THE
UNION OF THE PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED
AGAINST
SEGREGATION
and
THE
DISABILITY ALLIANCE
discuss
Fundamental
Principles of Disability
Being
a summary of the discussion held on 22nd November, 1975 and
containing
commentaries from each organisation
Editor's Note: This unabridged version was electronically scanned and reformatted from the original document by Mark Priestley, in consultation with Vic Finkelstein and Ken Davis (October 1997).
The original page numbers are indicated in square brackets and do not form part of the text.
All copyright remains with the original authors.
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
OF THE DISCUSSION
THE
UNION COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION
THE ALLIANCE COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION
_____________________________________________
Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation: c/o Flat 2, St. Giles Court, Dane Road,
Ealing,
London, W13
The Disability Alliance: 96 Portland Place, London, W1N 4EX
[page 2, original document]
This
booklet contains three documents which relate to the meeting held between the
Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation and the Disability Alliance
on 22nd November, 1975.
The
events leading up to the meeting are briefly outlined in the opening statement
of the Union and presented in the summary document; and in the first paragraph
of the Alliance's commentary document.
Under
the agreed conditions for the meeting, condition 3 d), the discussion was
recorded so as to be available for disabled people. People who wish to have
copies of the cassette recording, or to borrow it, should contact the Union to
make the necessary arrangements.
Following
the meeting a summary of the discussion was prepared from the recording and this
document, included in this booklet, is accepted by both organisations as an
accurate summary, with neither side retaining any reservations.
Each
organisation also prepared its own commentary on the discussion of 22nd
November: these are included in this booklet.
November,
1976
[page 3, original document]
Summary
of the tape recorded discussion between the Disability Alliance and the Union of
the Physically Impaired against Segregation, held on the 22nd November, 1975
Speakers:
Alliance:
Paul Lewis, Bent Stueland, Charles Taylor, Peter Townsend
Union:
Ken Davis, Liz Finkelstein, Vic Finkelstein, Paul Hunt
Observers:
Approximately six each from both organisations
Peter
Townsend apologised for the absence of Dr. Fred Reid and Betty Veal from the
Alliance side; and he then sorted out a complication which arose when he said,
"I hadn't really made the distinction between speakers and observers",
as had been required by the conditions agreed for the meeting. The speakers were
then introduced, and PAUL HUNT read out the following statement which had been
prepared by the Union:
"Firstly,
we want to emphasise that we very much welcome this meeting between the
Disability Alliance and the Union of the Physically Impaired. In our view, it
represents a step forward for our two organisations to be meeting on the basis
of agreed fundamental principles, and with the purpose of considering ways in
which disabled people can become more active and involved in their own
affairs".
"Secondly,
we think it will be helpful to set out very briefly the origins of this present
meeting. Our Union published a Policy Statement at the beginning of the year,
and a copy was sent to Peter Townsend on a personal basis. He wrote to us in
April, saying he fully supported all our objectives and would like to become an
Associate Member. However, he also made a number of statements about the
Disability Alliance, which appeared to us to conflict with the Union's Aims and
Policy Statement; so the Executive Committee of the Union wrote to him,
detailing the apparent differences and asking him for clarification of his
position. He replied saying we had raised a lot of extremely important points,
and suggesting a small meeting between the Union and the Alliance to try and
clear up what he thought might be misunderstandings on both sides. Following the
meeting, he would be glad to write a reply to the points we had made".
"The
answer from the Union was that we had carefully considered our comments, which
were the fruit of 13 months' careful, democratic discussion; and in the absence
of any further information we saw no reason to suppose there were any
misunderstandings on our side. However, we welcomed the idea of a meeting
between the Alliance and the Union, provided there was prior agreement on
certain fundamental principles, on the purpose of the meeting, and on the
conditions under which it took place. We made the following proposals:
1.
Fundamental principles to which we are both in agreement: disability is a
situation, caused by social conditions, which requires for its elimination, (a)
that no one aspect such as incomes, mobility or institutions is treated in
isolation, (b) that disabled people should, with the advice and help of others,
assume control over their own lives, and (c) that professionals, experts and
others who seek to help must be committed to promoting such control by disabled
people.
2.
Purpose of the meeting: (a) to consider ways in which disabled people can become
more active in the disability field, and (b) to consider a long-term programme
of action to involve disabled people in discussions about their own affairs.
