Discrimination Against Disabled People

(Causes, Meaning and Consequences)

Or
The Sociology of Disability

COLIN BARNES
January 1985

CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. The Complexity of Definition
3. The Origins of Discrimination
4. Discrimination in Modern
5. The Experience of Disability
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography
1. Introduction

'It is by means of the sociological imagination that men

now hope to grasp what is going on in the world, and to
understand what is happening in themselves as minute
points of the intersections of biography and history within
society'.
C. Wright Mills

Discriminatory action against the physically or cognitively less able in some

form or other has been an integral part of almost every society throughout
history. And although it is undoubtedly true that the more extreme forms of
negative discrimination which were synonymous with earlier epochs, such as
violent persecution and infanticide have largely disappeared, the fact remains
that the quality of life experienced by the majority of handicapped people in
modern society is considerably lower than that enjoyed by their able-bodied
contemporaries. Moreover, it appears that as our society becomes evermore
socially and technologically complex the numbers of people perceived as
disabled is steadily increasing. Indeed one writer has estimated that there are
over nine million handicapped people living in the British Isles (see chapter
one) and there is little evidence to suggest that these figures are likely to
decline in the foreseeable future.

Now the fact that the general standard of living experienced by this
increasingly large section of the community is consistently lower than that of
the majority indicates that the discrimination against the disabled in modern
society is still a reality, and although the social effects of this phenomenon are
less obvious than those associated with earlier more violent times they are
none the less debilitating for those concerned. This essay is an attempt to
understand the causes and effects of discrimination against disabled people.

Generally speaking, apart from the work of Erving Goffman and Fred Davis,
relatively little has been written on the subject of disability within Sociology.
While their work has highlighted the complexity of the process of social
interaction between the handicapped and the able-bodied, both authors have
been content to place the subject of disability alongside deviance and minority
group membership as a social phenomenon. This I feel is a mistake - apart
from the fact that deviance and deviant behaviour, and to some degree,
minority group membership are generally associated with some elements of
choice, freedom of action and morality, the same cannot be said of the
disabled. They are as they are through no fault of their own and given the
option most would welcome the opportunity to return to normality - certainly in
terms of mental or physical limitations at least, the same cannot be said of
many forms of deviance. Further, this tendency to position disability with other
minority groups has allowed the several unique features of this most
fundamental - albeit unrecognised - of social phenomenon to be overlooked
as hopefully this essay will demonstrate.

With reference to the opening quotation my own interest in this subject can be
explained with some trepidation on my part by the fact that I was born with a
hereditary eye disease which meant that I was educated as special schools
for the deaf and blind until the age of eleven and had it not been for the
remarkable, pardon the pun, far-sightedness of my parents would have
remained there until the school leaving age - then fifteen. This would have
meant that I would have ended up in a 'sheltered' workshop for the
handicapped or permanently unemployed as most of my primary school peers
apparently did. After a careful reading of much current sociology it became
evident that very little work had been done in this area. Therefore it seemed
natural that I should look to the experience of disability as a subject for
analysis.

I must emphasize at this juncture that I have much sympathy with the view of
Peter Townsend in 'Sociology and Social Policy 1975' who has argued that in
many instances the separation of sociology from social policy is quite
illegitimate - disability it would appear is just such an instance. Throughout this
analysis I have tried to remain within the boundaries of sociology although I
have drawn heavily upon material from other disciplines particularly social
policy. Moreover I believe it is quite legitimate for the sociologist to draw upon
material from other 'sciences' in order to prove his case and this is what I have
tried to do.

The following dissertation then is divided into four distinct sections, plus of
course a conclusion. The first attempts to cover the problem of definition. I
use the word tentatively, because there are many who would argue the very
idea of applying any form of classificatory label to such a large and diverse
aggregate of society is almost inconceivable. And while I have much
sympathy with such arguments the fact remains that for the physically and
mentally less able classification is an inevitability. Indeed for most it is
essential - simply because in order to ensure the welfare benefits available -
often their only source of income - they are forced to accept the stigmatizing
mantle of 'disabled person'. Moreover, although this chapter briefly discusses
the numerous attempts at definition which have been used in the past and
even adopts a broad description for the purposes of this analysis, I am not
attempting to define disability. This chapter should be seen as a ground
clearing exercise simply due to the fact that many
concepts need to be clarified if the problems associated with society's attitude
toward the handicapped are to be fully understood.

The second part of the essay is concerned with the strategies of exclusion
which our society has adopted toward the physically and mentally impaired
throughout history. This chapter illustrates how the open hostility and
persecution which characterized earlier less socially and technologically
diverse societies slowly gave way to what can only be described as the less
predictable ambivalence associated with the modern welfare state.

Chapter three concentrates upon the less violent but none the less socially
and psychologically destructive manifestations of discrimination against the
handicapped which pervade the modern state. In order to appreciate the full
implications of the social and institutional barriers to normality which our
society has erected against such people I have drawn upon material which
may, because it is untheorised be seen as unsociological, however my
intention here is not to attempt some form of causal explanation, but merely to
describe the extent of the phenomenon in question.

The consequences of these strategies of exclusion, both for the disabled as a

group and the individual disabled actor, are the topic of chapter four. This
analysis of the experience of disability emphasises the unique features of this
phenomenon and attempts to demonstrate that although a sociology of
disability will inevitably draw upon 'conventional' conceptualization within
sociology there are indeed several distinct dimensions to this subject that
warrant the formulation of a new frame of reference - the disabled role.

Finally the concluding remarks draw together the salient tenets of this analysis
and re-emphasize the urgent need for further investigation of this, one of the
most perplexing of all social phenomenon - discrimination against disabled
people.
2. The Complexity of Definition

Disability has many dimensions - medical, economic, legal and bureaucratic.

In fact one of the most significant features of handicap, both physical and
mental, and the problems it creates both for the individual and society, is its
sheer diversity. Differences in causation alone are indeed many while the
degree of dissimilarity between impairment, severity and prognosis are often
quite extreme. It could be argued that the experience of handicap is no
respecter of class, age, sex or ethnicity. Although undoubtedly different social
classes are exposed to different causes of impairment. For example, the
upper classes are less likely to suffer disabilities associated with heavy
industrial work such as coal mining than are the working class. Equally ethnic
minorities are often subject to racial discrimination and economic deprivation
and may have a higher instance of diseases associated with poverty such as
rickets than other social groups. But generally it would be true to suggest that
disability can strike anyone, regardless of his or her social rank or status.

A disabling condition can be acquired at any age or because of deformity or

congenital illness be a lifelong experience. How we respond to a disabling
condition, both as individuals and as members of society can be equally
diverse. Within the ranks of the disabled there are stark contrasts of success
and failure, optimism and pessimism, hope and despair. At the societal level
we can find instances of total acceptance or stigmatization and rejection.
Some communities react with superb care and support while others care little.
However, despite this diversity all those who are perceived to be disabled are
disadvantaged to some degree, both by their condition and by society. But at
this point we must begin to make distinctions. It could be argued that we are
all prone to some measure of physical or cognitive limitation which in certain
circumstances can prove totally debilitating. Obesity, agoraphobia, vertigo or
stammers can all be in many ways socially disabling conditions. As
individuals we are a multiplicity of strengths and weaknesses and each of us
will experience limitations and frustrations in our daily lives. But the degree of
social disadvantage incurred by someone completely paralysed from the waist
down who has not only lost the use of their legs, but also their bowels, bladder
and sexual organs, as a consequence of which are totally dependent upon
others for the most basic of bodily functions, is vastly different from that of
some who suffers from a speech impediment.

'Frustration, indignity, dependency and often pain and

suffering. The able-bodied suffer all these at some time,
but never all at once and every day without end. And what
special equipment have the disabled got? None, they are
the same jumble of vices and virtues, the same jumble of
needs. And this is the point, isn't it? Our bodies may not
look nice or function properly, but our minds hearts and
emotions are the same'. (1)
The difference between the disabled and the able-bodied in terms of
experience then is not one of kind but one of degree. Such a realization
seriously weakens any arguments for discrimination or segregation.
Nevertheless because disability is generally regarded as abnormal some form
of definition is inevitable.

The problem of definition is indeed complex especially since our society

seems to be constantly re-defining what is to be regarded as a disability and
what is not. For example once left handedness was considered a handicap,
associated with backwardness and stupidity. Thankfully today such notions
are seen to be superstitious nonsense. Again homosexuality, despite the fact
in some quarters it still generates a degree of antipathy and even hostility
generally it is not considered a physical or cognitive handicap. And yet as one
author has pointed out, not long ago homosexuality was considered a
disabling condition. In 1949-50 the British medical journal 'The Lancet' ran a
number of articles concerned with the realities of living with a disability.
Among the topics covered was one account by a lesbian woman who
discussed her life and innermost feelings (2). Conversely, epilepsy was once
considered nothing more than an inexplicable rather than a major source of
impairment. Indeed many cultures saw epileptic seizures as some form of
metaphysical interruption which somehow endowed the sufferer with
supernatural insight. And many famous leaders of the past such as Julius
Caesar and Napoleon are said to have suffered from this condition. Whereas
in the modern epoch it is seen as a major source of disability (3). The inability
to read and write is now considered a disabling condition. There is even a
medical condition - dyslexia - which attempts an explanation of the
phenomenon. But not less than one hundred years ago the ability to read and
write fluently would have been considered the exception rather than the rule.

While it is true to argue that our perceptions of disability are constantly

changing and indeed some human traits are no longer considered barriers to
normal social integration. Generally as our society becomes ever more
socially and economically complex, the boundaries which encompass the
physically and cognitively limited are constantly being redrawn to include more
and more people.

The tendency to constantly reconceputalise our frame of reference as to who

is disabled and who is not has been highlighted by M Blaxter in her 1976
analysis ‘The Meaning of Disability’. She draws our attention to the expansion
of society’s charitable attitude toward the innocently disabled - the deaf, the
blind and the cognitively sick. She shows how benefits and services had to be
enlarged to include those who were crippled by war and modern industry. In
Blaxter's assessment the continuous expansion of the boundaries of disability
and the essential services that are deemed necessary to cope with such
phenomenon has meant that the fiscal demands of such commitment have
begun to conflict radically with the humanitarian principles our society claims
allegiance to.

Definitions become even more difficult when we realize that disablement is not
only a matter of social consciousness or official medical attitudes. Any form of
classification must take account of the personal view of handicap as
articulated by the disabled themselves (4). Official and other perceptions of
handicap often conflict with those of the individuals themselves. The individual
is often introduced the idea that a person whose normality of social identity is
fragile and negotiable. He or she may occupy a position uncertain and
ambiguous usually at a distance from what most people would regard as
society's core institutions and values (5). To some extent society but 'occupy a
marginal position uneasily situated between a rigid dichotomous social
classification and undifferentiated 'normality' (6).

Although it is evident that definition is anything but simple we have to begin

somewhere. Therefore it is important that such words as impairment, disability
and handicap be given a specific meaning as they are often used
interchangeably and their meaning may be unclear. There is some degree of
consensus over the use of such terms. The Office of Population Census and
Surveys conducted a massive survey of the disabled in the late 1960s and
decided upon a three-fold distinction as follows.

