Pride for Prejudice? An interrogation of Tom Shakespeare’s beliefs around disability identity.
‘The goal of disability politics should be to make impairment and disability irrelevant were possible, not to seek out and celebrate a separatist notion of disability pride based on an ethnic conception of disability identity’ (Shakespeare 2006, p.82)
To modern disability studies theorists and activists, identity politics have become a recurring theme within the conversation on how the social model can be fully realised. People with an impairment have historically been stigmatised, often excluding them from the conversation but this has shifted since the emergence of disability politics. In recent years, there has been a demand for studies exploring disability through the lived experiences of those with impairment. Shakespeare in this quote is separating disability and impairment, claiming that the goal of disability politics should be to establish a world where impairment does not affect people’s lives and that the emergence of disability identity is not a desirable outcome. Essentially that people with impairment should not be striving to set themselves apart as disabled but becoming part of the wider community. When referring to an ethnic conception of disability, Shakespeare is referring to a disability identity like that of feminism or race identity, fostering a culture and pride around that identity. Here I aim to examine the aspects of Shakespeare’s claim and to what extent I believe he is right. I will do this by exploring the statement within the context of the medical and social models of disability, through the interaction government policy and societal construction has with the experience of disability and finally the way that the disability movement has established a disability identity.
In the past, disability was viewed mainly as a concern of medicine, a dysfunction of the mind or body that needed to be treated by medical professionals to fix what is ‘broken’. This attitude was widespread, stigmatizing disability, leading to the marginalisation of many people with impairments as they were seen as victims of tragedy. The view of disability that depended on focusing on the medical deficits of mind and body is known as the medical model. As this model looks for the medical difference, the stigma of the “abomination of the body”, it separates out people with disability and stigmatises it. This stigma carried through all walks of life, such as in academia where disability studies has had a strained relationship with sociologists, as many sociology theorists saw disability studies as purely an offshoot of medical sociology – again linking it mainly to the medical aspect of disability. If looking at Shakespeare’s quote through the lens of the medical model it highlights the negative aspects of the medical approach – it is the separation of those with disability that has caused the stigma and lead to the marginalisation of people with impairments and so it would make sense to strive to make disability irrelevant in order to regain equality. In this way, it shows the benefits of his belief to reduce this separation of people with disability from a wider identity.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the dominance of the medical model began to diminish, and in its place a different model built on the perspectives of people with impairments started to lead the conversation on disability. The social model focuses on how structures of society are built in a way that can be limiting to people with impairment, as opposed to focusing on the impairment itself. Goodley explains disability through the social model as something constructed by society, and that a person with an impairment is only as disabled as a disabling society makes them. When looking at Shakespeare’s claim in the context of this model it would seem that the aim of disability politics is in fact to make disability irrelevant, as it is the construction of society that is the disabling force and not the individual’s difference. This can be seen in practice where some people with impairment who subscribe to this model do not label themselves as disabled. They reject this phrase and prefer to use ‘person with impairment’ or ascribe themselves to the label of ‘normal’, believing that their medical status is unimportant providing they can engage in society as much or more as someone without an impairment. This integration into communities shows how disability can become irrelevant for some people, as Shakespeare suggests, if they can gain equal access to society as someone without impairment. There is more evidence to support Shakespeare’s claim from the early years of the social model. Some would argue that the beginning of the politicisation of disability started with the establishment of the group UPIAS (Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation) and The Disability Alliance who came together in the 1970s to produce the publication ‘the Fundamental Principles of Disability’. This book spoke of the societal barriers to people with impairment, stating, "Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.”. As Shakespeare’s claim, the focus at this point was on the disabling factors in society, not on people’s impairments and this forged the way for the beginning of the disability movement.
By looking at the models of disability and the beginning of the disability movement, we can see some of the reasoning that Shakespeare is grounding his statement on. However, I believe that if we look at the reality of society and policy and its impact on people with impairment that we can see that this statement is not as clearly agreeable. The social model was borne out of the discrimination that people with impairment were suffering in a world that saw them mainly through a medical lens and although the social model seeks to treat disability as irrelevant, it cannot do that without first highlighting the barriers to those with difference. Government policy has disproportionately affected people with disability throughout history, whether this be because of intentional discrimination caused by bias towards impairment or because of ignoring and misunderstanding the needs of people with impairment. To fully include people with impairment in society, policy must not produce barriers to their participation, and to do this policy makers cannot ignore that difference. Paying attention to the experience of disability can teach us many lessons about our culture and as explained by when society does this it can result in a considerable impact on people with impairment’s lives. Policy changes that have come into force that have positively affected the lives of people with impairment such as the Convention of rights for Peoples with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Equalities Act 2011 have been largely consulted upon by activists and groups of people with experience of living with disability. This is a result of informed policy writing, where the difference of people with impairments and their experience have been highlighted in order to break down barriers to their participation to society. In addition to this, these policies use the language of disability that separates out people with a disability, such as the Equalities Act protecting ‘special characteristics’, one being disability. Other protected characteristics being factors like sexuality or race – all identities that are seen to carry the ‘ethnic conception of disability’ that Shakespeare is opposed to.
Not only does identifying the difference of people with impairment help when collaborating with policy but it also helps in activism when fighting against changes in services. The coalition’s austerity agenda sought to cut services to people with impairments across the country using a “disabled scrounger” narrative. The disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) that had fought for the rights of disabled people from the beginning of the disabled people’s movement had to again stand up, but the development of the movement meant that now they were not only standing against the disabling policy but for the pride of their identity as a person with disability that had been established. Both ways of policy interacting with disability show how without disabled people identifying as disabled and highlighting their difference the construction of society will not accommodate for that difference, because it has historically not. Shakespeare’s claim that we should not be looking for a positive disability identity and be making disability irrelevant does not fit with this as without asserting these differences and learning from them, disability cannot become irrelevant.
This leads us to the personal level of separation of self in society due to impairment and the positive disability identity that has occurred through the years of the politicisation of disability. Murugami illustrates how identity is often built upon shared experiences in society and the formation of this ‘self’ must be looked at through the understanding of the oppressive nature of social relations “changing society and empowering persons with disabilities, and not vise versa”. With the formation of organisations such as the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) in the 1970s more groups were beginning to feel empowered to start to represent themselves. This was in a multitude of different ways, whether that be about campaigning and advocating or setting up services or advising on services. The main point about the DPOs was that they were run, or at least majority run, by those with experience of living with that impairment. We can see that there is a real shift away from the negative connotations of the medical model and towards a more positive attitude towards disability and impairment. This meant that those who identify as being a person with an impairment or a disabled person had a space to base that as a positive identity to celebrate – something to be proud of. People who “share the label and the experience of being labelled” could now as a group talk about their impairment and how it affects their lives and speak up about it. This can be compared to the ethnic conception of identity in things like positive race identity and feminism, which Shakespeare’s quote is against. By saying that he does not believe that disability politics should embrace an ethnic conception of identity he is not taking into account how embracing this identity has empowered people with impairment to work to break down the barriers of society.
In contrast to this, some theorists have explored how irrelevant difference can be and therefore there is no need for this personal level of disability identity. The theory of connectivity deconstructs the traditional understanding of disability as a state of dependency striving for independence and looks at the relationship that people with disability have with their technology or carers as a connection that is mutually beneficial. This concept extends beyond disability as it makes us question the relationship we all have with technology, transport and the people around us. All people are dependent on something to live their lives in the way that they do – how is impairment any different and why does that make a person with impairment different than any other person? Gibson has argued that ““non-disabled/disabled” division is actually a false one and that all of us inhabit different kinds of bodily differences across a range of experience. Disability identity politics relies on defining its own boundaries and therefore invariably will exclude some and embrace others.”. This echoes Shakespeare’s claim, as it is showing that disability pride is setting people with impairment aside as different from other people but in reality, all people are dependent on connections in their lives. Although this supports Shakespeare’s claim, it is important to note that this does not negate the barriers in society explored through the models and policy, as these are still relevant whether subscribing to this concept or not. What this concept does do it show how all people are equal, that all beings are interconnected with something to navigate their lives and that in a utopic world disability would not be seen as anything extraordinary but simply a variation of life.
I have found that by examining Shakespeare’s quote that although I agree that disability politics should be solely concerned with making disability irrelevant and treating all people the same, regardless of their impairment, that the world that we live in is not set up in a way that means that this can be done. We can see through the models of disability and the rise of the disability movement that historically our society has stigmatized and discriminated against people with impairment and disability pride has been one of the most powerful tools in fighting against this. As explored in this essay disability identity has contributed to breaking down the barriers of societal biases and policy changes which have negatively impacted people with impairment. In an ideal world, a utopia, there would be no need for a western ethnic conception of disability, or any difference, as society would see all people as equal and bodies as neutral but as we are not there it is important for disability politics to include a positive disability identity. As we look to the future we can hope that with increased understanding and awareness of disability paired with progress in technology we could live in a world where there is no need for disability pride but when this occurs it will be important to remember that without it, equality wouldn’t have been reached with out it. In the mean time I believe it is important for the progression of society and for the improvement of the lives of people with impairment that disability politics remains to draw upon what we can learn through an ethnic conception of disability.
Reading on the subject:
Algraigray, H. & Boyle, C. (2017). The SEN label and it’s affect on education. The Educational And Child Psychologist, 34(4), 70-79. doi: 126358317
Citizens Advice (2019). What Counts as Disability [webpage] Retrieved on 20th November from https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/what-counts-as-disability/
Gibson, B. (2006). Disability, connectivity and transgressing the autonomous body, Journal of Medical Humanities, 27(3), 187-196. doi:10.1007/s10912-006-9017-6
Gibson, B., Carnevale, F. & King, G. (2012) “This is my way”: reimagining disability, in/dependence and interconnectedness of persons and assistive technologies, Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(22), 1894-1899. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.670040
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Goodley, D. (2011). Disability Studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.
Harvey, J. (2017): Theorising everyday life after acquired brain injury, Disability & Society,33(1), 78-93. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2017.1382322
Levitt, M. (2017) Exploring how the social model of disability can be re-invigorated: in response to Mike Oliver, Disability & Society, 32(4), 589-594. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2017.1300390
Murugami, M. (2017). Disability and Identity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 29(4), 14-24. Doi: 10.18061/dsq.v29i4.979
Oliver, M. (2012). Social Work with Disabled People. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Oliver, M. (2019) Activism and the academy: losing the ideological and material battles, Disability & Society, 34(7), 1028-1033. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2019.1612637
Ryan, F. (2019). Crippled: Austerity and the Demonisation of Disabled People. London: Verso Books
Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. New York: Routledge
United Nations, 2019. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities [webpage] Retrieved on 29th November from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
UPIAS, (1972). Fundamental Principles of Disability. The Union: London.
