In the latest in my War on Words series exploring the don’ts, the do’s and the confused when it comes to terms associated with disabled people, i’ll be looking at the ever popular, but not without its flaws, disabled.

You may have noticed from my other posts that disabled tends to be my preferred term when referring to, well, disabled people.

I like disabled as a term as it’s not just something we apply to people. We use it to all sorts of scenarios to describe something being stopped or limited in some way. For example, you disabling your alarm clock in the morning.

In this way, for me at least, it makes disabled much easier to understand and explain when we’re looking at how external factors can limit someone from doing something aka disabling them.

Of course, this isn’t any revolutionary concept of my own, but a way of interpreting what it means to be disabled beyond that which is inherent and we call this The Social Model of Disability.

The Social Model of Disability

This model of thinking has been championed by disability rights activists for decades as a way to acknowledge external factors which often disable people as much or to a greater extent than anything inherent.

For example, a person may not be able to see that well, but it’s the small text, cluttered streets and people’s attitudes that disable (stops) people from doing the things they want to do, often not the person’s condition itself.

And as much as I like and support this concept, I do question whether the term disabled in this way can really be owned by a single community in the way it is currently suggested to. As, under this line of thinking, there are many people, even those considered non-disabled who could in theory be disabled.

I say this because, under this line of thinking, there are many people, even those considered non-disabled who could in theory be disabled.

Non-disabled disabled people

People may be disabled (stopped) from accessing certain educations institutions because of their background, opportunities because of their race or pay because of their gender.

These characteristics wouldn’t necessarily ever be used to identify a person as being disabled but using this interpretation of the term they well could be.

Now people may say this is a good thing as the more people who are able to relate and get behind the tern disabled in this way, the more people we having fighting against the issues that disabled people face.

But it also risks being too broad, diluting the focus and attention given to issues impacting specific communitie, and given the wider lack of understanding about this interpretation of the term, and negative connotations that come along with the current mainstream definition, it’s unlikely to get people behind it in this way.

“But to be disabled, you have to have an impairment or condition”

The strongest counter to disabled being applied to those beyond we’d immediately consider to be disabled might be that you’re can only be considered disabled if you have an impairment or condition.

But over the years we’ve considered many demographics to be impaired of have a condition.

Using the same examples as earlier, it’s been argued that people are intellectually impaired because of their socioeconomic background, race and gender.

And it wasn’t too long ago we considered non-heterosexual attraction a condition, in need of cure or treatment, with some examples of practices which suggest this perception still exists today.

Now I’m not saying I agree with any of this, but given what we have and, in some instances, still do consider to be an impairment or condition. and how this evolves over time, is it really an appropriate measure to inform who is and isn’t disabled?

Even in the disabled community itself there are groups who are rejecting that the notion that they have an impairment such as those in the Deaf and Autistic communities so where does that leave us?

What about identity?

My final point about why the term disabled may not work relates to identity.

Many disabled people consider being disabled part of their inherent identity, a personal characteristic and something which makes them who they are.

Yet in the same breathe we’re championing the word disabled as a way to acknowledge external factors that disable us.

How can something external inform something we consider physiologically inherent. It doesn’t make sense.

If these disabling barriers are removed and we become less disabled, does our identity fade with it?

To conclude

Now you may be thinking that this is getting pedantic and we’re heading down a rabbit hole we don’t need to.

As long as we know who is and who isn’t disabled do we really need to think on it this deeply.

But given what I’ve just said, I do question whether the term disabled truly allows us to do this?

And in any case, the whole point of this series was to show that even the most preferred terms have their flaws, to encourage people not to worried and worked up about saying the wrong, as when we look at it, is there any term that is absolutely right?

---

 [BA1]Disabled by society image