1. IMPAIRMENT refers to any psychological, physiological or anatomical

structure or function of the body which is defective. It may be a
permanent or a temporary condition. It may be congenital or acquired.
A neutral objective description of a condition.

2. DISABILITY concerns the impact of impairment upon the performance

of activities. Commonly accepted as the basic needs for every living –
walking, eating, using the toilet etc.

3. HANDICAP. The disadvantage or restriction caused by the disability.

An evaluator concept -

'in which the interaction of impairment and disability with

an individual's psychological make-up, the resources
available and social attitudes effects adversely the
performance of ordinary roles. (6)'.

Handicap is a term usually applied by others to an impaired individual

because of their failure to perform normal social roles in everyday life because
of their disability. Of course some disabled people do apply the label to
themselves. To move from impairment to handicap is to cover the ground
between symptom and social role. Expressed in diagrammatical form it is as
follows.
IMPAIRMENT (INTRINSIC SITUATIONS EXTERIORISED
AS FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS)

DISABILITY (OBJECTIFIED AS ACTIVITY

RESTRICTIONS)

HANDICAP (SOCIALISED AS DISADVANTAGE)

Source – Bury (7)

Of course the presence of impairment does not always imply disability nor
disability handicap. Two people with similar functional limitations often react
to the circumstances in which they find themselves completely differently.
Here variations in resources both personal and communal are extremely
important.

In Britain quantitative analysis of the handicapped to date has provided

relatively adhoc and inconclusive. The first attempt at such an enterprise
occurred in the census of 1851 which posed questions concerning the deaf
and blind. However, they were dropped in 1921 on the grounds that it was
considered – ‘too difficult to frame appropriate questions in such a general
survey’ (8). Consequently no census has attempted such an undertaking
since.

However the British people were medically examined for the first time ‘en
masse’ in 1917 for military service. It was concluded that 10% of the total
male population were unfit for military service, 41.5% (in London 48-49%) had
marked disabilities, 22% had ‘partial’ disabilities, while only a third were
considered to be in satisfactory shape. It is important to note that the author
who reported these findings does not give any details of criteria used in the
examinations. He does however go on to claim that

‘the working classes were stunted and debilitated by over

a century of industrialization’ (9)

More recently the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944 and the
National Assistance Act of 1948 required that records be kept but were only
concerned with those in receipt of services (10). By the 1960s the then
Ministry of Health instigated a research programme which culminated with the
study conducted by the Office of Population Census and Surveys mentioned
earlier. A quarter of a million households were surveyed 8,538 of which were
subsequently followed up and interviewed in depth. Two books were produced
from this research, J. BUCKLE's 'Work and Housing of Impaired People in
Great Britain' 1971 and A. HARRIS' 'Handicapped and Impaired in Great
Britain' 1971. The measurement of the extent of handicap was based on a
series of questions designed to yield functional assessments of disability.
Questions were structured in such a way as to assess the disabled individual's
ability to look after himself. The responses were then graded according to
whether the respondent was capable of managing a given task - without
difficulty, with difficulty or with help. Quantified responses were then graded
into four categories. According to these functional estimates there was said to
be 7-8% of the total population or 3.071000 impaired people living in the U.K.
Harris estimated that each category contained the following number of people

VERY SEVERLY HANDICAPPED 157 000

SEVERLY HANDICAPPED 356 000
APPRECIABLY HANDICAPPED 616 000
IMPAIRED 1 942 000
3 071 000

The Harris survey also illustrates two other important variables A/ Handicap
increases with age and B/ Disabled women outnumber men in the older age
group. Generally speaking there are more disabled women in the population
than men. Although up to the age of 50 men are more likely to be defined as
disabled than women. Possible reasons being that as a rule men tend to work
in heavier, dirtier industries than women. Consequently risking injury and work
oriented diseases. One writer has reported that in the first half of the 1970's
there were over 12,000 major industrial accidents in the U.K. alone and there
are over fifty one officially recognised industrial diseases in the same country
(11). Men also tend to indulge in more dangerous sports and leisure activities
than women. Whereas the high number of disabled women in the population
after 50 is simply due to the fact generally women live longer than men and
many crippling conditions increase with age (12).
TABLE 1

ARTHRITIS
(EXC. R.A.)
RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
STROKES AND PARKINSONISM
CARDIORESPIRATORY DISORDERS
TRAUMAS AND AMPUTATION
DISORDERS OF INFANCY AND YOUTH
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
OTHER RHEUMATIC DISORDERS
OTHER SYSTEMS
MISCELLANEOUS
PARAPLEGIA/MEMIPLEGIA
NEOPLASMS
SENSORY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

% OF TOTAL HANDICAP (SEVERE AND VERY SEVERE) SOURCE;

WOOD, IN TAYLOR ‘PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT – SOCIAL HANDICAP’ 1977

The above table shows the major causes of severe and very severe handicap
in adults of working ages, between 16-65 in the British Isles.

The following table shows the estimated numbers of disabled men and women
in different age groups with some impairment living in private households.

TABLE 2
MEN WOMEN MEN AND
AGE GROUP WOMEN

16 – 19 50 000 39 000 89 000

30 – 49 197 000 170 000 366 000

50 – 64 408 000 433 000 833 000

64 – 74 356 000 559 000 915 000

75 & OVER 243 000 625 000 867 000

ALL AGES 1 247 000 1 825 000 3 071 000

SOURCE: HARRIS 1971 Page 4

Peter Townsend in ‘Poverty in the United Kingdom’ 1979 argues the definition
applied by the Harris study was too constricting. And further it seriously
underestimates the numbers of disabled people in the British population for
Townsend -

‘disability itself might best be defined as inability to perform the activities,

share in the relationships and play the roles which are customary for people of
broadly the same age and sex in society’. (13)

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF SURVEYS OF DISABLED IN BRITAIN

HARRIS 1971 TOWNSEND 1979

DEGREE OF TOTAL DEGREE OF TOTAL

HANDICAP NUMBERS INCAPABILITY NUMBERS

VERY SEVERE 161 000 VERY SEVERE 325 000

SEVERE 366 000 SEVERE 780 000

APPRECIABLE 633 000 APPRECIABLE 1 990 000

MINOR 699 000 SOME 3 915 000

NO HANDICAP 1 297 000 LITTLE OR NONE 2 890 000

TOTAL 3 146 000 TOTAL 9 900 000

SOURCE: OLIVER Page 41

There are however to points which demand clarification. First the Harris figure
of 1 297 000, ‘those with no handicap’ refers to people with impairments but
no handicap, that is according to Harris’ definition. Secondly the Townsend
figure of 2 890 000 ‘with little or no handicap’ includes 180 000 children below
the age of nine. The Harris study does not take account of children (14).

The figures produced by Harris have not proved reliable for estimating
benefits as one author has observed (15). The main reason being that
different government departments employ different definitions; moreover
functional definitions are not acceptable to everyone. Victor Finkelstein has
argued that they still locate the cause of disability at the level of the individual.
For Finkelstein it is society which handicaps impaired people by not providing
adequate facilities for their complete integration. He goes on to suggest a
reversal of the terminology used by Harris -

‘I suggest changing the definition of the words handicap

and disability around. In this way a person is disabled
when he is socially prevented from full participation by the
way society is arranged’ (19).

Another disabled writer has proposed the definition should not be based upon
incapacity but simply on the degree of stigmatization or discrimination they
experience on the basis of their physical condition (17). While it is clear that
such an idea would cause a great deal of controversy and debate, the fact
remains that any attempt at classification must take account of the views of
the disabled themselves. Indeed the inaugural meeting of the Disabled
People’s International, representing more than fifty nations, recently rejected
the International Classification of Impairment, Disabilities and Handicap
proposed by the World Health Organisation 1980 (summarized earlier). On the
grounds that it came too close to medical and individual definitions of disability
(18).

While it is true to argue that handicap is socially produced and disability is the
result of the individual's failure to adjust to his impairment, much of the
responsibility for such a failure must lie with our society. But the fact remains
that the disability which results from a broken neck is quite distinct from that
incurred by say a speech impediment. While it would be quite correct to argue
that the degree of handicap incurred by the latter is almost entirely attributable
to society the same cannot be said of the former.

Undoubtedly much has to be done to reduce the degree of handicap

experienced by the disabled. Yet the fact remains that a society which is able
to accommodate equally every disabling condition is inconceivable. Therefore
some form of definition is essential if the disabled are to receive the positive
legislation they need. Nevertheless, the emphasis must not be placed entirely
on the individual's incapacity to cope with the everyday world as exemplified
by the first objective of the International Year of the Disabled 1981 (19). Nor
can the responsibility rest entirely with society.

It is clear then that a satisfactory definition of disability be situated somewhere

between the medical and social descriptions, and must include the single
unifying factor which is associated with all disabling conditions, impairments or
handicaps - disadvantage. Therefore for the purpose of this analysis I will
adopt a definition which in my view incorporates these three principal
elements. Thus the disabled are 'those who suffer any degree of social,
economic or political disadvantage by virtue of their physiological or
psychological limitations'.
However a further problem of classification particularly for the sociologies is,
are the disabled a social group or social category analogous to other minority
groups? Do they share the same degree of ‘awareness’ or ‘group
consciousness’ as other social groups such as Blacks or Women?
Undoubtedly

'there is a difference between physical disability and ethnic

minority membership and an individual disabled person
may not regard him or herself as a member of a group
although they may evoke stereotype responses in others'.
(20)

The picture is also clouded further by the fact that in recent years there has
emerged in some, a group feeling and solidarity which have many features of
a social group – special services, separate ministerial responsibilities and the
emergence of various pressure groups which suggest a growth of collective
awareness. As yet such groups are fragmentary and impotent but the
appalling conditions in which some physically and mentally handicapped
people find themselves living may prompt a change in the current situation.
So far we have concentrated upon the difficulties associated with defining
disability. In contrast, a definition of the discrimination they experience is
relatively simple.

In the neutral sense discrimination is an indispensable element of rationality.

The Oxford English Dictionary clearly states – to discriminate means to make
a distinction, to perceive or note the difference (between things), to exercise
discernment. Moreover to make distinctions, to enjoy the luxury of choice and
preference are intrinsic to our way of life, and any individual should not expect
to be exempt from such a fundamental reality. Indeed the disabled could and
should not want to be excluded from such normality as the Report on the
Restriction Against Disabled People 1982 makes abundantly clear from the
start.

However, the most casual of observers of human affairs will be acutely aware
discrimination in the modern epoch has acquired a further disparaging
dimension. The dictionary explains further to discriminate against: to make an
adverse distinction with regard to; to distinguish unfavourably from others’.
But even here careful analysis will reveal still further ambiguity. Does our
society not need to legitimize such discrimination in certain areas?
Distinctions are imperative in terms of experience and qualifications when
selecting individuals for jobs etc. The socially divisive sinister elements of
discrimination are more obvious when applied on the basis of socially
incongruous criteria such as racial characteristics, sex or in the instance of
this discussion physical or psychological limitations or abnormalities. As it is
the latter which concerns us here we shall adopt the definition from the
C.O.R.A.D. report which is broad enough to cover the two dimensions of
discrimination experienced by the handicapped – unintentional and indirect –
intentional and direct. The former refers to structural and architectural barriers
such as stairs, access and fire regulations. The latter refers to the more
blatant manifestations of prejudice and ignorance, where people with obvious
disabilities are refused admittance to pubs or clubs on the grounds that they
would ‘upset the other able-bodied customers’. For the C.O.R.A.D. committee
the definition is as follows -

‘the unjustifiable withholding whether intentional or not, of

some service, facility or opportunity from a disabled
person because of that person’s disability (21)

In the following pages I will attempt to trace the origins of our attitudes towards
the disabled, briefly outlining the complex strategies of exclusion which our
society has adopted toward such people.
NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Shearer, Anne, Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p 6.

