Disability organisations can be disablist as well

Having challenged the media and NHS on disablism, let’s consider disability organisations.

There is animosity towards some disability organisations from some disabled activists, who believe those organisations perpetuate disablism. Why?

Every disability organisation is set up at some historical point by some group which wants to do something about disability, based on their and society’s current understanding of disability. Consider two extreme examples.

One organisation is young. Disabled people set it up and run it. The organisation sees disablism arising from society’s prejudiced attitudes and behaviour towards people with impairments. The organisation is committed to all disabled people’s equality and rights. Its main activity is campaigning and lobbying. Any services it provides empower disabled people to exercise the rights they campaign for.

The other organisation is 50-100 years old. When it started, disability was seen as a welfare problem for impaired individuals. Set up by parents of disabled people or philanthropists who wanted to help these “unfortunates” (often with specific impairments) to have better quality of life, it raised money for practical activity, like treatment or “care”, sometimes in segregated institutions. Currently a substantial service provider for government, it does some lobbying/campaigning, sometimes talking of “rights” but often inter-related to its own service provision. It retains some legacy of its origins, in its culture and attitudes of mainly non-disabled trustees and staff, and how and where it runs services. Disabled people are merely “beneficiaries”.

The traditional organisation’s behaviour can perpetuate disablism. Knowing the public donate where need is greatest and most pitiful, fundraising publicity emphasises disabled people’s dependency on the organisation’s support, portraying disabled people as deficient and “charity” cases. Similarly, some fundraising methods, like tin-rattling and second-hand clothes, reinforce views of disabled people as second rate.

Another problem is political clout and media profile. The large organisation gets attention through its resources and name, at smaller disabled-led organisations’ expense. So its service delivery priorities and profile, parents’/carers’ interests, and disabled people’s role as dependent “users”, get airtime over the equality, rights and self-representation of disabled people. Disabled people are not even visible spokes­people on their own lives!

The large organisation has business interests and staff jobs to protect, including institutional provision, rather than challenging disablism. It also competes against disabled people’s organisa­tions (DPOs) for contracts.

Finally, emphasis on single impairments creates competition for resources between disability groups and a weakened lobbying voice.

Could the inherently disablist messaging that accompanies organisations with cultures that harp back to a pre-rights era be eradicated?

I think so. Both sides must recognise that building unity across the disability lobby based on equality and rights is in all disabled people’s interests. If you too want to build an unstoppable alliance of anti-disablist disability organisations, please contact me.