Neil Crowther argues that
eliminating prejudice and hostility towards disabled people rests on replacing
the 'deficit model' of disability around which the welfare system is
structured.
Disturbing reports have highlighted increasing levels of hostility towards disabled people, seemingly connected to a hardening of attitudes towards recipients of State support. But is it accurate or strategically valuable to always characterise such behaviours as ‘hate crimes’ or is this sometimes a different phenomenon requiring a different response?
In the case highlighted in Ian Birrell’s article, Peter
Greener endured months of abuse, and was various called ‘spastic’,
’cripple’, ‘scum’ and ‘scrounger’. The first three terms would be classic
bias indicators in a disability hate crime cases. The fact that the word ‘scrounger’ is grouped
with the others suggests that the offender knows that this man is disabled and
the word is another connected insult and manifestation of disability related
hostility. Calling disabled people scroungers, along with cripple and scum suggests
that the word is being used deliberately to denigrate the person’s worth as a
disabled person, just as Nazi propaganda described disabled people as ‘useless
eaters’ – as no more than a drain on state support and society at large.
But where hostility is motivated solely by the perpetrators disbelief that a person is disabled and
therefore not entitled to benefits they are believed to be enjoying it might be
difficult to invoke s146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The perpetrator may not have demonstrated hostility towards a person based on
the disability (or presumed disability) of the victim and it may be difficult
to prove that the ‘offence’ was motivated by hostility towards disabled people
generally. Rather, their hostility is
motivated by a belief that the person is not disabled – or ‘disabled enough’ to
be claiming benefits - and is abusing ‘the system’. Similarly where the perpetrator acts out of
a dislike of benefit claimants, this too is unlikely to prove evidentially
straightforward in establishing motivation based on hostility towards the
victim because of his or her disability, given the same motivation may exist
towards lone parents for example.
Yet it is undoubtedly hostility based upon a prejudice which
has a disproportionate effect upon disabled people – towards people associated
with State support. Prejudice takes
many forms but always involves preconceived judgements regarding people in
possession of particular characteristics, based upon unfounded beliefs. Prejudice manifests itself in individual
behaviour, or institutional practices and common culture and can lead to social
stereotyping, discrimination and hostility.
It frequently involves the dehumanisation of people possessing – or
being perceived to possess - particular characteristics. A belief that certain people lack inherent
dignity and worth is what links racism, homophobia and the abuse and
degradation of people with learning disabilities. The hostility faced by people associated with
State support might be likened to the hostility experienced by South Asian men
because of associations made with terrorism.
Such hostility is not directed towards their actual personal
characteristics, but towards associations that are wrongly made linking them to
particular beliefs or behaviours.
Prejudice towards terrorists and towards people who cheat the social
security system may be legitimate. It is
when such prejudice is misapplied that the problems begin.
Much of what presently appears to be intensifying (lest we
forget that this is not a phenomenon which only appeared after May 2010) flows
from the persistence of the deficit model guarding access to State support
which perpetuates the idea that ‘genuine’ disability means ‘inability’. This has placed the question of
‘authenticity’ centre stage in both the design of the welfare state – for
example the discredited Work Capability Assessment – and the rhetoric
surrounding it. When Ministers in this
government and the last say ‘we want to focus on what disabled people can do,
not what they cannot’ it appears generate a climate of suspicion rather than raised
expectations, especially as the newspaper stories which accompany such
statements – based on case studies gladly supplied by the Department for Work
and Pensions - typically highlight abuse and fraud.
This in turn has motivated and justified not only ever more
complex State bureaucracy to assess and re-assess applicants and claimants, but
it has also licensed community suspicion and surveillance to catch out ‘the
cheats’. It is this licensed vigilantism
which when coupled with ignorance and malice can spill into hostility. Conversely, those considered ‘deserving’ of
support face a deeply covert and pernicious form of prejudice, captured beautifully
by the human rights activist Abina Parshad-Griffin in the phrase ‘malevolent
benevolence’. ‘Pity’ is a dehumanising
response to disabled people, which is as likely to give rise to prejudicial
beliefs and behaviours as suspicion.
The effect on disabled people’s lives of this Catch 22 situation is
profound, as this moving blog by Kaliya Franklin
(more commonly known as ‘Bendy Girl’) illustrates.