2. Ibid., P 9.
3. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) pp 48-9.
4. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) ch 2.
5. Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas., The Social Construction of
Reality (1971) p 35.
6. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p 7.
7. Bury, M.R., Disablement in Society 'International Journal of
Rehabilitation Research' (1979) 2.1.34. 40 (In David Thomas p 7)
8. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) p 38.
9. Hobsbawm, E.J., Industry and Empire (1968) p 137.
10. Shearer, Anne., Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p. 151.
11. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) p 38.
12. Ibid., P 40.
13. Townsend, Peter., Poverty in the United Kingdom (1979) p 691.
14. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) p 41.
15. Topliss, E., Provision for the Disabled (1979)2nd Ed., p 46.
16. Finkelstein, V., in Finlay, B., Housing and Disability (1978) pp 7-8.
17. Sutherland, A.T., Disabled We Stand (1981) p 20.
18. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) p 18.
19. Shearer, Anne., Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p 18.
20. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p 14.
21. Large, Peter., (Chairman) Report of the Committee on Restrictions
Against Disabled People (1982) p 7.
3. ORIGINS OF DISCRIMINATION

To pinpoint precisely the root causes of our attitudes toward the disabled
would, I believe, be almost impossible. One author goes so far as to suggest
that our primitive ancestors lived in such an extremely harsh hostile
environment, which placed such a high emphasis upon the basic techniques
of survival, that there could be no margin for the provision for those
unfortunate members of society who were unable to take care of themselves,
such as the weak, the sick and the disabled(1).

With the advent of basically stable communities which were able to produce a
limited economic surplus, due principally to the evolution of some form of
agriculture, the possibilities of survival for the physically and mentally
incapacitated became more feasible although social acceptance was much
more difficult.

Humanity's perceptions of disability are coloured by deep-rooted psychological

suspicions of the unknown, the inexplicable, the abnormal and the ambiguous.
Certainly the very concept of normality is one not merely of statistical
measurement, quantitative analysis or substantiation, but is endemic to our
consciousness, anchored to our perceptions of rightness and fitness. We
generally cling to norms or rules of behaviour which are seen to be of moral
worth. Consequently, the whole notion of abnormality can carry with it
implications of disorder, badness and a threat.

Mary Douglas in her anthropological analysis of ritual and pollution 'Purity and
Danger 1966' has suggested that our society has adopted several strategies
for dealing with such anomalies. Negatively we can then pretend they do not
exist. Or, after acknowledging their existence, we can condemn them.
Positively we can accept the anomaly and endeavour to re-construct new
patterns of reality in which they are accommodated. It is generally accepted
that it is more or less impossible for the individual to create his or own schema
of classification. No individual lives in complete isolation. Consequently his
or her concepts of reality will have been partially, if not wholly received from
others. Therefore culture -

'in the sense of the public, standardized values of the community, mediates
the experience of individuals. It provides in advance some basic categories, a
positive pattern in which ideas and values are truly ordered. And above all, it
has authority, since each is induced to assent because of the assent of
others'. (2)
Individual perceptions of reality may vary slightly, however at the societal level
cultural concepts are invariably more rigid. Society has to provide
explanations for the inexplicable. Therefore such anomalies as congenital
deformity and disability it cannot be ignored.

Seemingly less complex societies have reacted to such events by erecting

ideologies, moral justifications for the rejection of the abnormal. The
anthropologies E.E. Evans Pritchard reported that Nuer, a deeply religious
African tribal culture, saw the birth of an unusually large child as a threat to the
natural dichotomy between humanity and the animal world. For the Nuer such
an event was an accident of nature which could be corrected. As a result
these unfortunate infants were quietly returned to what was thought of to be
their natural relatives - the hippopotamuses and their natural habitat - the river
(3). Another example of a similar culture’s response to such apparent
anomalies is illustrated by Mary Douglas’ description of a West African
community which believed two humans cannot be conceived in the same
womb at the same time.

Therefore twins were mercilessly murdered at birth(4). Infanticide was

widespread among technologically less developed societies, especially for the
physically or mentally impaired. As Michael Tooley explains -

'It was very common to destroy infants that were deformed or diseased or
illegitimate or regarded as ill omens'. (5)

If abnormality and deformity were seen to be a threat to society it is relatively

safe to assume that disability in many cultures was seen to be a pollutant.
Unwholeness was seen to be unholy. There are many ancient prohibitions
against people with deformities or abnormalities being associated with God.
Some religious institutions were renowned for their overt rejection of the
physically and mentally imperfect. Disease was perceived as a consequence
of wrongdoing. The Hebrews associated Leprosy with sin. Indeed much of
Leviticus is devoted to a reiteration of the physical perfections necessary for
all aspects of religious ritual. As God said to Moses -

'none of your descendents, throughout their generations who has a blemish

shall draw near,
A man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face, or a limb too long, or a
man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf,
or a man with a defect in his sight, or an itching disease, or scabs, or crushed
testicles ..... He may cast the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of
the holy things. But he shall not come near the veil or approach the alter,
because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries'. (6)

In many instances present practices echo ancient prejudices. Emile Durkheim

has drawn our attention to the fundamental impact religion has played in the
formation of different societies and their institutions. He acknowledged it to be
one of the, if not the principal source of all subsequently evolved moral,
philosophical, scientific and juridical ideas (7).

However, it would be erroneous to make the unprecedented assumption that

all religions have reacted negatively to the all unequivocally rejected the
practice of infanticide. Indeed some cultures believed that those seemingly
less fortunate than the majority were in possession of some intangible
metaphysical gift Ritual has always recognised the potency of disorder.
Especially disorders of the mind, fits, faints and frenzies were often interpreted
as some form of transition to a higher consciousness, a passage to a higher
plane where power and truths were sometimes revealed, not normally
accessible to the conscious mind. Certainly the mentally ill were seen to have
use value. The Ehanzu, a tribe in Tanzania, believed that in order to guard
against sorcery and ensure the return of the annual rainfall a 'simpleton' had
to be sent into the bush to wander alone until the rains came(8).

It was not until the time of the Ancient Greeks that any form of 'scientific'
inquiry into the problems of disability was undertaken, which did not turn to the
supernatural for explanation. And it is also generally accepted that the Ancient
Greeks made ample provision for those who were disabled in battle. Although
it is quite clear that like the other most advanced culture of Ancient Europe
Rome, the Greeks were advocates of infanticide for the weak and deformed.
In Sparta it would seem such practices were demanded by law(9). However
Aristotle had attempted to study deafness. For him it was a direct barrier to the
central processes of learning, language. Galen and Hippocrates perceived
epilepsy as a physiological interruption to the normal mechanisms of cognition
(10)

Certainly the inception of Christianity with its magnanimous attitudes towards

the inflicted appears to have done much to improve the material conditions
under which they lived. But it did relatively little for their status in the
community. As one writer has pointed out the spirit of naturalistic enquiry
begun in Ancient Greece was subsequently abandoned for a thousand years.
Generally in the Europe of the medieval period the physically and mentally
incapacitated were the recipients of superstition, persecution and ridicule.

Since disability and abnormality were seen to be unclean or impure, they were
also associated with evil and witchcraft. C. Haffter has pointed to the fact that
in the European Societies of the middle ages deformed or disabled children
were seen as ‘changelings’ – substitutes for human children, the outcome of
the parents’ involvement with black magic or sorcery. The Malleus
Maleficarum of 1387 declared that deformed infants were the outcome of the
mother’s intercourse with the Devil (11). The notion that any form of physical
or mental disability was a judgment for wrongdoing was, and to some degree
remains so today, pervasive throughout Europe during this period. Epilepsy
was particularly prone to such superstitions at this time. William
Shakespeare’s Richard the Third illustrates the discrimination experienced by
someone born into a world which places such a high emphasis upon physical
normality.

'Cheated of feature by dissembling nature/

deformed, unfinished sent before my time/
into this breathing world scarce half made up/
and that so lamely and unfashionable/ the
dogs bark at me as I halt by them'.

Shakespeare portrays Richard as twisted in both body and mind. Since he

cannot prove a successful lover because of his affliction he is determined to
become a successful villain. Such associations were not only limited to the
layman.

The German religious leader and scholar, accredited with the inspiration for
the foundation of the Protestant reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546)
believed he saw the Devil in a profoundly handicapped child(12). As a result of
such ideas disabled or deformed infants were the focus of a mixture of
emotions which embodied guilt, fear and contempt. Such children became a
‘shameful stigma’ in the eyes of the rest of society and a major reason for
ostracism, persecution and rejections.

The afflicted were also an object of ridicule during this period. Keith Thomas’
analysis of the joke books of the England of the Tudor and Stuart period
illustrates beautifully this further dimension to the discrimination experienced
by the handicapped at this time. Besides references to the seemingly
timeless universals of popular humour – foreigners, the wife, the church and
so on there are many jokes devoted to the mentally and physically disabled.

'Every disability, from idiocy to insanity to diabetes and bad breath was a
welcome source of amusement 'we jest at a man's body that is not well
proportioned' said Thomas Wilson ..... 'and laugh at his countenance if ... it be
not comely by nature'. A typical Elizabethan joke book contains 'merry jests of
fools' and merry jests at blind folk. While some of the tricksters pranks are
brutal in the extreme'. (13)

Thomas concludes with the statement that most professions were closed to
the disabled, visits to bedlam were a common form of entertainment for the
socially well placed and the practice of keeping ‘idiots’ as objects of
amusement was common among the aristocracy. At the lower level Thomas
recalls John Bunyan’s account of the ale house-keeper who kept his poor idiot
son Edward to entertain his guests (14).
However, it is also evident that the Tudor and Stuart periods were significant
for society’s recognition of the hardship experienced by those at the bottom of
the social hierarchy - the poor and the sick. Certainly up until this time such
people had to rely upon the benevolence of monasteries and the charitable.
But during the reign of Henry VIII some English towns such as London and
Ipswich organised some form of administrative relief for the less fortunate. By
the end of the Elizabethan period such 'social services' had become a duty
prescribed by national legislation. Such action was forced upon local
magistrates by the Privy Council and paid for by compulsory Poor Rates(15).
The Poor Law of 1601, Section 1, makes explicit reference to providing
special facilities for the lame, the infirm and the blind(16). By the end of the
seventeenth century this new sensitivity had taken hold certainly among the
upper echelons of society.

