Francesca Martinez to be speaking on Newsnight in the first place.  In claiming that everybody has disabilities Martinez is denying the power and sense of solidarity that a lot of Disabled people feel. This is ironically similar, in result, to Philip Craven’s notion that the word ‘Disabled’ should be phased out.              

I am left bemused by the disowning or neutralising of the label Disabled to different extents by differing good swimmers, comedians and Presidents of sporting organisations. It would seem to me that saying that Disabled people are individuals and share limitless aspirations and opinions with their non-disabled peers is different from saying that Disabled people do not exist.

The three examples above of statements that question in different ways whether the concept of Disabled people is still relevant in 2012 are drastically missing the point.  Moreover they are totally abandoning not only the admittedly abstract notion of the Social Model but also the actual gains the Disabled Rights Movement have achieved by applying it.  As we Disabled people slowly but surely gain more of a voice within British society we cannot use it to deny that we ever existed in the first place.  Disabled people are diverse in politics, ethnicity, economic background and personality as well as endless other things, but we are united under a label. 

I think the word ‘Disabled’ is being subtly redefined all the time.  So when people encounter Disabled people in their everyday life, which happens constantly without the universe melting into an organic sludge, those individuals come to their own conclusion that the term ‘Disabled’ can mean many things all at once.  Which I think is really what Sir Philip Craven, Francesca Martinez and the Paralympian who goes into schools were driving at when they made their various statements about the word ‘Disabled’.  The world is realising that disability encapsulates a broad spectrum of people and experience. I’m not sure whether this control-freakery about what disability means is helping but I’m definite that making confusing statements about terminology will only lead to a stereotype of a group of people who are pedantic about language. 

 

 

The Paralympics : A celebration of elite sport but also a false dawn.

As I watched David Weir come home for Gold in the 1500m last week from the Disabled seating in the Olympic stadium, I got carried away.  I thought that Disabled sport had finally come home to the recognition of the British public and certainly the record ticket sales and Channel Four’s superb unprecedented coverage suggest this is so.  However, I seemed to be not the only one carried away downstream by this rush of enthusiasm.

The Paralympics seemed to have contracted the obsession with legacy from its bigger well known cousin the Olympics.  As we were all glued to the sport on Channel 4 other media outlets, particularly the BBC, seemed to be trying to compensate by tackling what they deemed to be the single generic topic labelled ‘Disability’. 

The discussion of legacy of the Paralympics seems to be different from that of the Olympics which was excellently foreseen by the comic premonition of the BBC sitcom Twenty Twelve.  In the case of the Paralympics the media debate is not obsessed with the legacy of Disabled sport and increasing participation, but instead is overly concerned with the long-lasting effects of the games on the lives of Disabled people in the UK. 

Even as events got underway on the first day of competition, Thursday 30^th August, BBC Radio 5Live had a phone-in that asked if the Paralympics would change attitudes to Disabled people.  Immediately detracting away from the elite sport and burdening the event with a massive emphasis on possible social change that supposedly might have occurred at the end of the eleven days.

One of the first callers to 5Live on that opening day was a lady, whose Disabled daughter’s co-worker said to their boss that he would no longer hold open the door to the accessible toilet for her. Although, the case might seem shockingly petty my question is this – Was the Paralympics a serious sporting event or an opportunity for a lazy if well-intentioned rebalancing of things by the media? A media guilty for years of misrepresenting Disabled people and their vast diversity of experience.  I personally don’t see any connection between David Weir, starting out on a gruelling Paralympic campaign, and some non-disabled person not holding open a door for his Disabled work colleague in some random office.  Nor do I think Weir’s amazing four gold medals that we witnessed in the eleven days that followed, will make any difference to the non-disabled office worker in the toilet door controversy. 

It seems to me that asking the question will the Paralympics improve the lives of Disabled people is like posing the question will Mo Farah’s Olympic double reduce the rate of racist attacks in the street? 

If a member of a social minority achieves sporting greatness emancipation for every other member of that minority, with their differing education, economic prospects and personalities, does not necessarily follow.  However, this blatantly obvious point is not my main concern.  I instead suggest that the media posing such an ill-thought out question is a major problem. 

