A plea to the left – STOP using the “v” word about us, it’s way past time to know that’s not acceptable
DPAC would like to make a plea to the left to stop referring to disabled people as “vulnerable”. There is nothing inherently ‘vulnerable’ about us – it is society that makes us vulnerable by failing to value and include us.
It is a disgrace that the Tories are targeting people who face the most barriers and disadvantages, taking from those who have the least while the rich get richer, systematically dismantling our rights and entitlements.
Their behaviour in hiding what they are doing behind a malicious narrative that scapegoats benefit claimants and inflames hostility towards disabled people proves they are worse than nasty.
We can see how tempting it is to talk up the viciousness of the Tories by playing on images of those bearing the brunt of their rotten policies as helpless victims.
But disabled people are not just a stick with which to beat the Tories and the language used to describe disability has a powerful role to play in the continuing fight against disabled people’s oppression.
That oppression is driven by ideas rooted in capitalism that see disabled people as of lesser worth than other people: weaker, needy, helpless, vulnerable…reliant on others to survive, indeed a burden…
Those ideas of disability are ones disabled people and our allies across generations have spent so many many years fighting.
The progress we made in getting recognition for disabled people as people with a value equal to others has taken a hammering over the past few years.
Most of that hammering has come from the Tories who deliberately set out to undermine disabled people’s claims to an equal place in society and to push us back into the margins where we can’t interfere with their pursuit of profit.
Too often though over the past few years in the fight against the Tories, negative portrayals of disabled people have been pushed by people on our own side, including disabled people themselves, who have, consciously or otherwise, sacrificed principles of disability equality for the sake of lazy invective against the Condems and their vicious policies.
It is entirely possible to convey the awfulness of what is happening without falling into moralism, which will only ever take the argument so far.
Railing against Tory savagery is all very well if you are just looking for someone to hear you and come to the rescue. Increasingly however people are realising that rescue isn’t an option, that if we want change, it is up to us to make it happen.
To effect the sort of change we need, we need an analysis that tells us how to fightback, an analysis that understands the attacks upon disabled people within the wider politico- economic situation.
When different groups come together to unite our resistance it is a chance to learn from each other, to develop our ideas, and to build that wider analysis.
That has been happening within the struggle against austerity.
DPAC not only values the immense solidarity and support we have received since 2010 but we also appreciate how much our allies have taken on to learn about access and inclusion for disabled people.
However there is still a considerable way to go to embed more advanced ideas about disability within the left to the same extent that for example the oppression of women, of black people, of the LGBT community is understood.
It is still widely the norm for the left to allow its acceptance of ruling class ideas about disability to go unchecked.
For example how often do you hear terms referring to mental health or learning difficulties used to denigrate political opponants and their policies? – references to white coats or loons or nut jobs or idiots or headbangers – terms that recall painful experiences of the segregation and abuse of disabled people bantered around as easy put-downs.
In a trade union meeting recently my partner challenged use of the “v” word. He got the feeling most of the people in the room didn’t get the point he was making. He used DPAC members as examples of people who defy those traditional images of disabled people as objects of pity and tragedy. He was met with the kind of response that disabled campaigners are all too familiar with, the “yes but they’re not representative of the kinds of people we’re talking about” response, the kind of response that doesn’t necessarily reflect bad intentions but does reflect a failure to understand the nature and operation of oppression.
Speak to the doctors, social workers, psychiatrists and support workers of any DPAC activist and the prism through which they view us as individuals would absolutely fit with those traditional images of the vulnerable and the helpless.
Encounter us on action or picket line or at a meeting supported by our peers and we look completely different.
And that’s the point: disability is a construct.
It’s the barriers that society creates around people with impairments that limit and restrict us far more than our impairments do, at the same time dividing and weakening the grassroots communities we are from.
Awareness of the social construction of disability does not mean a denial of impairment and the experiences of pain or distress that can be a consequence of impairment, but it does mean a recognition that the major barriers to social inclusion faced by disabled people are not an inevitable consequence of impairment but rather a product of capitalism.
It means a recognition that an alternative is possible. One where people have a value that is not based entirely on their productivity within the labour market and their ability to make money for someone else.
What unites disabled people as an oppressed group are the barriers we face.
One of the biggest, most fundamental barriers disabled people face, one that leads directly to rather than away from mistreatment and abuse, is the idea that we are vulnerable and need protecting by non-disabled people. That outlook perpetuates systems and structures that hold disabled people powerless within our own lives and place us under the control of others.
One of the biggest frustrations that disabled activists face is the failure of people with otherwise good politics to understand the oppression of disabled people, who look uncomfortable speaking to a disabled person and as if they would rather be somewhere else, or who use the “v” word without really understanding who they are talking about or the oppression they are perpetuating through use of that language.
So come on left, after all we have been through together over the past few years, isn’t it time to show some respect and finally to get it?
by Ellen Clifford
Interesting points Ellen – observation – this feminist critique of the social model of disability – got an early start tommoorriw – i guess it depends on context and who defines the big v word – its similar to rgw big c (care) word – should we stop using that word – I like to think all my PAS care – I mean they care about the quality of assistance they provide to me.