William Hay born in 1695 – a typical gentleman of the period, a country squire,
a Justice of the Peace and a Member of Parliament wrote an essay one year
before his death titled 'Deformity' 1754. It is in essence a philosophical
approach to the subject of disability. A subject in which he was well equipped
to articulate. He describes himself as scarcely five feet tall with a back 'bent in
my mother's womb'. (17) His purpose in writing the essay was to outline the
problems he had encountered throughout his life. He believed his condition
had caused him to be bashful, uneasy and unsure of himself. He was also
extremely self conscious of his personal appearance and considered himself
to have been extremely fortunate to have been born into a social strata where
such a high emphasis was placed upon good manners and politeness. Thus
preventing any 'gentlemen' making any derogatory remarks concerning his
appearance. He notes however how the gentle friendly teasing of his close
friends and their high standards of social etiquette they observed were in
marked contrast to the less sympathetic behavior of the lower classes –

'where insolence grows in proportion as the man sinks in

condition'. (18)

The apparent dichotomy between the behavior directed toward the afflicted by
the two social groups he attributed to breeding and education.

The advance of capitalism and its subsequent outcome – the Industrial

Revolution, the origins of which, particularly for England, were firmly
established before the thirteenth century according to one historian(19), was
to further reduce the life chances of the less able members of society.

Because the capitalist mode of production and all that it entailed –

mechanization, mass production, the disciplinary power exercised in the newly
developed factories and the social hierarchy were all geared toward the
mentally and physically agile, the disabled were further excluded from the
world of work. It is crucial to the capitalist ethos that individuals are judged by
what they achieve. And theoretically at least the economic rewards and status
are structured accordingly - what Claus Offe refers to as the 'achievement
principle' (20). Consequently the disabled were separated from the mode of
production, not merely because of their inability or unwillingness to work but
simply because of the way the new industrial processes were structured under
capita.

The disabled, along with the other disaffected groups in the society of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, had become dependent upon the rest of
society, or as one writer has claimed part of what Marx referred to as the
‘reserve army’ of workers.

'The industrial reserve army consists of not only the unemployed, but also
marginal groups like the disabled, the seasonally employed, those displaced
from previous modes of production (like peasants), immigrants from other
countries and especially important today housewives'. (21)

In a sense their function is to reduce the potentiality for revolution by exerting

downward pressure upon wages. Thus maintaining high profit margins and of
course filling gaps in the labour market when the necessity arises.

The problem of course for capital is the maintenance of the reserve army,
without it acquiring the potential for revolution – a class consciousness arising
from dissatisfaction. Which large groups of disaffected minorities may
provoke. Michel Foucault points to the fact that –

'sickness is only one among a range of factors including

infirmity, old age, inability to find work and 'necessitous
pauper' who deserves hospitalization' . (22)

Such an essentially class based analysis suggested by Foucault and explicitly

Zola (23) argues convincingly that the medical profession and other associate
professions are by implication little more than agents of social control – in the
service of the capitalist ruling classes. They cannot be members of that class
as they do not own the mode of production. Yet it is argued they are acting for
those that do by effectively maintaining the capitalist system as it stands.

The growth of these large institutions which spread so rapidly throughout

Western Europe during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries adds
further weight to the argument that in fact they were covert mechanisms for
regulating the size of the industrial reserve army. While such arguments may
have some degree of credence especially in the case of many psychological
disorders where patients were institutionalized unnecessarily and certainly
there is a grey area between a number of psychological and physical
conditions in which the two are not easily separated. To suggest that the
medical profession and nurses in particular are nothing more than disguised
jailers is largely unfounded in my opinion.

Nevertheless as such establishments proliferated their very existence merely

served to reinforce society’s perceptions of disability and handicap. The
disabled were sick, less than human, helpless and incapable to living in the
community. Their very presence was seen to be a threat to the very health of
society itself. As a consequence discrimination, rejection and segregation
proliferated also.

As the nineteenth century progressed the transition from relatively light

industries such as textiles to the much heavier capital goods industries like
iron, steel and the railways, what E.J. Hobsbawn referred to as the 'second
phase of industrialization' (24) further exacerbated the subordinate position of
the physically and mentally weak. Simply because such work demanded such
high degrees of strength and fitness.

Emphasis on physical and cognitive abilities was further endorsed with the
publication in 1857 of Charles Darwin’s 'The Origin of Species'. It was the
culmination of Darwin's (1807-1822) observations and explorations on the
voyages of the Beagle. His work besides developing his monumental theory of
evolution placed great emphasis upon the process of natural selection and the
survival of the fittest. Darwin's ideas were to provide the foundation upon
which an ideology was constructed which remained popular as long as the
class of competitive free enterprise retained its ascendancy. Social Darwinism
dispelled and allayed the qualms of the rich not helping the poor and weak by
telling them that the latter's sufferings were the inevitable price of progress
which could only occur through the struggle for existence. The inevitable
outcome would be the survival of the fittest at the expense of the unfit who
would be eliminated. Endorsed by nineteenth century luminaries like Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903) such ideas were to have significant repercussions
throughout Victorian Europe. The fallacies inherent in social Darwinism were
exposed by many as soon as it was formulated. Probably the most well known
being the Russian Anarchist Prince Kropotkin whose book 'Mutual Aid'
showed how even among sociable animals individual survival depends upon
group solidarity within the group. While others pointed to the fact that victory in
the race for wealth cannot be associated with natural selection as the poor
procreate faster than the rich. (25)

However, besides the horrors of institutionalization described so eloquently in

the novels of Charles Dickens, the nineteenth century was also significant for
the upsurge of Christian morality which was to have such profound effects
upon the lives of the poor and the disabled.

The extreme hardship experienced by those unable to sustain a reasonable

standard of living was to stimulate in many Victorians, fired by the new found
Christian morality, a desire to help those less fortunate than themselves. A
mixture of bourgeois altruism and conscience, this spirit of Victorian patronage
is epitomised by the character Scrooge in the same author's famous novel
'Christmas Carol'. A more tangible example of nineteenth century
benevolence would be Sir Frederick Treyes (1853-1923) who successfully
raised money for the rescue and care of John Merrick - the so-called elephant
man.

The story of how Treyes befriended and rescued John Merrick is now
extremely well known. Due principally to the enormous success of the recent
stage play starring David Bowie and the motion picture which had John Hurt in
the title role. The story of John Merrick's life is important simply because it
illustrates beautifully the startling ambivalence Victorian society displayed
toward the disabled. Before his rescue John Merrick had been subjected to
untold cruelty and humiliation. He was an object of ridicule - a pathetic curio in
a fairground freak show. After Sir Frederick Treyes' intervention Merrick
became the focus of attention for a large number of upper class society, who
were not only generous but apparently kind and considerate. In a sense
Merrick had become a symbol of Victorian virtue and altruism.

The unprecedented upsurge of religious ethics which characterized the

Victorian epoch also put an end to the widespread practice of infanticide for
the physically and mentally impaired, which despite the dominance of the
Christian Church throughout Europe, had been the rule rather than the
exception until the nineteenth century according to Michael Tooley's analysis.
(26)

Without question the positive changes which took place during the nineteenth
century were to have profound effects upon the lives of the disabled. The
overt hostility and rejection which had characterized earlier epochs had begun
to disappear. Society began to display a degree of tolerance and acceptance
which had not existed in earlier times. However, the ambiguity which
epitomized Victorian attitudes toward the handicapped remains. The
humanitarian morality which flowered during the last century has not put paid
to ignorance and misunderstanding. While blatant segregation and hostility
have disappeared generally. Contemporary society has created new
strategies of exclusion which are equally debilitating. The following pages are
concerned with how these phenomena manifest themselves in the modern
epoch.
1. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicapped (1982) p 21.
2. Douglas, Mary., Purity and Danger (1966) pp 38-39.
3. Evans Pritchard, E.E., The Nuer Religion (1956) p 64.
4. Douglas, Mary., Purity and Danger (1966) p 39.
5. Tooley, Michael., Abortion and Infanticide (1983) p 315.
6. Shearer, Anne., Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p 75.
7. Giddens, Anthony., Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (1971) p.
105.
8. Douglas, Mary., Purity and Danger (1966) p 94.
9. Tooley, Michael., Abortion and Infanticide (1983) p 316.
10. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p 22.
11. Haffler, C., 'The Changeling: History and Psychodynamics Attitudes to
Handicapped Children!' Journal of the History of the Behavioural
Sciences, No.4, (1968) pp 60-61.
12. Shearer, Anne., Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p 77.
13. Thomas, Keith., 'The Place of Laughter in Tudor and Stuart England',
The Times Literary Supplement, 21 January 1977.81 pp 80-1 in
Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p 23.
14. Ibid., P 23.
15. Trevelyan, G.M., English Social History (1964) p 112.
16. Oliver, Michael., Disability into the Eighties - A Review Article (1983)
p112
17. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p 25.
18. Ibid., P 26.
19. MacFarlane, Alan., The Origins of English Individualism (1978).
20. Offe, Claus., Industry and Inequality (1976).
21. Gough, Ian., The Political Economy of the Welfare State (1979) p 25.
22. Foucault, Michel., Power and Knowledge (1980) pp 168-169.
23. Zola, 'Medicine as an Institution of Social Control', Sociological Review
(1972) Vol. 20, pp 487-504.
24. Hobsbawn, Eric, J., Industry and Empire (1968) p 88.
25. Andreski, Stanislav., Herbert Spencer (1977) p 26.
26. Tooley, Michael., Abortion and Infanticide (1983) p 317.
4. DISCRIMINATION IN MODERN SOCIETY

The rise of Capital in Western society as done little t change our attitudes
toward the disabled. Indeed because of capitalism’s commitment to sustained
economic growth it has serviced to exacerbate discrimination rather than
alleviate it.

By definition, Capitalism is a system of commodity production which is

principally organized for the creation of profit. Profit is necessary for several
reasons. Firstly to satisfy the insatiable demands of the Capitalist class – the
bourgeoisie. Marx described the capitalist as a ‘rational miser’ (1). Secondly,
to ensure the reinvestment necessary to maintain the technological
innovations essential to increase production methods and stave off
competition, competition being endemic to capitalist society. And thirdly to
placate a potentially revolutionary workforce – the proletariat, who according
to Marx’s analysis, remain dangerous because of the extreme inequalities
which pre-dominate in such societies.

Therefore in order to satisfy the economic demands of the proletariat the

capitalist state had to assume responsibility for reproduction. The capitalists
themselves could or would not afford the fiscal cost of the needs of the
workers in a technologically progressive society – schools, hospitals etc. As a
result the state began to take a sizeable chunk of the fiscal product in order to
finance these forms of collective consumption. Certainly at the end of the
nineteenth century most scholars believed that the economic possibilities for
the foreseeable future were almost limitless. The majority shared in the

‘mood of the time, anticipant a perfect society just around the corner; or not
much further behind – a society whose healthy roots were already well
established’. (2)

The stark reality of the twentieth century has thus far proved otherwise. The
belief that the ‘hidden hand of the market’ alone would effect some form of
miraculous social and political equilibrium has proved fallacious. And what
now seem the obvious limitations to the possibility of infinite economic growth
have become all too apparent. The consequences for those who are
perceived to be 'dependent' upon the rest of society (those who to some
degree are actively engaged in the creation of surplus) the weak, the sick and
the disabled are indeed a major cause for concern. In order to understand why
the historical legacy of prejudice and discrimination remains, in a so-called
enlightened age, it is necessary to have some insight at least into the
mechanics of such societies. What form they have taken and what form they
are likely to take in the foreseeable future.

