One of the problems with diversity training is encouraging people to interrogate their own disbelief in areas where they have limited experience. Evidence suggests most people don’t think that anyone would be unkind to a disabled individual for example. Yet, the figures for disability hate crimes are astonishingly high. Largely 8 out of 10 disabled people report incidents of crime in the past year, and most will say they have not been believed by others. Most participants on courses will leave a disability equality training session saying they did not know what they needed to know. Furthermore, where online measures are rolled out, the issue gets worse, because at best bad representation confirms the ideas of certain groups, at worse these also reinforce the reason for prejudice. This post seeks to shed light on five assumptions people make about the disabled population – largely without thinking.
This issue is aggravated by a lack of trust and recognition that what disabled people say is important. Many still say they’ve never met a disabled individual, and far more will admit to never having thought about disability as a serious part of their work. Books on the subject have mushroomed, with writers agreeing that the situation for disabled people is dire, as reasons are complex and deeply rooted in the way we live. There are a number of distortions[1] that broadly alter the way we talk about disability in conversation, in media and in society. This storytelling, often denies the experience of disabled individuals, the knowledge of disabled people’s groups and networks, and the interests disabled population far more widely.
Globe-local
The number of disabled people is large [1 or 2 in 10]. Some may have a visible difference, while many others don’t. While we may think about those using wheelchairs, only 1 in 10 people who could identify as Disabled, rely on a chair for a significant amount of time. Impairment, conditions, and differences vary, so looking into a crowd we may only a couple of people that we would think of as disabled people. It’s good practice, therefore, to describe the disabled population - as a group - as a ‘world majority’.
The other
Disabled people are often viewed as a separate group, not among the women, LGBTQ+, Black / people of colour, older, women more often perceived as distinct marginalised groups. Rather than being viewed as a group facing a named discrimination, ableism, disabled individuals, therefore, tend to be viewed as less able [sic]. Unfortunately, putting normal as the opposite, creating a polarisation between disabled people and everyone who isn’t. This tends to draw a line, identifying a some as lesser subgroups, rather than a substantial population denied human rights. Still today, disabled people struggle to access equal and fair opportunities in education, transport, employment, justice, family choice an leisure. An unearned privilege many fail to recognise. Barriers to the benefits of community life.
Cost to society
Disabled people as often seen as takers not givers, consumers not contributors, dependants not care-givers. Yet, for most disabled individuals relationships work both ways, with mutual support and exchange. As citizens disabled people would not doubt contribute as much to society if they didn’t face barriers in all manner of shared activities. No one is perfect, and diversity adds more to the pot than bland measures.
Societal impact, therefore, still so often viewed as an external cost, is the cost to society of not removing barriers to participation. It would be far more accurate to see good investment in access as a responsibility that secures a larger partnership in the first instance in business, but more widely in association and leisure because it is the only right thing to do.
Illness and institutional practice
For many illness and disability are used interchangeably. Seen as a problem to be cured it becomes both a personal issue and largely someone else’s. Where practice cannot, or will not, change disabled people are sent elsewhere.
Personal boundaries
With disclosure, the disabled individual often runs the risk of a specific type of prejudice that sees their personal- sometimes private – experience become the property of others. Face to face people are asked questions, to divulge medical information, personal lifestyle, or medication for example, that would not seem ok to others. Yet the discrimination imposed on the disabled population can be rejected as inaccurate, complex or overwhelmingly PC.
We are not aware that these ideas litter our thoughts, conversations and a multitude of documents. It is not so much the lies that we swallow, but the air time not spent highlighting how damaging they cost. When made aware, I’m sure, most of us would equate this institutional and social injustice to sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, and religious intolerance as discrimination. The reason we don’t is that we still see disability as illness, a rare inconvenience to be cured or managed. Few can articulate ableism as the omnipresent and toxic issue it is, affecting most families, neighbourhoods and communities.
Left unchallenged, it is these myths that sit under the many stereotypes which cause prejudice. Our negative attitude can be understood as a reaction to the myth – not the individual. But an unwillingness to acknowledge the misrepresentation only serves those who cite them as justifications for not including disabled people. The good news is that once articulated, ableism is more easily recognised and understood, and can be avoided.
[1] Chapman, 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment