Overcoming Disabling Barriers

18 Years of Disability and Society

Len Barton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• eBook ISBN: 9781134182312
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book provides a valuable route map to the development of thinking in disability studies over the last eighteen years. It includes over twenty essential articles from the journal Disability and Society, written by many of the leading authors in the field from the UK, the USA, Australia and Europe.

Compiled by the current editors of the journal, it is divided into three sections which mirror the three central themes:

• disability studies – clearly illustrates the debates and challenges that have emerged within the field over the last two decades
• policy – offers a snapshot of social policy that has impinged on the lives of disabled people in many parts of the world
• research issues – reveals the inequalities between disabled and non-disabled people and the advocacy of new methods and research practices.

The editors' specially written introduction to each section contextualises the selection and introduces students to the main issues and current thinking in the field. Altogether this book is a rich source of ideas and insights covering conceptual, theoretical, empirical and cross-cultural issues and questions.

Part I
Disability studies

Introduction

Colin Barnes and Carol Thomas

Before the 1980s academic interest in disability was characterized by conventional individualistic medical explanations, and dominated by medicine and related professional interests. Social scientists concerned with this increasingly important area of enquiry tended to follow similar paths. While some writers recognized the significance of economic, social and cultural factors in the production of disability, the causes of the various deprivations and disadvantages experienced by disabled people were still largely located at the individual level.

The challenge to this orthodoxy came not from within the academy but from disabled people themselves. Although the origins of political activism amongst people with accredited impairments can be traced back to the nineteenth century (Campbell and Oliver 1996: Longmore and Umansky 2000) it escalated significantly during the 1960s and 1970s. Inspired by the political and social upheavals of the period, disabled people began to organize collectively in increasingly large numbers to protest against their incarceration in residential institutions, their poverty and the discrimination they encountered. Notable early examples include the American Independent Living Movement and the Swedish Self Advocacy Movement as well as the formation of The Disablement Income Group (DIG) and the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) in Britain (Campbell and Oliver 1996).

The British experience is especially important as it generated a radical and controversial new socio/political approach to theory and practice generally referred to as the social model of disability. The activities of grass-roots organizations controlled and run by disabled people such as the UPIAS and the Liberation Network of People with Disabilities were especially important in this development. The social model is founded on the re-definition of disability by the UPIAS in 1974, and was conceived as an aid to understanding, or a heuristic device, rather than as a fully constituted social theory of disability (Oliver 2004). The activities and writings of these organizations and their members provided the fertile ground upon which disabled and non-disabled scholars could explore and reconfigure the whole notion of disability and the social process of disablement.

This opened the way for academically fashioned writings in a new discipline, disability studies. The first academic course devoted exclusively to the experience of disablement, entitled ‘The Handicapped Person in the Community’ in the UK, was initiated by an interdisciplinary team at the Open University (OU) in 1975. A major figure in the development of this course was Vic Finkelstein, a disabled South African activist and writer, and founder member of UPIAS. Later in the 1970s, similar courses began to appear in American and Canadian universities, although most were firmly rooted in medical sociology and traditional approaches to disability. A disabled medical sociologist, Irving K. Zola, established the American Disability Studies Quarterly, and the Society for Disability Studies in 1981. The phrase ‘disability studies’ entered the academic vocabulary in the UK in 1992 following its adoption for a range of courses covering this subject area in the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Leeds (Barnes 2003).

However, apart from the OU course mentioned above, academic interest in the UK rarely moved beyond traditional medical or psychological approaches until the establishment in 1986 of the international journal, Disability, Handicap and Society, renamed Disability and Society in 1993, by Mike Oliver and Len Barton. Drawing inspiration from the writings of disabled people and their organizations, the journal has, from the outset, focused exclusively on the socio/political/cultural dynamics of the complex process of disablement. In doing so it has provided a, if not, the major catalyst for the establishment of disability studies as a legitimate area of scholarly enquiry at both national and international levels.

Early articles, selected for inclusion in this collection, by Mike Oliver (1986) and Paul Abberley (1987) effectively reflect these developments. In so doing they formulated an appropriate theoretical foundation for understanding disability as a complex and sophisticated form of social oppression that emphasises the link between disability theory and politics. This social interpretation of disability argued that people with accredited or perceived impairments, regardless of cause, are disabled by society’s failure to accommodate their needs.

The year 1990 witnessed the publication of Mike Oliver’s The Politics of Disablement, a book that provided the first comprehensive theorization of the socio/political interpretation of disability. Drawing on a variety of influences, including personal experience, the writings of disabled people such as Vic Finkelstein (1980) and Paul Hunt (1966), and the sociological insights of Karl Marx, August Comte and Antonio Gramsci, amongst others, it provided a thorough and rigorous theoretical exploration of the materialist and ideological foundations upon which contemporary responses to disability are based. It has had a considerable influence on disability thinking both within and without universities and colleges across the world. It set an agenda that has stimulated much of the theoretical debate that has subsequently been explored in Disability & Society.

