Conflicting arguments
Getty
Not all people with disabilities think the same way.
Anyone with any experience of or involvement with disability issues can recognise the age-old tension between disabled and non-disabled people. Disabled people struggle to get recognition, acceptance, access and opportunities from non-disabled people. Non-disabled people tend to be indifferent and intolerant of the “special needs” of disabled people, and hostile towards disabled people themselves. Meanwhile, especially in recent times, non-disabled people would like to see themselves as caring, considerate and sensitive to the needs of disabled people. But despite their best efforts, they often come across to disabled people as condescending, controlling or just plain confused.
The so-called battle between disabled and able-bodied people is well known, at least to those with even a passing interest in disability issues.
But disabled people also argue with each other — not just about specific cases, but about the best way to reform Social Security’s work incentives, or whether it’s more important to make city halls or restaurants barrier-free, or which disabled people should receive priority funding — young people with developmental disabilities or elderly people in nursing homes. There are also honest, good-hearted disagreements about more abstract issues of general principles, philosophies, and strategies.
Arguments between disabled and non-disabled people are not hard to spot and understand, so it might be even more helpful to recognize some of the areas where disabled people disagree.
Here are some examples of issues and questions on which people with disabilities often disagree:
term
This is not just a question of what words to use: whether “disabled” or “impaired,” or whether “special needs” or “different abilities” are more positive or a little awkward.
A question that haunts these preliminary discussions is whether disability terminology even matters, or is it a waste of time to worry about it?
Some disability language is clearly hurtful and should be actively rejected in public and private conversations. Most notably, terms like the “R-word” for developmental disability, once used clinically but now for decades simply a painful, derogatory slur. Newer terms like “differently abled” and “special needs,” while usually well-intentioned, are false euphemisms and should at least be discouraged, if not condemned outright. Disability terminology is also crucial in certain professions, such as journalism, where precise, specific language is always required. And prioritizing words is part of a broader philosophy that words matter, because the way we name or describe something affects how we understand it.
Meanwhile, debates over disability terminology often feel tedious, pedantic, nitpicky, and superficial. Some advocates for disability policy changes that would have deeper, more tangible impacts see debates over language as a distraction. They argue that policing people’s language wastes the disability community’s scarce energy and limited access to public goodwill, and the limited attention that non-disabled people devote to disability issues.
There are valid pros and cons on both sides. More agreement on terminology would help disabled people understand clearly what to tell non-disabled people about the words they use when talking about disability. At the same time, it would provide some relief to end all debate about terminology, because the debate itself is very repetitive and tedious.
responsibility
Who is responsible for adaptation: the disabled person or society? Should disabled people adapt to society or should society accept disabled people?
The conventional wisdom in individualist societies has been that disabled people are primarily responsible for liberating themselves. This idea is applied primarily by able-bodied people to disabled people. It is often seen as a non-ableist moral burden on disabled people and may even be a strategy to discredit and weaken the disability movement. However, some disabled people choose this idea of individual responsibility not necessarily because they believe in individualism, but because they have little faith in collective social action or social progress. They believe there is nothing they can do except for themselves.
But there is only so much most disabled people can actually do for themselves, especially in the face of systemic ableism, and collective social action produces progress — maybe not as much as people want or need, but never in vain.
Relying exclusively on either approach – individual responsibility or collective action – creates problems. Regardless of how effective the two approaches are, the moral weight and force given to each one has a major impact on the self-image and morale of disabled people. Some are invigorated and empowered; others feel demoralized and criticized. At their best, discussion among disabled people about the issues may achieve something like a healthy and sustainable blend of group cohesion and individual responsibility.
Unity
Are the characteristics of different types of disabilities different or similar? Should people with disabilities emphasize their shared experiences and goals, or should they highlight important differences to avoid being overlooked or forgotten?
A more traditional argument is that specific disabilities, such as hearing impairment, paraplegia, intellectual disability, and chronic illness, are different enough to require significantly different approaches and solutions. From this perspective, there is clear moral and practical value in efforts to integrate people with different disabilities and to develop broad, universal principles on disability rights. But there is also a risk that more specialised and specific needs will be ignored. For example, people with more advanced support needs or more complex conditions may feel ignored and erased from the positive portrayal of disability imposed by disabled people whose disabilities are perceived as “mild”.
But a key element of the contemporary disability rights movement is the idea that disability is a widely shared social experience, not an individual problem battling a thousand separate and unrelated conditions. Regardless of the degree or type of disability, disabled people all experience certain similar constraints. These include ableist attitudes, physical barriers, social exclusion, discrimination, and sometimes outright persecution and neglect. The question that disabled people continue to grapple with is precisely how we can work together on the basis of our shared priorities and experiences, while paying due attention to our different individual needs.
The answers influence how non-disabled people and social institutions perceive disabled people, and how disabled people share information with each other and organize to unlock their collective power.
attitude
Should disabled people always counter negative disability narratives and project positivity and optimism, or should they highlight urgent unmet needs and ableism?
A deliberately optimistic approach to disability helps to keep hope alive and morale stagnant. There are good grounds for optimism, and there is visible evidence of real, though usually still partial, progress: buildings are more accessible; overt ableism is more frowned upon; and, with the right funding and management, mechanisms certainly exist to help disabled people live more independent lives. All of these are significant improvements from the way disabled people lived 50 years ago. Moreover, a degree of optimism is always easier to sustain emotionally than bottomless pessimism, both for disabled individuals and for the disabled community.
And yet optimism is often seen as naive, simplistic and unrealistic. It’s the definition of “rose-colored glasses.” Disabled people have social privileges and advantages that allow them some protection from the difficulties other disabled people face, but they often don’t realize the harsh realities and power of ableism until it’s too late and they’re caught off guard. It’s upsetting to become aware of the oppression of ableism, but at least disabled people can anticipate barriers and support each other when they appear.
Optimists and pessimists tend to resent, criticize, and clash with each other, rather than simply acknowledging the value and validity of their different dispositions. Striking a balance between positivity and resentment can make the disability community more persuasive and effective.
Disabled people argue with each other about these and other issues – about disability, ableism, and how to tackle able-bodied beliefs, practices and institutions. Most of these conflicts are also disability-specific extensions of wider societal divisions and debates – between the privileged and the marginalised, between left and right, individualism and collectivism, intellectual or practical, cultural, spiritual or political.
Knowing the outlines of these debates won’t necessarily make them any easier to resolve, but it will make the dialogue within the disability community more accessible and less confusing — and it will help the disability and non-disabled communities understand each other a little better.