The tendency for the modern capitalist state to adopt what Keith Middlemas in
'Industry Unions and Gov't' 1983 has referred to as the 'corporate bias' Otto
Newman has shown were present in the Germany of the Bismarckian
decades of the mid-nineteenth century (3). Although in Britain the spectre of
corporatism did not appear until the first world war. However the most
continuous economic crises which have confronted Europe since 1900 such
as increased foreign competition, especially since the decline of colonialism,
or the emergence of trans-national coporations, have along with the demands
of an increasingly politicized working class served to seriously undermine and
de-stabalise capitalist hegemony. Lack of co-operation between gov'ts,
industry and organised labour over crucial issues like wages policy
necessitated moves towards some form of continous economic and social
management by the state – corporatism – or what Newman has referred to as
the ‘optimum face of capitalism’. Consequently the capitalist polity assumes
control directing chunks of the fiscal product to develop new markets. In effect
underwriting the needs of capital and placating a potentially revolutionary
workforce with larger shares of the surplus. The state has assumed
responsibility for pattern maintenance - welfare and cultural systems. In this
sense the welfare structure concerns every element of society not directly
attributable to capital - hospitals and schools etc. In essence corporatism
provides a physical and social infra-structure which through mutual consensus
between the three most powerful elements of society - the polity, capitaland
organized workforce underpins capitalist continuity.

In Britain the state formally assumed the responsibility for social welfare
immediately after the 1939-45 war. But the policy of universalism which it
adopted was never intended to disrupt the social hierarchy. Although the sick
and disabled are now entitled to some measure of social welfare as a right.
Their position in the social pecking order generally has remained as it was,
before the welfare states inception - subordinate - both economically and
socially to the rest of society. Furthermore, rather than redress the vast
economic imbalance, even marginally that exists in British society, the welfare
state as Peter Townsend has shown has merely served to benefit the 'well
heeled' rather than those sections of society who need help the most, if we
take into account free state education, health services and so on. (4)

A further dimension of the shift toward corporatism, which despite recent

setbacks due to the upsurge of reactionary Gov'ts in many western societies is
likely to be the form advanced capitalist states are likely to take, is that
because the lion's share of the fiscal product is shared principally between
those sections of the community engaged in the creation of profit. The
consequences for those who are not are obvious. The amount of surplus
allocated to each sector such as organized labour depends upon the amount
of pressure they are able to exert upon the rest of society. As one author has
pointed out coporatism has become simulated politics. The conflict over
distribution of resources becomes institutionalized.

'The modern state is best understood not in terms of

 representation of diffusely articulated interests (as the
traditional liberal theory of the state would wish) but as a
network of consultation, bargaining and compromise
between functional simulators'. (5)

Former interest groups and representative bodies have become nothing more
than appendages of the mechanisms of the state. Traditional platforms for
political articulation have become cosmetic. The corporate tendency is the
outcome of a polity organized for the authorative distribution of seemingly ever
decreasing resources. The result being that the weaker sections of society
are afforded a smaller share of the fiscal product simply due to their lack of
policital clout.

Claus Offe as early as 1968 defined the role of the polity in the late capitalist
state as 'cautious crisis management and long term avoidance strategies'. (6)
His argument revolves principally around the premis that the modern capitalist
state responds only to the needs of those groups who are in a position to
seriously threaten the systems continuity. As a result those who are atomized
and dispersed in the populace and not easily organizable, groups like the
disabled become neglected. His analysis demonstrates how modern society
neglects functional areas which are not directly linked to those who are
engaged in the mode of production. These ‘depressed areas’ – state housing,
education, health care etc, although in theory effect the entire population in
reality effect only those who are perceived to be dependent upon the state -
ethnic minorities, women, the old and the disabled.

Because of the depressed condition of these functional areas those actually

engaged in the production process are encouraged to look to the private
sector for such services. In this sense it is clear that the modern capitalist
state exacerbates discriminatory action against the physically and mentally
weak. But as the 'Action Group to Defend the Rights of the Disabled', (a
Russian organization which over the past three years have regularly issued
bulletins highlighting the deprivation experienced by its constituants in Soviet
Russia) have demonstrated prejudice and discrimination are allowed to persist
in other societies which claim allegiance to a different ideology. (7) Whether or
not Russia constitutes a truly egalitarian society is open to conjecture.
Certainly the evidence suggest otherwise. Technological and military
competition with western capitalism has meant the inevitable spread of
consumerism, inequality and hierarchy throughout the communist world. The
result being that the experience of handicap is remarkably similar regardless
of which side of the iron curtain you are from.

It would seem discrimination against the physically and mentally limited is

intrinsic to most contemporary societies. Frank Rowe in 'Handicapping
America' 1978 has highlighted six major dimensions to the problems of
integration for the disabled - architectural, attitudinal, educational,
occupational, legal and personal. (8)

He illustrates the first element of his typology by discussing the problems

associated with access to gov't buildings etc. in America. He records the
number of schools not adapted for pupils in wheelchairs, and how Washington
DC – the U.S. Capital’s ‘new’ transport system ‘metro’ supposedly designed
for the handicapped, the elderly and the able-bodied is still inaccessible for
those in wheelchairs 12 years after its initial construction. He points to the fact
that getting legislation for an architecturally barrier free environment through
congress is easier than enforcing it.

While Britain the C.O.R.A.D. committee who based their report upon over 700
responses to questionnaires claim -

'the letters we received showed clearly that disabled

people perceive access difficulties as the most
fundamental cause and manifestation of discrimination
and as we reflected on these letters we carne to the
conclusion that this perception was justifiable'. (9)

It is evident from the number of guides put out by pressure groups

representing the disabled in Britain that access to public buildings and
amenities which the able-bodied take for granted is almost impossible without
prior notification to the parties concerned such as restaurant or cinema
managers, for anyone with mobility difficulties. It is clear architectural barriers
to integration for the less fortunate know no international boundaries. And yet
with a little forethought and of course the fiscal resources the physical
environment could be accessible to almost everyone.

The basis for Rowe’s second element – attitudinal barriers – have been
discussed in the previous section. He comments upon the awkwardness and
falseness of encounters between the handicapped and the disabled. The
prejudices and ignorance which determine such attitudes he concludes are
enmeshed in the national policies which govern our lives. Society is quick to
acknowledge the achievements of ‘super cripples’ but we are reluctant to
include the majority of disabled and deformed people into the mainstream of
our everyday lives. Many are segregated into institutions or hospitals. The
consequences of which are boredom, apathy, loss of imitative, institutional
neurosis or downright despair.

Erving Goffman in ‘Asylum’ 1961 discussed in lurid details the effects of such
establishments on both the patients and the staff. ‘Total Institutions’ as he
described them are characterized by a loss of privacy and a lack of freedom of
choice while the individuals within them miss opportunities to make
meaningful relationships. A further indictment of this system of hospitalization
can be found in Paul Hunt’s ‘Stigma The Experience of Disability’ 1966. Hunt
suffered muscular dystrophy and spent much of his short life in such places
and his book can be seen as a deeply moving account of the soul destroying
effects of long term institutionalization.

According to one estimate there are 76,000 people under the age of 65 in
‘residential care’ in the British Isles. (10) And despite the fact that it is
generally accepted – at last – that the most appropriate place to live with a
disability is in the community, there are many who still argue for the need for
additional residential facilities such as Topliss and Gould in ‘A Charter for the
Disabled’ 1981. Indeed according to one author

'some countries such as Italy are trying to adopt an

approach that is literally radical - they have closed their
institutions and special schools by act of Parliament and
simply uprooted their inhabitants into the community. (11)

Probably the most fundamental illustration of the attitudes which still pervade
our society, is that for the majority of disabled people there is little if any
choice of opting for one type of care rather than another, many have no choice
at all and end up in residential care simply because according to one source –

‘it is not the degree of impairment or the progressive nature of the disease
suffered by the individual, but the breakup of the family or the refusal of the
carer to continue with the tasks upon which the impaired person is
dependent’. (12)

Our general attitudes toward the disabled have a profound effect upon the
family. The impact of disablement of course generally depends upon who is
affected within the family group. Although it can be argued that regardless of
who is affected the impact of disability will have significant repercussions upon
the expectations and relationships of the entire family unit. It goes without
saying that in almost every case the difficulties will be further compounded if
the family in question is of a racial minority, a one parent family or the
breadwinner is a woman. Undoubtedly the ability to cope emotionally and
physically as well as financially will vary from family to family, and the burden
of disability will fall unevenly across its members but its effects are never
negligible.

Peter Townsend’s comprehensive analysis of poverty in Britain during the

1970’s concluded that over half the people with appreciable or severe
incapacities were, a decade ago in households which were poor or in the
margins of poverty by the state’s own subsistence standard and that was
compared with one fifth of the able-bodied population. In almost every age
group people with disabilities are economically worse off than their able-
bodied peers. As disability increases with age, so the disabled and their
families can expect to be poorer. Such families can expect disproportionately
low incomes while incurring disproportionately high expenses. Children with
disabilities need special toys and equipment, they wear clothes out faster,
while the aged need extra warmth, incontinence pads and so on. Daphne
Sanders, a disabled parent, sums up the experience of someone living under
such conditions.

'My main feelings about these experiences are anger and

frustration. Anger because not only do I have to cope with
the physical and mental difficulties of being a person with
a disability, but I have to use precious energy struggling to
make ends meet. Frustration because there seems very
little prospect of improvement in the situation'. (13)

Educational barriers are those which segregate children by virtue of their

disability. These barriers operate not just at the level of basic schooling but in
further and higher education. Despite much recent criticism of segregated
education for the physically and mentally limited, both on the grounds that
special schools fail to provide an adequate education when compared with
ordinary schools and because of the social implication of segregating large
groups of children from their peers, both the number and percentage of
children in special schools in the British Isles has continued to rise steadily as
the following table shows.

Table 4

YEAR NUMBERS PERCENTAGE

1950 47 000 0.75

1955 58 000 0.81

1960 66 000 0.86
1965 74 000 0.96
1970 87 000 1. 01
1975 132 000 1 .37
1977 135 000 1.39

NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF SCHOOL POPULATION IN SPECIAL

SCHOOLS
SOURCE – Page 293, Booth 1981

In response to such criticism the British gov’t set up a committee of enquiry

which produced the Warnock Report in 1978. The report made several
recommendations which included replacing the original categories of
handicapped children with a much broader concept of 'special educational
needs'. (14) The report also favoured integration into ordinary schools for most
children. The subsequent gov't White Paper entitled 'Special Needs in
Educational' 1980 and the Education Act of 1981 broadly endorsed such
ideas. Yet central gov't made no resources available to facilitate such a
transition. The Act also leaves the legal rights of the handicapped child and
his or her parents unchanged. Consequently it is still the local authority or
what Peter Mittler refers to as the 'Lay decision makers' (15) who decides
what provision is appropriate.

In view of the fiscal constraints placed upon these elected bodies in the
present economic climate by central government is it any wonder that any
significant changes have not been forthcoming?