Thanks for this as it raises some very valid points, but I do agree with the other posters who point out that vulnerable is used for other groups of people also, such as the elderly, children, those in absolute poverty and yes, those who are illiterate and/or innumerate. So many of us are vulnerable right now to Tory policies. And I do agree with you that the word should not be used as shorthand for helpless, weak or defenceless. A valid debate!
I could be wrong, but I think the point here is not that no disabled person is vulnerable but that not all disabled people are vulnerable “by default”.
Individual disabled people may well feel vulnerable and choose to describe themselves as such. Disabled people as a group are not and should not be described so.
Many individuals, whether they are disabled or not, could be described as “vulnerable” for a whole host of reasons. This might even be temporary as their situation changes. For example someone with poor numeracy skills could be considered “vulnerable” and easy prey to unscrupulous lenders, credit deals or conmen. This could change with better education.
Ironically, although I personally don’t like to describe myself as vulnerable I do feel “vulnerable” as a disabled person due to the very services which are supposed to support me.
For example I found out today that my care agency is closing down on Friday (3 days away). Because I am on direct payments, social services will not help me find a replacement. My morning care is now in jeopardy, putting my independence at risk.
I also feel “vulnerable” whenever the government talks about or makes bad changes to the support system, cutting back or removing benefits or support such as DSA or AtW.
This, imo, is where my “vulnerability” lies: being let down, having my support taken away at a moment’s notice (or having the threat hanging over me), not the fact that I need the assistance in the first place.
If the government and social services provided the help and support they promise in public and the threat of having it removed was gone, then I think a lot more of us would stop feeling “vulnerable”.
I agree vulnerable is over used and open to misinterpretation. Society and how it is perceived is the reason anyone could be vulnerable or at risk of harm. If we all treated each other with respect, then the risk of harm would be minimised.
However, can that ever be achieved, as there is always someone who wishes to control or take advantage of, purely for their own ends.
I have ambivalent feelings about this article, because there are some vulnerable disabled people: Mark & Helen Mullens, Mark Woods and David Clapson are cases in point.
My profoundly disabled relative is vulnerable and was unable to defend himself when found “fit” for work by ATOS (fortunately he had me and I took on his case) so in that aspect he is vulnerable.
I concede some disabled people are organised and have been complicit in the fightback against the government and I laud them.
Suffice to say, I’d rather my disabled relative be called vulnerable than be treated like he was by the DWP/ATOS. He nearly lost his home, 3 months without money, etc.
Ys, I’m a little ambivalent too. We are not inherently vulnerable, but social injustice directed at already politically marginalised groups does make us feel rather more vulnerable. My illness does leave me feeling vulnerable sometimes, but it is living with the constant fear and threat from cruel and injudicious policies that has heightened that feeling 1,000 fold. If we are not made potentially more vulnerable because of discrimination, then we would not be fighting as we are.
I entirely disagree with this. I suffer – and I mean suffer – with BPD and depression. This leaves me extremely vulnerable – both emotionally and in actuality – and I NEED the support of all sections of society (especially the so-called ‘normal’ people). I AM vulnerable. I need extra understanding. I NEED concessions made with regards to my unusual behaviour. I NEED all the help I can get. Do I get ANY of this? NO.
I read your article “A plea to the left – STOP using the “v” word about us” and had a look at our policies in the Green Party as I probably have been guilty of using the v word myself an stand corrected. I agree with your analysis of the present governments obsession with viewing everyone purely as productive units and measuring their worth only in financial terms.Anyone not measuring up are to be attacked, and vilified this includes the disabled, the sick, poor, low skill immigrants, homeless and anyone they can pick on. The policy can be accessed from the link and I will pass on your views about the “v” at our next meeting. Any suggestions on how our policy can be improve would be most welcome as we try to be a fully inclusive party.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/dy.html
Regards Dave Herbert
South Tyneside Green Party
Don’t be too hasty, Dave. I think you will find that this is not the opinion of many of us who fall into the groups you mentioned. I regard myself as disabled and most definitely vulnerable.
Vulnerable means simply vulnerable, it doesn’t mean ‘helpless’ or waiting for a rescuer. And because people’s experiences and perceptions vary, you cannot police how they describe those experiences, nor can you expect that we all favour the same solutions People who are poor, unemployed, ill, and/or disabled ARE vulnerable because of government policies, and changing language won’t change that fact.
Oh, I ought to add that I’m disabled too.
Entirely agree, Sue. I am both disabled AND vulnerable – and I do NOT want others to forget that.
In some senses we are ‘vulnerable’, but not how the politicians perceive the term. We are vulnerable to their actions as many disables cannot stand up for themselves, and we just do not have sufficient advocates to lend support. We have been failed by politicos, media, big business, planners, EHRC and even charities who are supposedly on our side. I’m afraid I feel very vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the baying mob! %SSS
Absolutely!
Are you ok with me reblogging this on my tumblr https://livingwithdisability.tumblr.com I will not edit and I will give full credit and link to original?
Yes please do