Language and Disabled people's movement

The Disabled people's movement in the UK has used the term Disabled for many years. It was chosen to emphasise the idea that disability can be defined as impairment, a characteristic discrimination, and a problem in society. The 'and' is really important, I think, because disability is already used to mean so much. While aspects of a layered definition may appear confusing at first, once considered, the addition of a defined 'ism' to something viewed solely as a personal predicament helps make other deeply rooted issues more visible. Furthermore, when language is used to express the interests of a large group, a global population, it has power. It adds to - rather than dismisses - what is often seen as an individual’s problem. 

Group strength

This is a UK perspective, it recognises that ‘people with disabilities’ is used in other European countries and the US, and ‘people with disability’ is used in Australia. However using 'Disabled' in the UK helps articulate specific barriers in the environment and a type of injustice created by culture, and that disability is not simply about an individual’s impairment, personal difference, or physical deficit.  

Using Disabled as a verb also aligns with disability theory, which is often referred to as the Medical Model and Social Model of disability. Because, the problem is imposed on the Disabled population, they don't have it. In addition, as a self-referencing term, being Disabled refers to the knowledge and activism of those putting the ideas of Disability Studies and Disability Equality into practice.  Its use does not mean that all Disabled people need to agree or sign up, rather it indicates a group for whom culture may impose problems. Within the Disabled people's movement, as within other civil rights groups [say the Feminist movement], there are radicals, moderates, and non-subscribers! 

 

As part of my Ph.D. research, I read over 3000 journal abstracts on ‘disability’. I then used personal experience, disability equality theory, and professional wisdom to analyse these texts. And despite a growing amount of documents representing the interests of the Disabled population, largely most did not. Examining those that didn't enabled me to identify key themes used by storytellers to misrepresent Disabled people in storytelling. I found that I began to feel whether the articles reflected a shared direction, a group voice, and whether writers described the ideas of the Disabled people's movement. It was not so much the words writers used, but the meaning they conveyed that I was interested in. Even where I felt writers struggled with their wording, I could see how they sought to put a recognisable representation of political interest into words. 

 

For many the term ‘Disabled’ has become positive and empowering, as it denotes the recognition of a protected characteristic (discrimination) or named oppression (ableism). Furthermore, when the ‘d’ of disabled is capitalised it represents a  political choice - a fight for civil rights and justice. As it can be used to convey resistance - I am disabled by attitudes; he is disabled by systems, he faces disabling structures - again these imply that being disabled is something external to the person. Significantly this perspective aligns with anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, or anti-racist views of inclusive practice, where institutional and societal ableism is everyone's responsibility. The vision of an equitable world strategic aim that requires both the acknowledgment of ablism within organisations and across institutions, with an articulation against the ableism in society’s storytelling more widely.

 

As an equivalent term to feminist, ‘anti-ableists’ are those who hold the view that ‘disability’ is not a description or a personal characteristic. A Disabled person is not a ‘person with an impairment necessarily, as the person does not have a disability, in the way that you might be ‘a person with brown hair’. Consequently, some articulate that the opposite of ‘disabled’ is not ‘able-bodied’ or ‘abled’, but ‘non-disabled’ or having ‘able privilege'.  For those working in Deaf and Disabled People's Organisations, for example, the use of the word Disabled is shorthand for a political voice and shared interests. Disability is not to be banned, equally ‘impairment’ is ok, but needs to be used with nuance to talk about medical conditions, diagnosis, or description of functioning – probably in a more private conversation in order to respect individuality and anonymity.  

 

Finally, the wording has significance for empowerment, particularly for those wishing to work within the legislation in the public roles. Understanding the critical difference between these different terms allows responsibility to choose to talk separately and clearly about:

 

·    a named individual => the person => bob

·    difference or impairment => diagnosis  

·    disablism => the character of organisational terminology and professional mindset

·    ablism => society’s barriers & lack of privilege => oppression 

 

Used in a sentence for example:  

 

Fred Brown (the person) is a man with cerebral palsy (the impairment). When the barriers and discrimination in organisations  (disablism) and oppression in society (ableism) that weigh on Fred have been removed, Fred will no longer be disabled, but he will still have an impairment and be called Fred. (Author unknown)

 

Disablism, then, can be likened to racism, sexism, and homophobia…. In the most simplistic way, one could say that the disabling effects of society imposed on Disabled people are in addition to the possible problems that may be caused by their impairments.  The critical implication of changing words, is specifically important in public, because it spells out that everyone can do something about naming ablism, whether they have an impairment or not. Being an ally needs to denote legitimacy, an acknowledgment of stories - the Disabled people's movement – the voices of many whose storytelling is often misrepresented because it is deemed untrustworthy.

 

Many Disabled people have felt empowered by the ideas, culture and language of the Disabled people's movement. As used by D/deaf & Disabled People's Organisations in an articulation of strength that speaks of trust and respect, the self-representation of Disabled people as authors in storytelling.

 

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

Anti-ableist: a defined position against ableism, a named oppression that disabled people face specifically – like feminist or anti-racist.

Disablism: a specific type of oppression leveled directly at disabled people, much like misogyny or religious hate speech, that operates in a community of practice within and across organisational boundaries. 

 

This piece has been re-written to convey the understanding I gained from recent research. Therefore, I thank those who joyfully gave time to answer my questions: without them, there would be no words.