No observance of Disability Pride Month is complete without discussing ableism. One way to start is to think about the word “ableism” itself — the term most often used these days for the broad category of disability prejudice.
There are scores of ways to define the word, “ableism.” Here are just a few that provide a taste of what the term includes:
- Disability & Philanthropy Forum — which notes that ableist assumptions rely on a notion of “normal” that is the “default” type of body or mind.
- Scope — a disability organization in the United Kingdom, draws a distinction, less often made in disability dialog in the U.S., between “ableism … discrimination in favour of non-disabled people,” and “disablism … discrimination or prejudice against disabled people.”
- Access Living — a Center for Independent Living in Chicago, which is one of several hundred similar advocacy and assistance organizations run by and for disabled people. It’s definition of “ableism” emphasizes that because of how our societies are typically designed, “the world we live in is inherently ‘ableist.'”
These definitions of “ableism” all include:
- Various versions of the idea that disabled people are by definition inferior to or less capable than non-disabled, “normal,” or “healthy” people.
- Deliberately offensive and carelessly insensitive comments, bullying, and other kinds of negative personal treatment of disabled people.
- Organizational practices that exclude, segregate, or seek to control and confine people with disabilities..
- Physical structures and design practices that make buildings, public facilities, and neighborhoods inaccessible and hostile to disabled people.
The word “ableism” is partly descriptive. It is meant to conveniently and accurately give a name to this wide range of ideas, practices, and experiences disabled people face, but often have trouble explaining.
But “ableism” also has a more powerful, but notably tricky rhetorical function. It suggests an equivalence, or a similar level of significance to other “-isms,” such as racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. And in doing so, the word “ableism” serves as a strong moral condemnation of the things the word “ableism” represents. Some accept it as a serious but optimistic call to change, to do better. Others see “ableism” as more of an unanswerable accusation, an attempt to discredit someone or invalidate some practice, or person, as completely indefensible and illegitimate.
There is truth in both interpretations. “Ableism” is useful both in reforming ableism itself, and in emphasizing its seriousness. It’s something to be understood and worked on. It’s also something to be soundly rejected, not regarded as simply another less favored but debatable opinion.
The word “ableism” is more used and familiar than it was just ten years ago. But plenty of people still aren’t sure what to make of it. Confusion, discomfort and debate over the word mostly reflects disagreement about what the word is supposed to represent. There are several distinct “takes” on ableism — the phenomenon itself, not just the word.
First, there is a frequently offered argument that ableism is mostly the result of ignorance or misunderstanding, not derision, disgust, or hatred.
Using outdated or overly fussy terminology, like “handicapped” or “differently abled” is generally regarded as ableist. But while it is cringey, sometimes even outright offensive, it’s usually seen as not intended to be insulting. Other examples include: asking intrusive questions, like “How did you become paralyzed?” and making kindly-meant but awkward and inappropriate comments, such as “You are so inspiring!” Even denying opportunities can be spun as mistaken but not intentionally mean – like someone not inviting you to a party because they assume you wouldn’t want to go due to your disabilities and accessibility problems.
This idea that ableism is more “benign” than other prejudices may or may not be true in any given case. But it always tends to underestimate how much actual hostility and prejudice there is for disabled people. And in real life experience, other people’s intentions make little difference in how ableism feels to people with disabilities.
Ableism may in fact often come from misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge. But regardless, it also hurts, hinders, and harms disabled people. And sometimes, there really are corrosive ideas and malice involved.
To begin with, people either say outright or imply that disabled people, and you specifically, can’t do most things. Or, they over-praise any ordinary thing you do as a sign of some extraordinary feat of determination. Either way, it reinforces low-expectations for disabled people
And of course there is actual bullying. This can include deliberately offensive name-calling, impatience and disgust, and ridicule and jealousy at our meager accommodations. It’s resentment of the supposed cost inconvenience of ensuring accessibility, and even of the space disabled people occupy in schools, workplaces, apartment buildings, public buildings and neighborhoods. It all makes disabled people feel like an “other,” an unwelcome burden, an obstacle, needy and pathetic, and someone other people have to work extra hard to interact with.
Ableism is personal. But it’s also impersonal and systemic.
Ableism denies disabled people employment opportunities, including jobs, promotions, and full benefits of employment. This includes direct, blatant discrimination, denial of workplace accommodations, as well as gradual, unofficial, but neglected and tolerated bullying from managers and coworkers.
Disabled people are isolated and confined by poor accessibility. 33 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are still architectural barriers in stores, public buildings, schools, parks, and other areas in the U.S. where non-disabled people can gather and move about with ease, but disabled people so often can’t.
And disabled people are forced to go through endless, exhausting bureaucratic hoops to obtain needed support. They are too often denied meaningful accommodations to make the process easier. Ableism includes not just affirmative acts of discrimination, but also ongoing failure to make structures and systems better, fairer and more responsive to people with disabilities.
Whether anyone actually intends any of this or not doesn’t matter. Some ableism is intentional. Often, it’s not exactly planned, but non-disabled people benefit anyway. Frequently, these outcomes are nobody’s actual goal. They happen because systems and practices are designed in ways that generate ableism. And it continues because nobody understands or cares enough to fix the problem.
And ableism does real harm.
All of these effects are of course annoying and demoralizing to disabled people. But they are more than that. They cause real damage to disabled people’s lives. Ableism contributes to higher rates of poverty, and produces numerous unique barriers to the usual ways of getting out of it. Ableism also leads to poorer health, physical danger, neglect and abuse, and emotional battering that eats away at the very same personal qualities disabled people need most to fight discrimination and make their lives better. Ableism is more than a social problem. It’s not just about etiquette and hurt feelings. It hurts disabled people, both emotionally and materially.
Like other “-isms,” “ableism” is an apt term for what disabled people face and experience. But it’s also important to keep in mind the risks of asserting false or overstated equivalence. Ableism is not “the same” as other forms of discrimination. It’s not “just like” racism, sexism, or homophobia.
Nor does being subjected to ableism necessarily mean that disabled people can’t experience other types of discrimination at the same time. Disabled people can also experience racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of prejudice. And disabled people who suffer from ableism can also be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or xenophobic towards others.
Ableism is the right word for the personal and systemic harms disabled people experience. It helps make the phenomenon clearly understood as a serious type of discrimination – needing both condemnation and humane, good faith efforts to be dismantled.
Read the full article here