While at the level of Higher and Further education David Thomas reports that
a survey of the National Union of Students in 1976 found that although more
disabled students were attending higher education only 34% of those from
special schools capable of entering such establishments actually made it.
They recommended the adaptation of buildings to conform with the
requirements of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
Applicants should be assessed on academic qualifications only and such
establishments should provide information for disabled students and the
setting up of committees to oversee the needs of these students. (16) In short,
while some progress has been made in this area, much needs to be done in
view of the ever increasing demand for qualifications for jobs. An area in
which the disabled are already seriously disadvantaged.

Rowe's fifth barrier to integration, that is occupational, has obvious

connotations for the impaired person. In any society one's occupational role is
of paramount importance, it can provide economic security, social status and
self esteem. The Disabled Person's (employment) Act 1944 laid the
framework for the provision of a number of employment and rehabilitation
services whilst also providing disabled people with legal rights to employment.
It placed an obligation upon all employers who had over twenty employees to
employ no less than 3% of the workers from those registered as disabled. It
was hoped that the Act would alleviate the high unemployment levels among
the disabled. However, it is undeniable that disabled workers are more likely
to be unemployed than their able bodied counterparts. Employers have also
been reluctant to comply with the regulations. In 1980 only 35% of firms
complied with their quota and there has only been ten prosecutions for non-
compliance since the act went onto the statute books in 1944. Further, it is not
an offence for firms to be below their quota and an exemption certificate can
be acquired if vacancies are to be filled by nondisabled workers. One writer
has suggested that permits are issued every six months 'en masse' and there
are only ten inspectors for the entire country. (17) Besides which the register
of disabled people in all probability underestimate the size of the problem for
many people will be loathe to register for fear of jeopardising their future
employment prospects.

Certainly the type of employment usually found by the disabled is essentially

low paid and un-skilled. Often in sheltered workshops among other workers
suffering from a wide variety of physically and mentally limiting conditions.
One observer argues despite this reality

‘many people whatever their cause of unemployment will

settle for a job that under uses their skills rather than
continue in it'. (18)

To illustrate the point she cites the case of a civil engineer who was forced to
give up his highly paid job due to incapacity through chronic bronchitis and
ended up mopping floors. (19) As a general rule it would seem once disabled
people with disabilities get the chance to work they tend to be more reliable
and meticulous than others – primarily because they have to be in order to
hold down a job.

However, by 1978 when the general unemployment rate in Britain was six
percent the rate among the registered disabled was fourteen. By the end of
the 1970’s nearly sixty percent of the registered disabled had been
unemployed for over a year compared with about one quarter of able-bodied
workers in a similar position in the country as a whole. (20) And of course as
noted earlier, the whole story.

The effects of long term unemployment can be seen as a major cause of

handicap for not only the disabled but also the able-bodied. The cycle of
euphoria, the eventual loss of self-confidence and finally the ‘survival routine’
have all been well documented elsewhere. Dr. Harvey Brenner of John
Hopkins University USA argues the effects of long term unemployment can be
much worse. He has calculated a one percent rise in unemployment in the
US sustained over six years would yield 37,000 deaths. Including 20,000 from
Cardio Vascular disease, 1,000 suicides, 600 murders and 4,000 admissions
to mental institutions. (21) Whose job according to their inhabitants is to cater
principally for those who have no social status in society. In other words
tantamount to social death. (22) It would appear that the lack of work not only
disables but destroys.

In a society dominated by the fluctuations of the market the handicapped are

unquestionably the most vulnerable section of the community. A further
illustration of this reality is evident from a brief examination of the fifth barriers
to integration in Rowe’s typology – the legal barriers. The most extreme
examples of which can be found in the USA.
Many writers have drawn attention to the fact that in over twenty American
states there are laws which permit the involuntary sterilization of disabled
people. Others have pointed to the so-called ‘ugly’ laws which still remain on
the statute books in many American states. Legislation which prohibits
persons considered to be -

‘diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so

as to be an unsightly or disgusting object or improper
person from walking the streets on pain of arrest and
subsequent fine'. (23)

Further, to ram home the point that such laws are not merely left overs from a
bygone age, one author has pointed to the fact that in the state of Omaha only
recently someone was arrested for just such an offence. (24)

Here in the British Isles others have asked why it took so long for the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970 to become Law? Or why
we in Britain had to wait until the same year for mentally handicapped children
to be considered eligible for education rather than training? And why a major
report such as ‘Integrating the Disabled’ had to wait until 1974 to be
published? These are just some of the examples of the legalized
discrimination which have existed, there are others. Probably the worst
dimension of the obstacles facing the disabled today is the bureaucratic jungle
–

'the tangled web of legislation, rights allowances and

claiming procedures. Indeed so complex has the matter
become that a new professional has emerged - the
Welfare Rights Officer. (25)

Simpkins and Tickner have described his function as an intermediary between

the layman and the law. They focus upon the disparity between legislative
intent and reality. (26)

The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1976 prescribes specific
duties for local authorities to uncover the numbers of disabled people and
provide a wide range of services – assistance in the home when necessary,
recreation, transport and housing etc. The Act can be seen as a splendid
Charter for the Disabled. At the outset it was seen as the dawn of a new
epoch for the handicapped, however Simpkins and Tickner argue that in
reality the Act has created bitter disappointment.

The implementation of this new legislation has been hampered by the

economic climate which has inhibited the expansion of services – the
reorganization of National Health structures, covert discouragement from
central gov’t and various regional interpretations which all give rise to a high
degree of variance in the services provided from area to area. Such
differences have been compounded further by the expansion of means tests,
payment scales, different criteria for services and benefits as being equivalent
to 7,000 means test. They also point to the fact that so much publicity was
attached to the launching of the Act that the able-bodied genuinely believe
that all the needs of disabled people are now met. It is difficult for the ordinary
man in the street to understand that the disabled have little or no control over
their own incomes. Or that the vast number of benefits available means that
all claimants receive them all. Indeed every new benefit may not be to add to
the income of those already in receipt of benefit.

‘but often merely to change the label on the part of the

little they already get, while at the same time adding to the
complexity of choices they must make as to how to obtain
the best total deal within their entitlements'. (27)

They found that there are no less than fifty five separate benefits available to
disabled people, and yet despite this fact to be disabled in the British Isles still
means to be one of the poorest.

1. Rowe referred to his final barrier to integration as the ‘personal’ barrier

and arguably it is the most socially damaging. Physical and cognitive
limitations present difficulties for the normal daily living – reduced social
status, poverty and so on, but the disabled often acquire as a result of
the discrimination outlined above lowered perceptions of their own
worth as human beings. The consequences of which will be the subject
under discussion in the following pages.
1. Marx, Karl., Capital Vol. 1, (first published 1861) p 590.
2. Bauman, Zygmunt., Memories of Class (1982) p 125.
3. Newman, Otto., The Challenge of Corporatism (1981) p 19.
4. Townsend, Peter., Poverty in the United Kingdom (1989).
5. Bauman, Zygmunt., Memories of Class (1982) p 136.
6. Offe, Claus., Political Authority and Class Structures. Tran. Michael
Vale, 'International Journal of Sociology' (1972) No. 2, Vol. 1, pp 73-108
7. Shearer, Anne., Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p 180.
8. Rowe, Frank., Handicapping America (1978).
9. Large, Peter., Chairman – Report by the Committee on Restrictions
Against Disabled People (1982) p 9.
10. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) p 85.
11. Mittler, Peter., Quality of Life and Services for Disabled People (1983)
pp, 83-84
12. Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) pp 84-8
13. Sanders, Daphne., ‘Living in Benefit’ in Walker, A., and Townsend, P.,
Disability in Britain (1981) p 23
14. Warnock, Mary., Chairwoman – ‘Meeting Special Educational Needs’
Third Impression (1979) p 3
15. Mittler, Peter., Quality of Life and Services for Disabled People (1983)
p. 20
16. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p. 179
17. Ibid., p. 176
18. Shearer, Anne., Disability Whose Handicap? (1981) p 154.
19. Ibid., p.154.
20. Ibid., p.155.
21. Ibid, p.153
22. Ibid, p.153
23. Ibid, p.100
24. Low, Colin., Some Heracles About Handicap (1984) p 2.
25. Ibid., p. 3.
26. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1982) p 180.
27. Simpkins, J., and Tickner, V., Whose Benefit? (1978) p 36.
28. Ibid., p. 32.
5. The Experience Of Disability

As the previous discussion has clearly shown, to be disabled is to be

discriminated against. As a result to become disabled is to acquire a new
identity. To be born with a handicapping condition is to have this new identity
assigned the instant the condition is detected and diagnosed. Handicapped
people have to pass through a process of socialization which not only enabled
them to deal with the limitations and practicalities of their condition, such as
matering Braille in the case of the blind, but also with several behavioural-
attitudinal adjustments. These must involve a heightened perception of the
attitudes of others as well as a systematic re-appraisal of themselves. As a
rule the disabled are stereotyped by the rest of society. They often suffer the
ambiguity of being socially ostracized while at the same time because of their
supposed dependence are treated like public property. Often being denied the
social privacies afforded the rest of us.

Naturally enough we are not prepared for the experience of cognitive of

physical disability. We tend to assume such conditions only affect other
people. Generally the initial impact of a handicapping condition is
accompanied by a feeling of disbelief. Usually followed by a search for an
explanation 'why me'? Many writers have drawn our attention to the fact that
the newly disabled often place great emphasis upon the ordinariness of their
lives before the events which led to their condition. Those who are
handicapped from birth generally experience some critical incident which tells
them they are different from the rest of society. (1)

For many, the transition to disability at the outset is believed to be temporary.

They tend to make the unprecedented assumption that with a great deal of
effort, luck and a little help from the numerous professionals that seem to
surround them they will eventually return to the life they once had.

One source has estimated that there are as many as twenty three different
professionals involved with the disabled individual at various times. (2) Each
claiming to know what is best for them. Each professional body developing its
own cognitive style of appraising the subject in question - handicapped
people. Each with its in-group jargon, journals, specialist training and shared
value-systems. Consequently there arises the inevitable problems of inter-
disciplinary communication. Each specialist group prepares and presents its
subject matter in a manner which is principally designed to give 'professional'
respectability to the work itself and its members. The outcome is generally a
process of mystification which is indiscernible to anyone outside that particular
group. Such institutionalised mechanisms can only serve to remove the
problems associated with disability away from the realms of common sense
and the community. Which can only perpetuate ignorance, suspicion and
prejudice. The foundations upon which discrimination against the disabled
rests. In this sense then the very existence of these professional bodies is a
cause of the discrimination they seek to eradicate. Certainly professionals
must shoulder much of the responsibility for the individual model of disability
mentioned earlier which still dominates social policy.

Most professional bodies which surround the disabled have been the subject
of someone's polemic at some time. Probably the most notorious being IVAN
ILLACH's attacks on the medical profession. (3) Victor Finkelstein has argued
extensively that professional bodies merely impose standards of able-bodied
normalcy upon the meaning of disability for disabled people. (4) Consequently
the desire for normality for the disabled individual becomes overwhelming.
However daily life for the deaf, the blind, the crippled and the deformed bears
little resemblance to that of their able-bodied contemporaries.

It would be almost unimaginable for most of us to comprehend living in a world

of complete silence as the deaf do. A world in which the rich tapestries of
sound are nothing more than a cherished memory or an incomprehensible
experience seemingly taken for granted by the rest of society, where
conversation is restricted to the constraints of sign language - a language
which despite its immense scope is generally only understood by the deaf
themselves; where communication with the rest of society largely depends
upon mastery of the difficult techniques of lip reading - a method of
communication with obvious limitations.