3.
Conditions of the meeting: (a) there should be an equal number of
representatives from the Alliance and Union, up to a maximum of 4 each, (b) the
number of observers from the two organisations should also be equal, (c) both
organisations will seek maximum publicity about the discussion and results of
the meeting, to bring it to the attention of as many disabled people as
possible, and (d) the proceedings should be tape recorded and made available to
disabled people.
"All
these proposals were accepted by Peter Townsend for the Alliance, and so today's
meeting was arranged.
"Coming
to the discussion we are about to have, we regard the Alliance's agreement to
the fundamental principles just quoted as an extremely important development. It
ought to clear away the ground so that we can get down quickly to discussing
practical ways of helping disabled people to become more involved in their own
affairs. However, there are still some points we need to question about the
Alliance's approach to disability. Basically we should like to know how the
recently agreed fundamental principles are seen to tie in with the Alliance's
aims and policy and what it is actually doing.
"Our
own position on disability is quite clear, and is fully in line with the agreed
principles. In our view, it is society which disables physically impaired
people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments, by the way we
are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.
Disabled
[page 4, in original document]
people
are therefore an oppressed group in society. It follows from this analysis that
having low incomes, for example, is only one aspect of our oppression. It is a
consequence of our isolation and segregation, in every area of life, such as
education, work, mobility, housing, etc. Poverty is one symptom of our
oppression, but it is not the cause. For us as disabled people it is absolutely
vital that we get this question of the cause of disability quite straight,
because on the answer depends the crucial matter of where we direct our main
energies in the struggle for change. We shall clearly get nowhere if our efforts
are chiefly directed not at the cause of our oppression, but instead at one of
the symptoms.
"The
correct direction for the Union's main energies follows from our view of the
cause of our oppression. We see the essential task, at this point in time, as
that of helping disabled people to organise together to take a more active part
in struggling for the changes in society which will ensure that we are brought
into the mainstream of life, rather than being excluded. We are concentrating on
building up an independent, democratic organisation of disabled people, which
has solid foundations and which is increasingly clear about the cause of
disability and about the changes required to overcome it.
"In
time the Union will become strong enough to enter into principled alliances with
other organisations, to bring our weight to bear in Parliamentary work, and so
on. Of course we welcome every scrap of cash that can be wrung from Parliament
for disabled people. Many of our members have worked for this in DIG for years.
But it was partly this experience in DIG which brought us to the realisation of
the need for a more comprehensive organisation with a wider view of disability.
DIG's restriction to the incomes issue has led to an increasing concentration of
effort on Parliamentary work, with a small number of experts having an ever more
important role, but the majority of members remaining largely passive. DIG
appears to be losing its potential as a mass, democratic organisation of
disabled people precisely as a result of limiting itself to attacking the one
'symptom' of low incomes.
"We
as a Union have drawn the necessary lesson from this experience in DIG, and
therefore our Union's Aims and Policy Statement place incomes firmly in the
context of the wider struggle for us to participate fully in society, and so
achieve our emancipation from all aspects of our oppression, including poverty.
"By
way of contrast with our clear position on disability, that of the Alliance
appears to be a contradictory one. The Alliance was presumably founded because
DIG was thought to be inadequate in some way. But as far as we know there has
been no public statement of what deficiencies in DIG made another incomes
organisation necessary. This seems strange because the incomes proposals of the
two organisations are very similar except for a few details. Nor is the new
organisation any more democratic than DIG on the contrary, it appears to be less
so. And in fact the Alliance seems to have built on precisely those weaknesses
in DIG that we have identified and avoided in the Union the restriction to the
incomes issue, the reliance on experts, and the concentration on Parliamentary
pressure. So the question remains. Why is the Alliance thought to be necessary
when we already have one large organisation devoted to the question of
disability incomes?
"A
second contradiction in the Alliance's position seems tote this. The Alliance
has agreed to the fundamental principles proposed for this meeting. Yet as far
as we can see the Alliance Aims mentions only the incomes issue, that is, it is
treated in isolation. There is also no mention of disabled people having to
assume control of their own lives as part of the process of eliminating
disability. And there is no mention of professionals, experts and others being
committed to promoting control by disabled people.
"So
finally, the two main things we should like to know from the Alliance are these:
(1) How can the Alliance be said to conform with the fundamental principles we
have all agreed on for this meeting? and (2) What was thought to be wrong with
DIG so that a second organisation concentrating on disability incomes was
considered necessary?"