These developments generated a host of new questions and dialogues about the relevance of disability theory, politics and practice. The articles that follow are illustrative of some of the important themes that have emerged. The interplay between disability and gender is a particular case in point. For example, do women experience, in William Hanna and Betsy Rogovsky’s (1991) terms, ‘two handicaps plus’? Tom Shakespeare (1993) tackled a different theme in his discussion of social movement theory and disabled people’s self-organization. The paper by David Pfeiffer (1994) links disabled people’s oppression to the prevalence of eugenic ideas in western culture.

These and the other articles reflect the emerging and rapidly developing nature of disability studies in recent years. They chart the transition from a relatively straightforward demand by disabled activists for a shift in emphasis away from the individual onto the structural and cultural forces that shape disabled people’s lives, thus generating an increasingly complex body of knowledge. Inevitably, with this complexity of ideas came a rich mix of disagreement, debate and innovation.

A recurrent concern is the assumed neglect of the experience of impairment and ‘the body’ by advocates of social model inspired theorizing. Bill Hughes and Kevin Paterson’s (1997) article on the ‘disappearing body’ and the need for a sociology of impairment is one example. These and other authors’ engagement with phenomenology, psychodynamic and poststructuralist ideas is also illustrative of the growing interest among some 1990s writers in supporting a ‘cultural turn’ in disability studies. The materialist ideas advanced by Mike Oliver and others are seen by postmodernist and poststructuralist thinkers, most notably Mairian Corker (1999) (a.k.a Mairian Scott Hill), whose paper is featured here, as inadequate to the task of theorising ‘difference’ – whether associated with gender, ‘race’, sexuality or impairment.

Social constructionist theories that privilege cultural and linguistic phenomena are believed by their proponents to offer more relevant conceptual frameworks. In response, defenders of materialist accounts have argued that this and related approaches do not deny the significance of impairment and ‘difference’ in disabled people’s lives, but concentrate instead on the various barriers – economic, political and social – constructed on top of impairment.

It will be evident that several of the papers in this section are written by British-based academics, many of whom are disabled themselves. This reflects the significance of the interface between personal experience, social model inspired thinking and the disability studies agenda. The inclusion of Susan Peters’ (2000) paper which poses the question, ‘Is there a Disability Culture?’, is an important reminder that scholars from other parts of the world have made significant contributions to the contours of a disability studies curriculum. This is further reflected in the recent work by a small but increasingly influential band of predominantly disabled writers from North America, Australasia and the Nordic countries, many of whom are based in the humanities and cultural studies disciplines. These initiatives provide increasingly common ground between academics and researchers in the disability studies field. This has, in turn, rightly stimulated further lively debates about the best ways forward for the future development of disability studies, and its relations with the disabled people movement and disabled people generally.

Taken together these articles illustrate clearly the various debates and challenges that have emerged within disability studies over the last two decades and the significance of the role that the journal Disability and Society has played in that process. They provide an invaluable introduction to this increasingly important area of enquiry and research.

References

Barnes, C. (2003) ‘Disability studies: what’s the point?’. Keynote Address: Disability Studies Conference, University of Lancaster, Lancaster (3 September).

Campbell, J. and Oliver, M. (1996) Disability Politics: Understanding Our Past, Changing Our Future. London: Routledge.

Finkelstein, V. (1980) Attitudes and Disabled People. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.

Hunt, P. (ed.) (1966) Stigma: the Experience of Disability, London: Geoffrey Chapman.

Longmore, P. and Umansky, L. (2000). The New Disability History: American Perspectives, New York: New York University Press.

Oliver, M. (2004) ‘If I had a hammer: the Social model in action’, in J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, and C. Thomas (eds) Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, London: Sage.

(Also available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/index)

Disability studies articles

Abberley, P. (1987) ‘The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability’, Disability, Handicap and Society 2, 1, 5–20.

Corker, M. (1999) ‘Differences, conflations and foundations: the limits to “accurate” theoretical representation of disabled people’s experience’?, Disability and Society 14, 5, 627–642.

Hanna, W.J. and Rogovsky, B. (1991) ‘Women with disabilities: two handicaps plus’, Disability, Handicap and Society 6, 1, 49–67.

Hughes, B. and Paterson, K. (1997) ‘The social model of disability and the disappearing body: towards a sociology of impairment’, Disability and Society 12, 3, 325–340.

Oliver, M. (1986) ‘Social policy and disability’: Some theoretical issues, Disability, Handicap and Society 1, 1, 5–17.

Peters, S. (2000) ‘Is there a disability culture? A syncretisation of three possible world views’, Disability and Society 15, 4, 583–601.

Shakespeare, T. (1993) ‘Disabled people’s self-organisation: a new social movement?’, Disability and Society 8, 3, 249–264.