We must of course continue to ensure recognition, reporting
and prosecution of disability hate crime, both for the sake of disabled
people’s safety and security and as a means of promoting access to
justice. But ‘hate crime’ offers little
scope beyond trying to remedy the individual symptoms of a much deeper and more
damaging problem and in any case may be limited at addressing some of the
experiences that disabled people are now reporting for the reasons outlined
above. It’s worth us recalling the key
message from the McPherson inquiry into the botched investigation into the
murder of Stephen Lawrence – that prejudice is embedded in institutions and in
cultural beliefs and practices and can only be truly tackled by changing
both. Looked at this way, the hostility
that disabled people are experiencing can be challenged via the Equality Act
2010, section 149 of which requires
government and public bodies to pay due regard to tackling prejudice and promoting
understanding in order to foster good relations between groups. Further, Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) requires the UK State to foster
respect for the rights and dignity of disabled people including by ‘combating
stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with
disabilities’. The Department for Work
and Pensions cannot continue to claim to be in the business of tackling
prejudice towards disabled people on the one hand, while playing an active part
in generating the conditions for that prejudice to take root and to find
expression on the other.
But these challenges cannot be reduced to a question of
communications alone, as critically important as communications are. Addressing the sort of hostility that
disabled people are reporting will only be successful if part of a wider
strategic shift from a welfare-based approach to disability to the rights-based
approach envisaged by the CRPD, as I outlined in ‘disability rights – in need of development’. A truly strategic disability strategy will
recognise and exploit the opportunity to link welfare and public service reform
to promote independent living to the elimination of disability-related prejudice
and hostility. It will do so by
abandoning the wasteful and damaging obsession with ‘skivers’ that consumes
both the resources and discourse surrounding our welfare state, replacing it
with a new narrative and focus on supporting ‘strivers’. We can re-design our welfare state not only
to give people the genuine support they need to move towards work but at the
same time to challenge the damaging stereotypes which lead to the prejudice
underpinning both hostility and discrimination.
It’s time to cut the deficit model.
Neil Crowther
21 comments:
You should be ashamed of yourselves for implying that the disabled are to blame for the deficit. You should question why we the disabled have no faith in "voices which speak on our behalf" Traitors!!!
that's a despicable attitude perpetuating the myth that people with disabilities have somehow caused the deficit. It justifies public hostility on the grounds of the public good and falls into the right wing trap of blaming the victim. I'm ashamed of you lot. wanna help disabled 'strivers' look at the economic system that has kept millions in unemployment for 35 years, only when the able bodied are employed will employers look upon the disabled as a potential asset rather than a liability easily avoided.
Shocking belief in the idea of the deficit as the source of problems when in fact it is wealth redistribution in terms of a equal and proportionate share of the GDP which as a percentage of the economic pie is being cut. This article shows a level of apologetic approach that ignores the main fact is that Big Corporates and the Rich are taxed less ever year which become profits and thus the deficit is created. Public service spending has to be distributed as revenue proportionately. In reality the deficit when compared against a growing economy has been falling for many many years while wealth has double in the last 20 years. Britain in fact has never been richer like it is today compared to 1951 by 144 times. The real issue is while the rich keep a larger and larger share of the economic pie the poor in society are left on less and less to manage on including factoring in inflation and value of money
Actually, the right based concept to which refers this article is very much the one which dominates the debate of aid effectivess in developing countries. It might dominate but it is not unanimously accepted by aid agencies. To give an example, food security has become the focus rather than malnutrition, but economic intervention does not feed malnurished children who need emergency feeding. They die in the name of market stability like disabled people who cannot work are sacrified today by the false belief that each one them, given the right kind of support, should be able to work again. Some disabled people through no fault of their own will never be "strivers". It is this realisation which will hopefully mark an end to prejudice, and not theories which have not prove their worth,and which have been actually damageful in countries like Niger during the 2005 famine.
Anita Bellows
I'm speechless that someone representing disabled people would take this stance at a time when so many disabled aretaking their livesdue to the sort of vebiose confusion he shows so much indulgence. He may be very clever, but there is a lack of compassion and real comprehension of thecurent problemscreated by the Govenment, not by thr vulnerable in society.
How much is the Govt paying you to post this baloney
The label 'skivers' and 'strivers' are equally irritating. 'Skiving' and 'striving' BY WHOSE STANDARDS?
As a person with disabilities I have spent part of my long life in work. Not 'striving', just doing a job. I felt no need to prove myself as being somehow fueled by the need to demonstrate personal excellence to overcome my disability, or in whatever patronizing terms someone without a disability would foist upon me on any given day (or nowadays, in any given blog)
Now I am no longer able to work, through ill-health, I am either to be pitied or scorned? Why must my self-opinion be dictated to by someone who doesn't even know me? I only have two choices?