How can anyone blessed with the gift of sight contemplate the prospect of
spending the rest of their lives in complete darkness. How are we to
empathise with someone who can never be free of a dependence upon others
for the simplest of tasks. For the blind it is a reality which can stimulate a wide
spectrum of emotions ranging from resentment and isolation to complete
apathy and total dependence.

Can the experience of disability be any the less devastating for the thousands
of unfortunate individuals who are crippled and maimed in our factories and on
our roads each year? How can anyone who is lucky enough to have good
health ever understand what it feels like to be told they have contracted a
debilitating degenerative disease such as Multiple Sclerosis?

The realization that one has been relegated to the ranks of the sub-normal -
the handicapped, invokes a number of reactions both from the disabled
themselves as well as the rest of society.

Some writers have suggested that the psychological adjustment to the

realization one is disabled can be perceived as a series of psychological
stages which have to be worked through. This concept is particularly pertinent
to the newly afflicted due to accident or the onset of a crippling disease, but
may also be applicable to children who may not realize they are disabled until
they come into contact with normality, say after leaving home or special
school. One author has characterized these typologies and claims they all
partially assume the individual has to pass through this sequence of stages in
order to be socialized. A typical example of these psychological stages which
the disabled are expected to pass through is a) shock, b) denial, c) anger, d)
depression. Movement is one way, each stage has an acceptable time frame
and the individual can be placed at each stage by operational criteria. (5)

Such explanations tend to neglect the importance of the family and the wider
social context, adjustment inheres almost entirely in the individual and such
models do not always accord with the personal experiences of many disabled
people. As the work of Finkelstein and other disabled writers has clearly
shown (see chapter one).

Nevertheless after the initial period of adjustment for many handicapped

people the desire to appear ‘normal’ becomes almost obsessive. Mechanisms
and devices designed to aid everyday living such as long white canes, hearing
aids, wheelchairs become symbols of abnormality. Red flags which signal the
need for specific reactions from the rest of society. Often stimulating in the
able-bodied a variety of responses which range from extreme sympathy and
pity to downright revulsion. Such reactions have a profound effect upon the
process of interaction as one disabled writer has observed;-

'your status changes and with it go the privileges of

independent action, and even the assumption of
soundness of mind. You become a member of a
recognizably different breed'. (6)

Although despite the importance of such devices it soon becomes evident that
one of the most important criterion to be taken into account when assessing
the value of such equipment is their unobtrusiveness. Such appliances as
hearing aids, artificial limbs etc are prized not always for their functionability
but their invisibility. Many disabled people deeply resent having to rely on
mechanical devices. Many studies have shown the precedent we all place
upon physical appearance(7) and the handicapped are no exceptions.
Moreover, for the handicapped striving to achieve normality the importance of
how they look becomes fundamental.

The onset of a disabling condition such as blindness, deafness or paralysis

will undoubtedly transform the affected individual’s life and in most cases the
person affected is seen to be morally blameless. Sadly this is not the case
with other less obvious handicapping conditions such as epilepsy for example.

The epileptic may have the advantage of not carrying any visible signs of
disability or abnormality. Yet the psychological impact of knowing at any time
he or she may experience what is commonly referred to as a ‘fit’ can be
catastrophic. And yet according to the British Epileptic Association, epilepsy
is not a disease or an illness; -

'it is a brief disruption of the normal activities of the brain. It

can affect all people of all ages, backgrounds and levels of
intelligence'. (8)

Nevertheless the epileptic is still confronted with the numerous employment

and legal barriers as other disabled people are. But he is often seen as
tainted and unclean. The Epileptic Congress of 1977 found that the physical
management of a child diagnosed as epileptic is less of a problem than the
psychological damage done by the rejection of his peers. (9)

Our attitudes toward the physically and cognitively limited are such that they
cannot avoid having some element of their behavioural pattern altered. In
many areas their patterns of behaviours will be different from their able-bodied
peers. Not simply because of their disability but because of society's attitudes
toward that disability. It could be argued that the disabled individual is cast into
something similar to what Talcott Parsons refers to as the 'sick role' or the
'hospital role', which according to Parsons excludes them from the normal
pattern of roles. (10) They become exempt from normal responsibility, they
are not expected to work. Further, because illness is seen to be socially
undesirable they are expected to place themselves in the hands of those who
are specifically trained to deal with such problems - what sociology refers to
as 'significant others'. They are expected to give up any previous claims to
status, rank or prestige they may once have had. They have no place in
normal society.

However the 'sick' and the 'hospital' role is generally perceived as a temporary
condition whereas the 'disabled role' is not. Consequently difficulties arise
when values and expectations which may be applicable to the sick are
assigned to the handicapped. As a rule, for those who are cast into the
'disabled role' the condition is permanent. Naturally enough many are
reluctant to accept this position for obvious reasons. In an abstract sense they
inhabit a kind of sociological no-man’s land desperately trying to cling to
normality while at the same time trying to distance themselves from the role
into which they have been cast.

As the condition appears more permanent many become apathetic, docile and
obedient. Moreover because suffering is generally associated with illness the
handicapped person is often expected to endure continuous pain and
discomfort without complaint. More often than not their future is relatively
uncertain principally due to the fact that in many cases those who are
expected to know what is best for them have little idea themselves. And they
very rarely consult the disabled themselves as to what they want or feel they
need.
As will be evident, the 'disabled role' is fraught with what sociologists glibly
refer to as 'role stress'. That is the situation which arises when opposing and
irreconcilable expectations are held about behaviour. Such conflict may arise
within the individual, indeed it may be said that he or she is at war with
him/her self or it may arise between him/her self and others. (11)

In many respects the concepts of role stress are applicable to us all. They can
refer to the relatively trivial situations which arise in our everyday lives. For
example, in my role as sociology student should I attend a particularly tedious
lecture or should I in my role as only son visit my father because he lives
alone and enjoys the company. Or they can refer to the more serious tensions
associated with the complexities of life in modern society such as the serious
stress and strains experienced by many women who are trying to run a home,
bring up children and hold down a steady job. But for most of us role stress is
a relatively temporary nuisance. For the disabled role stress is an almost
permanent fixture in their daily lives. Because of the wide variety of attitudes
and responses the handicapped person stimulates in others he or she must
be prepared to adapt his or her behavioural patterns accordingly at any social
encounter at the drop of a hat.

As I mentioned earlj.er the importance of physical appearance is fundamental

particularly at the initial stages of social interaction.

Consequently for those whose disabilities or abnormalities are easily visible

the process of interaction can be distinctly traumatic. During the 1950s Erving
Goffman made an extensive study of the process of interaction between the
normal and the abnormal. In his 1963 analysis 'Stigma' he articulates
beautifully the numerous, varied and often elaborate strategies those people
who are normally perceived as abnormal are prepared to go through in order
to achieve social acceptance by the rest of society. For Goffman the physically
and cognitively impaired are among those groups in society who along with
ethnic minorities, religious groups and social deviants are seen to be less than
human. Such people Goffman claims are stigmatized. They are shunned and
rejected by the rest of society. The unfortunate individual becomes what he
refers to as a 'shamed person'. Moreover it is the disgrace he believes rather
than the affliction which causes the stigma. The result being that the bearer's
rank and status are radically reduced thus subordinating him to the rest of
society. As a consequence of this stereotype the stigmatized person is forced
to resort to one of a wide variety of elaborate techniques of concealment,
distortion and in many cases elaboration in order to secure some measure of
social acceptance and shore up his precarious social predicament. (12)

While it can be argued that the disabled role is located within Goffman's
concept of stigma there are significant differences between the disabled
individual and the 'shamed person' Goffman talks of. To begin with whereas
society's perceptions of ethnic or religious minority membership are subject to
change. For example the Jewish community has been largely successfully
integrated into contemporary British society and overt anti-semitism is a thing
of the past. The same can also be said of many forms of social deviance
again homo-sexuality affords an excellent example. The same cannot be said
of society's attitude toward the handicapped. Further his assertion that it is the
'sense of disgrace' which causes disabled people to resort to mechanisms of
distraction etc is largely incorrect in my view. Most disabled people I believe
do not inherit a sense of disgrace with their disability. They employ such
tactics as Goffman describes not because of a feeling of guilt or shame but
simply because they have to, in order to overcome the enormous social and
institutional barriers society has erected between them and normality.

However, as Goffman observes how the handicapped present themselves to

the rest of the world can vary enormously. Some will appear totally
uninterested in themselves, their condition and their future. Often refusing to
communicate with anyone they are not familiar with. Sometimes bowing their
heads in order to avoid eye contact as if acknowledging their supposed
subservience. Others may develop socially irritating habits; - stammers or
twitches due to feelings of nervousness and insecurity. Further compounding
their overt awkwardness, which makes the possibility of anything resembling
normal social interaction between them and the ordinary man in the street that
much more difficult.

For those who have been subjected to long periods of institutionalization the
process of interaction with other members of society can be particularly
traumatic. Simply due to their lack of experience in the outside world. As a
consequence of this lack of experience many disabled individuals often
appear unusually naive, child-like and overtly affectionate. For example, some
disabled people not used to the standards of behaviour in contemporary
society often feel the need to make some form of physical contact during the
process of interaction. This may take the form of kissing, embracing or
grabbing hold of the other's arm. Because such actions are normally outside
the realm of social contact particularly for casual encounters and relationships,
they are often misunderstood by ordinary people.

After long periods of separation from 'normal' society some handicapped

people become extremely sensitive and easily hurt. While others appear
belligerent, argumentative and withdrawn. And yet despite the emotional and
physical barriers to integration many cognitively and physically limited
individuals seem determined to live as normal a life as possible. Our society is
quick to acknowledge the achievements of those who successfully apply the
necessary modifications to their behavioural pattern and adapt to the role
ascribed them. They become symbols of strength and virtue. Disability for
some can often expose untapped reserves of skill and determination enabling
them to integrate successfully back into the community. Indeed in some cases
others appear to capitalise upon their new social identity. However, this form
of sanctification of which our society is prone only serves to compound the
feelings of inadequacy for those who feel they are unable to make the grade.

However what is clear is the fact that the individuals in question have had to
substantially re-structure patterns of behaviour. Not simply because of the
disability itself, but because of our society's attitudes toward them because of
that disability. But although there are extensive variations between the
patterns of behaviour of handicapped people I believe it is possible to divide
them into three distinct groups.

A) Aggressively autonomous disabled role. Refers to those people who cannot

come to terms with their ascribed social identity. They try desperately to hold
on to their independence often to their cost. Refusing all legitimate forms of
help and advice. They can appear resentful, lethargic, withdrawn and
alienated. The are dominated by the injustice of reality.

B) Completely dependent disabled role. Concerns those disabled people who

appear to have given up all claims to any form of social identity other than
being a disabled person. They accept their subordinate position totally. They
are unwilling to do anything for themselves. They often appear immature,
apathetic and are seemingly incapable or unwilling to accept any degree of
responsibility

C) Normative disabled role. Refers to those groups of people who have

adjusted to their social position reasonably well. It may be said they are
making the best of a bad job. They accept, albeit reluctantly, their subordinate
social status and adapt accordingly. They are undoubtedly the most
successful in coming to terms with point that the above are generalizations
based upon the research I have conducted to date.)