1 Social policy and disability

Some theoretical issues

Mike Oliver

Faculty of Education and Community Studies, Thames Polytechnic

Abstract

This paper suggests that current ways of thinking about disability are inadequate, both theoretically and as a basis for social policy. The main reason for this is that most writers have remained locked within a ‘personal tragedy theory of disability’ and have failed to examine the concept of disability critically. Even those writers who have attempted to take disability seriously have failed to move beyond a traditional framework and have subsequently produced sterile accounts. The final section of the paper begins to suggest what a social theory of disability might look like.

A historical overview

Since the late 1960s academics interested in the study of social policy have been forced to look more closely at the values and ideologies underpinning their work. One aspect of this has been the rapid rise and expansion of sociology as an academic discipline with the consequent proliferation of a variety of theoretical perspectives. Another aspect of this has been the gradually developing economic crises which have forced all governments in recent years to cut back on the rate of state spending on welfare. A final aspect has been the move away from a political consensus about the welfare state towards a polarisation of left and right wing positions concerning its nature, functions and future.

However this situation is viewed, one thing is clear and that is, that as a consequence, the discipline of social policy has developed a theoretical sophistication and conceptual richness not found up to now. The extent of this is well summarised by recent commentators (Loney, Boswell & Clarke, 1983: 6).

Although much of this new analysis of social policy reflected the rehabilitation of Marxist theory in British academic life (e.g. Gough, 1978; Ginsberg, 1979; Taylor-Gooby & Dale, 1980) as well as the development of feminism (e.g. Wilson, 1977), such theories were by no means the only contenders. Economic liberalism and its privileging of the market had its intellectual voices, too. The Institute of Economic Affairs—for a long time cast as a voice in the wilderness—became more central with the increasing salience of monetarism. . . . In a different way, the social-democratic themes of decentralization and local participation have been reflected in social policy writings about neighbourhood and community based social provision (e.g. Hadley & Hatch, 1981).

Thus a number of issues such as health, education and income maintenance have been discussed from a number of different perspectives, and the status of groups like women and ethnic minorities have been considered within alternative theoretical frameworks. Unfortunately neither disability, as opposed to illness, as an issue nor disabled people as a group have received such consideration.

The major reason why disability has been largely ignored in the recent writings on social policy is undoubtedly that most writers have seen disability as a non-problematic category for analytical purposes. That is to say, they have accepted the general view of disability as a personal tragedy. From this it logically follows that the reasons why disabled people cannot or do not participate fully in society stem directly from the physical or psychological limitations of the disabled person as a consequence of this traumatic event, whether it be an accident or the onset of some progressive disease. However, more and more disabled people have been pointing out that full participation has not been prevented by personal limitations but by the social restrictions imposed upon them by society leading them to the view that (UPIAS, 1976: 4): “. . . disability is therefore a particular form of social oppression”.

Elsewhere (Oliver, 1983), I have referred to these different views as the ‘individual’ and ‘social’ models but they might perhaps more emotively be called ‘personal tragedy theory’ and ‘social oppression theory’. Regardless of terminology, it is true to say that able-bodied academics have worked almost exclusively within the first perspective while disabled people have sought to actively promote the second.

Even when disabled people are discussed by academics, it is often in a very superficial way. Gough, for example, has little trouble in fitting disabled people into Marx’s industrial reserve army (Gough, 1979: 25).

The industrial reserve army consists of not only the unemployed but also marginal groups like the disabled, the seasonally unemployed, those displaced from previous modes of production (like peasants), immigrants from other countries and, especially important today, housewives.

Leaving aside doubts about its conceptual accuracy, there are grave doubts about this statement’s factual accuracy as well. To begin with, following official definition of disability (Harris, 1971), more than two thirds of the disabled population are over 65 and hence above working age. In addition, of those between 16–65 it has been estimated that between 25–30% are unemployed (Grover & Gladstone, 1981), meaning that a considerable majority of disabled people of working age are part of the labour force.

Finch (1984), in an otherwise sensitive article on the implications of community care for women, fails to see the conceptualisation of disability, or rather dependency based upon disability as in any way problematic. Hence, her conclusions, that as residential care is marginally less oppressive to women than community care, we should have more of the former and less of the latter. This argument is based on the false assumption that the population can be divided up into dependent (disabled) and independent (able-bodied) people whereas in reality, no-one in modern industrial society can claim to be independent. Within most caring relationships there may then be a ‘reciprocity of dependency’ whether based on current performance of tasks or the re-allocation of roles based upon a reversal of previous relationships (i.e. children now caring for parents who previously cared for them). Hence, because of the emotional bonds built up as a consequence of these caring relationships, it is unlikely that many of these carers would see more residential care as the solution to their oppression.

Further, such a view fails to take into account the feelings of the dependant/disabled people who will be recipients of such policies, and many of whom see residential institutions as (UPIAS, 1984: 17),

fundamentally oppressive because of...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• General introduction
• Part I: Disability studies
• Part II: Policy
• Part III: Research Issues