Those projections are put upon me by others and I absolutely refuse to buy into them. I do not accept the implied proposition that a person with disabilities has to be anything other than an individual. We do not function as a group with a weird kind of 'collective-mind' and I resent being told I should be a 'striver' or any other label, by you or anyone else.
I will be what I damn well decide to be with no interpretation of my motives by you or anyone else.
Hi - it's the author of the piece. Just a suggestion - read it before commenting!! Clue: it doesn't anywhere blame disabled people for the deficit or for that matter event talk about the fiscal deficit. It blames government policy and rhetoric for generating the conditions which are causing increased hostility towards disabled people. Perhaps you all disagree with that analysis and my thoughts on how to fix it - well fine. But at least have the decency to read beyond the title before launching into ill-founded accusations and suggestions about the motives of myself of Disability Rights UK.
Liz Sayce, in her role as Chief Exec, RADAR was paid very handsomely to produce a report for the DWP. Maria Miller, Minister for the Disabled (aka Maria Miller, Remploy Killer) used Liz Sayce flawed and highly questionable report to justify the closures of Remploy Factories. As a consequence of Liz Sayce damning report, 1700 disabled people are going to lose their jobs. Remploy factories provided 1700 disabled workers with employment in a safe and supported environment. These 1700 disabled workers are now devasted and frightened. They face a lifetime of unemployment, mental, physical and financial hardship because they stand to lose the main thing that gave them the will to carry on...the dignity and commaraderie that Remploy employment was able to provided in a safe and secure environment. I say, 'Shame on you, Liz Sayce! for producing a report that has ultimately consigned 1700 disabled people to a lifetime of misery. Oh, by the way, congratulations on your new post...Chief Exec. of DRUK! Do Remploy employees feel betrayed by Liz Sayce? Oh Yes!
People with disabilities endure tremendous hardships - physical, emotional and financial. Your vision, 'A society where all disabled people can participate equally as full citizens' is commendable. Why then, did your Chief Exec., Liz Sayce, write a biased and contentious document which has led to the closure of Remploy factories. She has, as a result of her report, consigned 1700 vulnerable, disabled people to a lifetime of unemployment. Did your Chief Exec.,Liz Sayce listen to the wishes and aspirations of 1700 Remploy employees - No! Liz Sayce has deprived 1700 disabled people of their ability to participate equally as full citizens by producing a document that has led to Remploy closures. Has Liz Sayce read your 'vision'?
You've got a bloody cheek purporting to speak for us. I don't know how you can live with yourselves.
Any 'disability rights' outfit worth its salt should OPPOSE CUTS AND AUSTERITY with all its might!
That is the VOID in your capitulationist thinking. That's why disabled people cannot rely on you to CHANGE ANYTHING! Self-interested, self-absorbed SHITE.
NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!
Neil I realise you came back to defend your piece and to claim everyone else has it wrong in their interpretation of it. I have to say that the fault lies with your writing, you give headline terms to highlight your points yet barely a byline style explanation of your leader. Add this to the damaging attacks on the disabled and the flawed reports put forward by your organisations who can blame people from believing what they are reading.
Dear Anonymous, firstly I'm not an employee of Disability Rights UK or of anyone for that matter. The views and ideas here are entirely my own & this is a guest blog. I did not claim everyone was wrong in their interpretation, but as several people in the thread either said that I/DRUK was arguing that fiscal deficit reduction was key to tackling prejudice and/or made comments clearly unrelated to the article at all I just asked that they gave it a fair hearing by perhaps reading it first. The headline was chosen deliberately to grab attention, but I (wrongly) assumed people having read it would see fairly quickly that it was referring to an entirely different deficit (which it explains). I will ask DRUK to add a by-line to avoid further confusion as you suggest. The article is about the 'damaging attacks on the disabled' and is calling for action by government to address (and to stop stirring) prejudice. It argues that this isn't just a matter of messages, but also of the way the welfare state is presently designed to distinguish between 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' disabled people - something which has come to invite the wider community to make judgements about disabled people's 'validity' which leave people with little choice but to either conform to the negative stereotype of disabled people simply leading their lives behind closed doors in order to maintain their benefits, or risk being accused of fraud because they simply seek to live something of a life. I am unclear what it is about this argument that has caused such a negative response. From reading various comments my suspicion would be that it's really to do with feelings about Remploy closures and the (misguided in my view) argument that Liz Sayce/DRUK is 'to blame'. Best wishes, Neil
Dear Neil
Indeed you have not 'blamed' the deficit on disabled people but you have clearly linked non-disabled people's attitudes to disabled people due to ill-informed beliefs about disability over several paragraphs before one brief paragraph citing one controversial report that you do not elucidate further before bringing in the deus ex machina of 'reduce the deficit' without forther explanation.