The degree of variance within the disabled role does not in my opinion depend
solely upon the level of disability incurred by the individual. There are several
instances of people overcoming enormous difficulties leading as normal a life
as possible. (13) While others seem completely incapacitated by what may
seem a relatively minor complaint. What seems clear is that how people react
to a disability generally depends upon several extraneous factors such as
familial support, economic resources, social class education and so on.
Nevertheless, however well the physically and cognitively limited cope with
their condition the fact remains that they are seen as disabled first and human
beings second.

Furthermore as a consequence of the strategics of exclusion to which our

society seems committed, the able-bodied are equally ill prepared for the
intricate processes of social interaction with the less fortunate.

As a result of the stereotyped normality which still pervades modern society

contact with the physically or mentally abnormal is for most of us an
experience to be avoided. How many of us when confronted by a severely
deformed adult or child can stifle an automatic compulsion to turn away or
stare helplessly at the often emotionally disturbing inequalities of fate? Or who
amongst us when meeting two people, one obviously handicapped do not
automatically address any conversation to the more 'normal' of the two? How
when our society systematically separates the disabled person from the
normal are we expected to cope with the distinct emotional dilemmas which so
often engulf us at the point of social contact? It is hardly surprising in the light
of such realities that the process of social interaction is so difficult.

In a society where discrimination and segregation are generally the rule rather
than the exception normal social relations between the able-bodied and the
physically and mentally impaired will remain on the whole a major problem. As
a consequence of the unfamiliarity which exists within the two groups, neither
is equipped with the necessary social repertoire that is essential if integration
is ever to become 'normal'.
NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap pp 40-41.

2. Brechin, A., & Liddard, P., and Swain, J., eds 'Handicap in a Social
World' in Oliver, Michael., Social Work With Disabled People (1983) p
35.
3. Illack, Ivan., 'Medical Nemesis' The Expropriation of Health (1975) •
4. Finkelstein, Victor., Attitudes and Disabled People (1980) p 17.
5. Albrecht, G.L., The Sociology of Disability and Rehabilitation (1976).
6. Beattie, G.M., 'On Becoming an Artificial Arm User' in New Society
(1979) No 48 P 511.
7. Ibid., P 511.
8. Epileptic Congress 1977.
9. Epilepsy - A New Look at People with Epilepsy - Epilepsy International
1977.
10. Parsons, Talcott., The Social System (1951) Ch 10.
11. Thomas, David., The Experience of Handicap (1981) p 10.
12. Goffman, Erving., 'Stigma' (1963).
13. Probably the best known examples are Helen Keller, Christy Brown,
Frank Ashley etc.
6. Conclusion

My objective throughout this essay has been to bring to the attention of

sociology one of the most consistent and complex features of all known
human societies, namely discrimination against the physiologically and
cognitively less able. The systematic separation of the handicapped from
normal everyday society has meant that they and the enormous difficulties,
both social and economic, which they encounter in the course of their daily
lives are generally outside the boundaries of our consciousness. To a large
extent this also applies to many sociologists. They too have tended to
overlook the handicapped members of society, both as individual social actors
and as a social group. This in my view is a fundamental mistake. As this essay
has shown, the majority of the problems associated with physical and mental
disabilities are socially constructed and as such are the legitimate subject
matter of this discipline.

As is customary with any discussion of this nature the opening chapter began
with a brief reiteration of several of the innumerable attempts to formulate an
adequate definition for disability. They included functional, professional and
two of the personal definitions of handicap articulated by the disabled
themselves. It will be evident from this admittedly limited discussion that to
some degree all have proved relatively unsatisfactory - here I hasten to add I
include that used by myself for the purposes of this analysis. Consequently
part of the argument here must be that definition of such a complicated
subject is not possible. Indeed many writers have drawn our attention to the
fact that it is in the interests of the cadres of professionals which surround the
disabled to ensure that disability is clearly defined, but how often do such
descriptions concur with personal ones, and are those intent upon such
practices aware of the stigmatizing effect being labelled a disabled person can
have upon an individual? Nevertheless the fact remains that there are many
elements within society which demand classifications and while the idea of
labelling people may be repugnant to many, for the physically and mentally
less able it is a reality they have to accept - if only to qualify for the specialist
help and benefits they so desperately need.

It is clear from the brief historical analysis outlined in chapter two that
discrimination against this group of people has existed to some degree in
almost every known human society, and while it may be true to argue that the
more extreme forms of discriminatory action that have been synonymous with
earlier 'less enlightened' periods of our history, have largely disappeared,
subordination, rejection and segregation for the handicapped in the modern
epoch remains an unwelcome reality. Certainly the spread of Christian
morality which arose during the nineteenth century did not dispel the
ignorance and superstition which still surrounds physical and mental
inadequacies. The upsurge of liberal society merely changed the forms
discrimination took - they became institutionalized, incorporated into the
mechanisms of the state. The structural barriers to integration which remain
serve to perpetuate this ignorance and prejudice, and while it could be argued
that the treatment afforded the physically and cognitively impaired during
earlier periods of history can be justified and understood by their reliance upon
mysticism and the supernatural for explanation, the same cannot be said of
contemporary society.

As chapter three makes abundantly clear the humanitarian principles to which

our society claims allegiance are extended only to those who are fortunate
enough to be perceived as physically or mentally 'normal'. Furthermore, while
it may not be correct to argue that modern society actually causes disability,
despite the often crippling effects of modern industry, the catastrophic misuse
of drugs - both legal and otherwise - and the seemingly uncontrollable spread
of pollution, it certainly exacerbates the problem. The social and economic
deprivation to which the handicapped are subjected in modern society
compounds the feelings of social inadequacy that physiological or cognitive
limitations or abnormalities often produce.

The consequences are such that as soon as an individual becomes seen as a

'disabled person' their subsequent life chances are drastically reduced, not
only economically but socially. They become marginalised, they are thought of
as dependent, a burden upon the rest of society and as a result quickly begin
to see themselves as such. They have no culture or sub-culture into which
they can retreat as other minority groups often do, they are completely
alienated from the rest of society. Their personality is dramatically altered, as
Erving Goffman observed they become 'managers of a spoiled identity'! They
are forced into what I have referred to as the 'disabled role' - a role fraught
with continuous trauma and contradictions - a role distinct from any other.

The behavioural pattern associated with the disabled role can be subdivided,
as I have shown, into three separate groups, each with its own dominant
characteristics, and although the onset of a disabling illness or crippling
accident may partially explain the initial feelings of inadequacy and depression
which are experienced by those affected, they do not explain the long term
debilitating effects of being labelled 'disabled', nor do they explain why there is
such a variety of responses to this condition.

Medical conditions alone cannot stimulate such a fundamental change in self-

perception which effects these people. Furthermore, while psychological
explanations have proved useful, to date they have proved inconclusive in
isolating the principal causes of this phenomenon.

It is clear then, that the devastating consequences of the onset of a disabling

condition are on the whole socially produced and as such it is sociology alone
which can offer a satisfactory causal explanation, both for the persistence of
society's generally negative attitudes toward the handicapped and the effects
these attitudes have upon the disabled as a group and as individuals. Indeed
through a systematic empirical analysis of the three types of disabled role and
the social relations which surround them, such as class, family and so on, it
may be possible for Sociology to provide the clues and insights which can
help to eliminate their more extreme dimensions. Moreover, if we are ever to
abolish the ignorance and superstition upon which discrimination rests then it
is Sociology which must provide the necessary understanding if real
integration for disabled people is ever to become a reality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDRESKI, S. Herbert Spencer, 1977

ALBRECHT, G.L. (Ed) The Sociology of Physical Disability and
Rehabilitation, 1976
BAUMAN, Z. Memories of Class, 1982
BEATTIE, G.M. ‘On Becoming an Artificial Arm User, 1979
in New Society No. 48, p.511
BERGER, P.I. & LUCKMAN, J. The Social Construction of Reality, 1971
BLAXTER, M. The Meaning of Disability, 1980
BOOTH, T. ‘Demystifying Integration’ in W. Swan, The
Practice of Special Education, 1981
BRECHIN, A. & LIDDARD, P. Look At it This Way – New Perspective in
Rehabilitations, 1981
BUCKLE, J. Work and Housing of Impaired People in
Great Britain, 1971
DAVIS, F. ‘Deviance Disavowal. The Management of
Strained Interaction by the Visibly
Handicapped’ in H. Becker – The Other
Side, 1964
DOUGLAS, M. Purity and Danger, 1966
EVANS PRITCHARD, E.E. The Nuer Religion, 1956
FINKELSTEIN, V. Attitudes and Disabled People, 1980
FOUCAULT, M. Power and Knowledge, 1980
GIDDENS, A. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, 1971
GOFFMAN, E. Asylum, 1961
GOFFMAN, E. Stigma, 1963
GOUGH, I. The Political Economy of the Welfare State,
1979
HARRIS, A. Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain,
1971
HOBSBAWN, E.J. Industry and Empire, 1968
HUNT, P. ‘Settling Accounts with the Parasite People’
A Critique of a Life Apart by Miller &
Gwynne, Disability Challenge, 1981
ILLACH, I. Medical Nemesis, The Expropriation of
Health, 1975
LARGE, P. (Chairman) Report of the Committee on Restrictions
Against Disabled People, 1982
LOW, C. Some Heracles About Handicap, 1984
MACFARLANE, A. The Origins of English Individualism, 1978
MARX, K. Capital, Vol 1, 1970 (First published 1861)
MERTON, R. Social Theory and Social Structure, 1957
MIDDLEMAS, K. Politics in Industrial Society, 1979
MILLS, C.W. The Sociological Imagination, 1959
MITTLER, P. Quality of Life and Services for Disabled
People, 1983
NEWMAN, O. The Challenge of Corporatism, 1981
OFFE, C. Industry and Inequality, 1976
OFFE, C. ‘Political Authority and Class Structures’ in
International Journal of Sociology, 1972,
No. 2, Vol 1
OLIVER, M. Social Work With Disabled People, 1983
OLIVER, M. Disability Into the Eighties – A Review
Article, 1983
PARSONS, T. The Social System, 1951
ROWE, F. Handicapping America, 1978
SHEARER, A. Disability Whose Handicap? 1981
SIMPKINS, J. & TICKNER, V. Whose Benefit, 1978
SUTHERLAND, A. Disabled We Stand, 1981
TAYLOR, D. Physical Impairment – Social Handicap,
1977
THOMAS, D. The Experience of Handicap, 1982
TOOLEY, M. Abortion and Infanticide, 1983
TOPLISS, E. & GOULD, B. A Charter for the Disabled, 1981
TOWNSEND, P. Sociology and Social Policy, 1976
TOWNSEND, P. Poverty in the United Kingdom, 1979
TREVELYAN, G. English Social History, 1964
WALKER, A. & TOWNSEND, P. Disability in Britain, 1981
WARNOCK, M. (Chairwoman) ‘Meeting Special Educational Needs’ Third
Impression, 1979
ZOLA ‘Medicine as an Institution of Social Control’
in Sociological Review, Vol. 20, 1972