Another caller to 5Live who was visually impaired since birth claimed that a lot of Disabled people had a “woe is me attitude” and therefore didn’t help themselves. I yet again sat there listening wondering what on earth that had to do with the Paralympics.  Mind you I am aware that the Disabled population of the world is vast and while some are elite athletes, some may well be drowning in a thick pea soup of self-pity while millions may not conform to either of the above. This attempt to define both how ‘Disabled people’ are treated and how they behave is an extreme exercise in reductionism.

On the night of the opening ceremony Newsnight asked exactly the same question to a panel of Disabled people, as it happened all women. The panel was made up by comedian Francesca Martinez, actress and model Shannon Murray, ex-Paralympic basketball player …with VT contributions from the broadcaster Liz Carr and Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson. The conversation lead by Kirsty Wark soon veered quickly from sport, with only a cursory mention of the Paralympics, into the ever increasingly clichéd topic of the way Disabled people are treated by the general public; before turning sharply again to touch on government cuts to services, and finally flirting quickly with disability hate crime. It was for all the world like the producers on Newsnight said to themselves “Ah while we’ve got the ramps set up we might as well pack in a few issues we wouldn’t normally cover”.

The way government cuts will affect Disabled people is an important and complex debate, which no doubt needs to be aired, as does the very concerning rise in Disabled hate crime. However again I ask the question what on earth do these issues have to do with the opening of the 2012 Paralympic games. When they awkwardly seguewayed between the debates Newsnight showed contempt for the very serious separate issues they tried to cram in, but also contempt for the second largest multi sport event in the world. The array of Disabled comedians and actors making up the panel no doubt had very valuable personal experiences of disability, but surely they weren’t all experts in the field of benefits or Disabled hate crime. Although on the VTs Dame Tanni Grey Thompson and Liz Carr made considered comments about the possible cultural impact of the Paralympics, these too were lost within the noise of the general meandering vague debate about everything ‘Disabled’.

These examples of BBC programmes echoed statements from David Cameron just before the closing ceremony, and other dignitaries that the games had changed the perception of Disabled people. The news media and the political elite make these statements like they have no control over the generalised stereotypes that exist in the public consciousness. In this way the meaning makers of our society wash their hands of the great power and influence they have over the national agenda and place the job of more accurate representation in the lap of the Paralympics. As if the knowledge that some amputees can sprint at incredible speeds, will be the sudden wake up call for the public to identify and work to eradicate inequalities that various Disabled people face.

The reality is that Disabled people and non-disabled people have lived, worked and have been in relationships together for decades. The narrative that Weir’s, Simmonds’ and Peacock’s great sporting achievements, have somehow introduced for the first time the idea that Disabled people are actually real human beings is absurd. Even before we were all gripped by the wheelchair rugby and sitting volleyball, non-disabled people had encountered Disabled people every day and there was not always an unbearable awkwardness between the two parties.

The Paralympics may have shifted somewhat the balance of media imagery away from the portrayal of tragic victims for a while, however the inequalities that Disabled people suffer, are deeply entrenched within our society’s institutions, language, and culture. These inequalities affect Disabled people differently to varying degrees and have been re-enforced by years of behaviour. Therefore the concept of “attitudes to Disabled people” is not a fixed phenomenon and makes the question of  the Paralympics changing “attitudes” a ridiculous one.       

          
         Personally my favourite misguided quote that came from this constant murmur intent on attributing greater social importance to the games was from a Paralympian herself.  Unfortunately, I didn’t catch the name of this sage but she said on 5Live that she had seen a lot of Disabled spectators at the Olympic Park and this was great because they could see what it was possible to achieve.  Now I attended three separate Paralympic events, and I am indeed disabled, however I was well aware of my potential to achieve many things in my life before visiting Stratford and cannot report that a great revelation came to me while sitting in the Aquatics Centre.
        
          I loved the Paralympics, it was great sport and great entertainment, but not some great instrument of social change.  Sadly things are just a touch more complex than that however much the media and politicians may suggest otherwise. The 2012 Paralympic Games were a great success, maybe Disability Sport has come home, certainly they were a gripping final instalment of our great British summer of sport.