Why, then is the prejudice by the mis-informed about disability solved by the reduction of the deficit?
If as you say the prejudice existed before the deficit, what difference does reducing the deficit make?
Ok.... one last time. Nowehere do I talk about the fiscal deficit or suggest prejudice will be reduced by reducing it. I advocate the need to rid the welfare state of the deficit model of disability. This is a good explanation of what the deficit model is http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/341/429
Its the basis for ESA, DLA, the way social care is allocated. I believe this idea is to blame for the way disabled people are treated as either as objects of pity or objects of suspicion, neither of which do I believe are a good thing.
I would like to change that. That's why I wrote the article.
Best wishes Neil
I think there are 3 big issues about this article that are causing difficulty. The first is the confusion between the 'deficit' and the 'deficit model of disability'. As a graduate with a postgraduate qualification in disability studies i had to read the article at least twice to understand what was being said.
The second problem is the reference to 'strivers'. People who are chronically sick as well as disabled find this difficult; as I am both, I can understand the difficulty. The experience of working as a disabled person, as I was, is empowering and promotes self-esteem; the experience of being too ill, sick or disabled to work, as I am now, is anything but! Many of those who feel the most vulnerable under this Govt are unable to work, even from home, if work implies a degree of reliability, so Neil's article seems, to them/us, as remote and uncaring. Unfortunately many of us ARE economically dependent, and popular attitudes to those who are dependent will always affect our well-being.
Thirdly, this article, written as it is for Disability Rights UK, is associated in people's minds with Liz Sayce's report on Remploy. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that report, and I have mixed views, the reality is that in a labour market in which supply massively exceeds demand, ex-Remploy workers face a life on benefits because employers will usually go for a non-disabled person rather than a disabled person, and definitely for someone with mainstream employment experience.
My own view is that this article doesn't really help very much those who are unlikely ever to be able to work. That's a limitation inherent in its argument. There is a conflict these days between disabled people who align themselves with the disability movement, for whom a 'right to work' is key, and disabled and/or sick people who are fighting to get recognition of their worth as members of society, a worth that is not based on their economic productivity. It is this second group who find articles such as this unhelpful, antagonistic and irrelevant.
In my view, Neil's article is pertinent to disabled people but not particularly helpful for sick people. Some disabled people are sick, and unable to work, but some disabled people are definitely not sick; and for them, the right to work is of crucial importance. However, there has to be a way for society to value the less tangible contribution made by sick people, so maybe DR UK could commission someone to redress the balance?
Thank you Jane, you voiced my thoughts far more articulately than I could have.
Re this 'Striver v Skiver' dichotomy: since being disabled, I have to strive much harder than a well person would, just to survive, keep myself fed and reasonably clean. Disabled people have a much tougher time just staying afloat. Most of us use all our spoons up regularly - when I was a fit person, I had energy to spare.
Neil,
apologies. I understand now. Like Jane, I have postgraduate qualifications too and as my comment suggested I was confused.
Once understood, the distinction is clear, but not to anyone without a knowledge of the deficit model.
This is a pity, had it been clearer, there is a lot that is said here. But as Jane says the wording such as 'strivers' can have a reaction, especially when one does not identify as such without necessarily being the opposite. With the wording of 'deficit' which I understand you were using to get the final play on words, without explaining the origin of the distinction in your wording, at least not clearly I think you have accidentally split salt over raw wounds. Words are emotional triggers and what seems to have happened here is an unintended consequence (as someone like Hannah Arendt would have said - all actions have unintended consequences, it is unavoidable, that is the purpose of forgiveness (I say this as an atheist by the way)).
You also use, for instance, the phrase 'Prejudice towards terrorists and towards people who cheat the social security system may be legitimate.' Actually no prejudice is legitimate, I realise you meant negative attitudes, but 'cheating' and such are matters of justice (after the fact) not prejudice, whereas the attitudes you quite rightly highlight with regard to the disabled are quite clearly prejudice.
It's a pity because there is something to acknowledging that disability is not necessarily a deficit, but again as Jane highlights, the question here is the focus on work. The notion that recovery moved from an emancipatory form of self- and peer-led help to 'you failed the ATOS get a job' stick's in the throat of those who as Jane points out are unable to work.
