Disability and Society

Emerging Issues and Insights

Len Barton

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317887508
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Medicina
• Sous-sujet: Atención sanitaria

The study of disability has traditionally been influenced mainly by medical and psychological models. The aim of this new text, Disability and Society, is to open up the debate by introducing alternative perspectives reflecting the increasing sociological interest in this important topic.Disability and Society brings together for the first time some of the most recent original research in this rapidly expanding area. The contributors, both disabled and non-disabled, are all leading thinkers in their field and suggest new ways of understanding disability, developing policy and challenging current practice.

Part One
Theoretical Developments

This section of the book is concerned with providing some insights into the complex and contentious issue of how sociological theorising has and can continue to contribute to our understanding of disability.

This concern raises several key issues including the form, the purpose, and the outcomes of such sociological enquiries. Integral to this process will be the crucial question of the relationship between the sociologist and the disabled people involved in the research.

In his chapter Barton seeks to identify some of the essential features of a social theory of disability. By positioning the analysis within a concern over human rights, social justice and equity, he argues that part of the sociological task is to highlight and challenge discrimination. He contends that future sociological work needs to have a stronger historically informed base and engage with the serious issue of the politics of difference.

Oliver provides an overview of the historical relationship between sociology and theorising about disability as well as a commentary on the developing links between the two. He proposes a framework for auditing this relationship. Central to his approach is a view of sociology as a critical and emancipatory enterprise. Finally, he discusses the ways in which further developments may take place.

The chapter by Barnes focuses on the socio-political theories of disability and the origins of the oppression of disabled people in western society. He argues that the principal theoretical perspectives on disability have ignored, undervalued and misinterpreted the role of culture in the oppression of disabled people. A materialist account of history is presented which shows that although social responses to impairment are by no means universal, there has been a consistent cultural bias against disabled people throughout recorded history clustered around the myth of the ‘body perfect’. This has clear implications for future sociological analyses of social responses to people with impairments.

Finally, Abberley in his chapter highlights the way in which social theories give participation in production a crucial importance in social integration. From this perspective work is viewed as a need and a source of identity. Such theories imply the progressive abolition of impairment as restrictive on the development of people’s full human capacities. The total achievement of this aim is, for Abberley, impossible. He contends that in the development of liberative social theories of disablement, we need to draw upon sociological sources which do not equate full humanity with labour.

Chapter 1
Sociology and disability: some emerging issues

LEN BARTON

This chapter will briefly consider the sociological contributions to the study of disability. An emphasis will be given to an emancipatory approach to such enquiries as well as to an identification of some specific issues which future work needs to engage with. The sociological task is viewed as contributing both to understanding and changing the social world.

An emancipatory approach

Sociology is an inherently inquisitive and controversial activity. Sociologists are always asking questions, sharpening the focus of concern and providing critiques of existing forms of social conditions and relations. Part of the sociological task is to make connections between, for example, structural conditions and the lived reality of people in particular social settings. In attempting to identify ‘several related forms of sensibility’ which are viewed as indispensable to the sociological analysis, Giddens maintains that:

sociological analysis can play an emancipatory role in human society. At the same time, sociological analysis teaches sobriety. For although knowledge may be an important adjunct to power, it is not the same as power. And our knowledge of history is always tentative and incomplete.

(1986:13)

We need to remind ourselves as sociologists of the importance of humility. Given the profundity of the social issues we face in society today – and disability is clearly one of them – there is no room for complacency and every reason for identifying the limitations of our work, including its partial and incomplete status.

This should not be viewed as a desire for false modesty or the pursuit of a form of subjectivism equivalent to some personal spiritual experience, but rather, a genuine recognition that as sociologists we are always learning. We therefore need relationships with ‘critical’ friends; debate, dialogue and self-criticism are essential ingredients of a healthy sociological diet. A questioning approach to social reality is thus axiomatic to the sociological imagination. This is based upon a conviction that existing social arrangements are neither natural nor proper and are therefore subject to critique and change.

Sociology is often depicted as Giddens notes, in terms of an emancipatory or liberating activity and, therefore, he contends:

Sociology cannot be a neutral intellectual endeavour, indifferent to the practical consequences of its analysis for those whose conduct forms its object of study.

(1986: Preface, Second Edition)

This particular viewpoint raises some significant questions about the complex processes involved in the development and articulation of what Mills (1970) calls, the ‘sociological imagination’. This entails the dynamic interplay of biography, context and the values informing sociological reflection. Sociology from this perspective is fundamentally a social act. It also has a particular poignancy in relation to those subjects of study who are disabled and, therefore, experience, in differing degrees of intensity, marginalisation, oppression and vulnerability. To what extent sociologists use their positions and abilities in support of a struggle for change, is a crucial issue needing to be seriously examined. Finally, it not only raises questions about the form and purposes of our work, in the field of disability studies, it has implications for the relationships between disabled and non-disabled sociologists.

An ‘emancipatory’ approach to the study of disability entails engaging with several key issues. For example, establishing relationships with disabled people, listening to their voice and, in my case, being white, male and non-disabled, raises the following sorts of questions:

What right have I to undertake this work?

What responsibilities arise from the privileges I have as a result of my social position?

How can I use my knowledge and skills to challenge forms of oppression disabled people experience?

Does my writing and speaking reproduce a system of domination or challenge that system?

These questions form part of a complex and unfinished series of concerns. They are important aspects of a challenging learning experience which is both disturbing and enabling. What does it mean for a sociologist to listen to the subjects of study? What are the important issues for establishing and maintaining relationships with disabled people, when part of the sociological task involves critically engaging with participants’ perspectives? How does the emancipatory practice deal with the conflict of interests the sociologist finds herself in over participants’ ignorance, prejudice and reactionary motivations and behaviour? Part of the sociological imagination involves a healthy scepticism and a desire to get beneath surface features to the deep structures of social relations and experience. What does this mean for the sociologist who seeks to take a supportive stance in relation to disabled people?

The emancipatory project does involve issues of relationships and ethics but fundamentally it is about the degree to which the sociological imagination contributes to the benefit of disabled people. We need to ask, ‘Is this a necessary activity,’ and, ‘What does it entail and how is it achieved?’

In discussing the question of the relationship between poverty and education, Connell challenges researchers to seriously reconsider the nature and purposes of their activities. He raises some immensely important questions, including:

What kind of research would be useful to a black teenager facing crack and structural unemployment in a Boston apartment, or under smog in Los Angeles? What research would be useful to a Hamilton youth staring at those shrinking steelworks, or a bunch of kids in Alberta wondering where the oil jobs went?

(Connell 1993:123)

He contends that ‘educational research’ is largely irrelevant and provides little, if any benefit, in meeting the needs of such groups.

Disabled sociologists have been extremely critical of the disabling and offensive nature of much of social science research (Oliver 1992; Abberley 1992). This requires some fundamental changes to the social relations of research production and for researchers as Morris advocates, to seriously engage with such questions as:

Who do I want this research to influence?

Who do I want to be aware of this research?

Who do I want to relate to this research?

(1992a:201–2)

What about our work as sociologists? The emancipatory role is not only concerned with demonstrating different forms of discrimination and under what conditions they develop, but also doing something about it (Oliver 1992). This entails ‘overt political struggle against oppressive structures’ (Harvey 1990:20).

For Connell this is not for the faint-hearted and is ‘deeply uncomfortable research’ (1993:124). It does necessitate as Troyna so vividly illustrates, researchers critically engaging with the ‘types and configurations of power relations which suffuse researchers’ understandings of what ‘empowerment’ might look like’ (1994:20). It is a salutary reminder that intent is no guarantee of outcome (Acker, Barry & Esseveld 1983).

What is important sociologically in relation to disability is that we recognise the profundity of the struggle which is concerned with the realisation of a barrier-free society. According to Giddens ‘emancipatory politics makes primary the imperatives of justice, equality and participation’ (1991:212). Choice and autonomy are being sought. Freedom and responsibility are viewed in terms of collective, social life. Thus, it is about enabling relationships with others, about life chances and lifestyle. This has critical implications for both the nature of the sociological task and the relationship of the sociologist to the subjects of study.

Sociology and disability

Mainstream sociology has historically shown little interest in the issue of disability. A range of possible reasons can be identified for this situation. Sociologists have tended to accept the dominant hegemony with regard to viewing disability in medical and psychological terms. Thus the issue is perceived as pre- or non-sociological. A great deal of sociological work has been based on the assumption of individuals as ‘rational’ actors (Barbalet 1993). Individuals categorised in terms of being ‘subnormal’ or ‘mentally handicapped’ were excluded from this work or viewed as examples of exotic behaviour (Quicke 1986). Finally, sociological work concerned with the generation of theories of social reproduction and the pursuit of change has ignored the ways in which disabled people operate as a powerful social movement (Barton & Oliver 1992).

Even where the question of disability has been addressed it has not been without some concern. For example, Jenkins (1991) makes hardly any reference to the existing work produced by disabled sociologists. If he was aware of it, he chose not to use it.

A great deal of the sociological work accomplished so far has been undertaken by the contributors to this book. Few of these work within mainstream sociology departments or publish in recognised sociology outlets. It is a sobering thought to consider the limited extent to which this work has had any important impact on the discipline itself.

Sociological analysis has, in the past decade in particular, contributed to the development of a growing body of knowledge and insights. These include:

• The generation of a social theory of disability
• The social construction of categories and the ways in which they are shaped by economic and political influences
• Professional ideologies and practice in relation to how they support vested interests and define definitions of need
• The construction of policy and, for example, the extent to which they serve other purposes than the interests of those they are alleged to support
• Providing accounts of the lived experience of disabled people in particular social settings
• Contributing to the development of enabling forms of methodology and research practice
• Examining the disability movement in terms of a social movement for change (Barton & Tomlinson 1981; 1984; Tomlinson 1982; Bines 1986; Abberley 1987; Fulcher 1989; Oliver 1990; Barnes 1991; Shakespeare 1993).

These are examples of the sociological contribution to providing alternative ways of defining disability and challenging various forms of institutional discrimination. Yet, there is no room for complacency. Much more work needs to be done.

Encouragement can be drawn from the examples of similar concerns being expressed in relation to other disciplines. For example, in a discussion of the potential impac...