There's a sense that the focus on work with regard to disbility rights is part and parcel of the issue of being treated as subhuman if you don't work. Leading to a perception of such views as assimilationist. Stockholm Syndrome. That's not to say that we should not fight for the right to work. I am of the view that we all want to be productive (and for many unable to work that's what galls), but there is a sense where the workplace, with its gearing towards profit is not the place to welcome different potential, just profit-oriented potential. And this is where the cosh seems to be perceived if not immediately felt. Especially when the deficit is used in the way it is, what's more when there are amny people such as myself who are aware of Keynesian or Minskian alternatives, let alone Marxist, that suggest the issues over the deficit are cloak and daggers for furthering the Tory get rich quick scheme. That's not to say this is a right wing issue, I have met many Marxists with no tolerance for the lumpenproletariat, who have made labour the worth of an individual (just for them the communised form).
So, and again I'm sorry for my contribution, but, whilst clever, the play on deficit (without enough explanation); the use of striving (even words like flourishing, well-being and survivor can leave people feeling worthless if they fail to identify) and the confusion over the use of prejudice, at a particularly sensitive time that i recognise you recognise, has led to what must seem like a bewildering negative reaction. I say that for my part and i think i've tried to explain why it might have rubbed other people up the wrong way.
Could you write another post explaining the deficit model and what was meant in this article, so that people can see what it was you were trying to say (if you can be bothered, I'm sure you're quite upset).
all the best
Alastair
Dear Jane and Alistair - thanks for your comments which are very helpful indeed. I guess its a high risk strategy to introduce 'political models' into a short blog of this type, especially when also done so as a play on words/meanings. On the strivers/skivers thing, I'm interested in how people have reacted to that. I should have brought out more of Kalyani's blog (there is a link to it - she talks about having managed to walk a mile and yet the joy she experiences being tempered by the fear that she will be shopped as a benefit cheat) as that exemplifies what I was referring to. I believe the welfare state stamps upon the basic human instinct to strive and do your best whatever that might be. It was not intended to be read as an endorsement of a Thatcherite 'let the tall poppies grow tall' idea totally connected to employment.
I'll perhaps talk to DRUK about giving it an edit cos I'd rather it got a fair hearing than people get distracted by the use of certain phrases!!
A very interesting article and comments. My comments are as follows :- I work 24/7 365 days a year it is tiring work but useful never the less sometimes my workload is massive other times very easy like any "job" it has it's peaks and troughs. My job is diverse interesting challenging and mind boggling as never before. What is my "job"? It is looking after myself I am a woman who lives independently in the community in social housing employing enablers and ensuring I keep as well as I can whilst ensuring I have as much input as I can with my own community ~ I keep my postman electrician gasman binman local shop chipshop take away petrol station supermarket highway maintenance workers council workers bank post office delivery men and women car mechanics ~ in fact too many to mention employed including my local MP because I am part of the comminity I used to be in paid employment then volunteered as a trustee director of a major charity for 15 years before I had to give up due to ill health. Now I spend my time ensuring I live ~ but I have never felt so "got at" by society in my life. Up until a few years ago finally I felt at one with the world I was being recognised as valued and "my rights" were beginning to be addressed. Although I know society had a long way to go we were on the right track. Now I feel we have shot back to the 1940's My "rights" seem to be of lesser value than ever before I feel society doesn't value me anymore in fact I feel like I am a burden on society beause that is what I am being told by the press and in the media. My benefits will be address soon and my whole world will be turned upside down with this "pending" awful assesment that all disabled people will ahve to face. I am in receipt of ILF now defunked and indeed I am told that I will no longer be supported by ILF after 2015 and that my local authority will have to pay for my support. However my local authority have in the past couple of months announced that if my need are over £500 a week I will be put in a care home as they cannot afford to pay anymore than £500 a week. My local authority did have a consultation day regarding this matter but they only gave 1 days notice to the consultation of these impending changes. I feel like I am becoming more disabled by society now than ever before ~ and the future looks very bleak indeed. I know I am not the only one that feels this way ~ and it is a crime a national crime against disabled people's human rights and there isn't a darn thing I can do about it....... believe me I have tried but no one is listening............like the saying goes in the middle of a forest surrounded by trees no one can hear you scream!!!!!!!!!
Ramblestiltskin
I approached this article and thought "here we go, another demonisation".
I read longer and started comprehending but feel that people with raw nerves would give little time for analytical reading.
Moreover you are treading on very sensitive ground where people have felt persecuted for years now and this feeling has amplified greatly over the past couple of years.
I think a clarification would be helpful. I can understand the need for an attention grabbing headline where you then gently make your case, but I think you need an edit fairly quickly for more coherence.
I think that DRUK is also problematic given current feelings of betrayal by charities executive members, again with notable exceptions.
I agree with the person who said no prejudice was justifiable and you discredit your discourse if you make this comment.
thank you.
Post a Comment