PETER
TOWNSEND then replied to what he called "a very respectworthy statement;
one which I would feel demands the most serious thought and consideration.
"I
suppose I would want to try to argue," he said, "that the Alliance was
very much a spontaneous development, which tried to take account of one
particular situation developing in late 1974. So, to give my off-the-cuff
reactions to the two main questions. The first one was really, 'If one large
organisation existed already, why create another?'. I had been involved with the
Disablement Income Group from its earliest days. In September, 1974, the new
Labour Government announced its proposals about its programme on the disabled.
This was from a lot of points of view and I think I'm speaking here for a very
large number of disabled people in this country a piecemeal programme which, as
far as the public was concerned, seemed to suggest, it was doing a lot for the
disabled when it wasn't. Many people were angry, and we also
[page 5, in original document]
recognised
that it meant that, after 10 years campaigning by the Disablement Income Group
and others, the comprehensive incomes scheme was not proposed to be implemented
by the Labour Government at that stage. After sounding out other people, (we)
quite spontaneously improvised a meeting in the House of Commons in either
September or October, 1974. A very large number of different organisations were
represented, (and the suggestion was that) a counter move by those people
concerned with the whole issue for many years ought to be developed. The
proposal was that we ought to form an umbrella organisation very different from
just another organisation as such. This was an umbrella body where all
organisations concerned with the disabled, including those which consisted only
of disabled people, would all have a voice and be represented. The idea was
that, if we got sufficient support, then this whole issue of a comprehensive
income would gain fresh authority. The Government couldn't play off one disabled
body against another, pretending that it was meeting the wishes of disabled
people. At the same time, this body was seen as primarily an educational body,
trying to convey to the public that they had been misled, and what the issues
really were about poverty, so that one could mobilise political support on
behalf of one programme.
"This
issue was kicked around and discussed at some length; and it was felt that it
was very much a fragile experiment to get the different organisations into one
room and get agreement on one issue, and let us start with one issue and move on
to other issues if that is possible later on. Now this may not have been the
right way of going about it, but this was agreed. This is how the Disability
Alliance came into being as an umbrella organisation, primarily concerned with
public education and therefore the issuing of information in pamphlet form, etc;
and secondly as a more authoritative body concerned with pressure, authoritative
in the sense that it could decently claim to be speaking on behalf of the
majority of organisations concerned with disabled people.
"The
Alliance is not in conflict with a political movement of the disabled as such.
Clearly it is merely responding, given existing agencies and organisations of
and for the disabled. There may be a lot wrong with those organisations, (but)
it seemed to some of us it was a step forward to get them acting on behalf of a
political issue. It was not in conflict with a movement of the disabled, and
that could only grow among disabled people themselves, who perhaps could have
friendly contracts with an Alliance which in some ways had a lot of defects. We,
as an Alliance have not taken a decision to recruit individual members or have
branches; and I don't think that what has occurred in a kind of improvised
response, angry response, to Government failure, is inimical really to a
movement of the disabled. I would hope and pray that that could grow and
strengthen, and outgrow the need for such an organisation as the Disability
Alliance."
CHARLES
TAYLOR then spoke for the National Federation of the Blind. He pointed out that
his was an "organisation of blind people and not for blind people",
and also that being a "contributing organisation to the Alliance in no way
undermines our democratic action within our own group", but rather held the
possibility of "broadening the scope of our activities in the political
climate. At that time it was felt necessary to concentrate on an issue which was
very live at the moment.
"DIG,"
he said, "was set up with what was rather a narrow basis we felt at the
time. We see no contradiction in the functioning of the Alliance on any other
"organisations, and we see the possibility of a lot to be gained from
widening its scope."
BERIT
STUELAND said that "When I joined the Alliance last year, the situation was
so desperate. DIG had failed on many levels to reach the people whom it should
have reached. I didn't think the Alliance was the complete answer, but it was an
improvement. This is the way I want to work to improve the lot of disabled
people. At the moment we are concentrating on incomes."
PAUL
LEWIS then referred back to the Union's opening statement, saying that he agreed
with it, that it "was very carefully prepared, and had clearly been made by
a process of discussion". He added, "It does, though, put us in a
slightly awkward position because we can't reply in the same carefully prepared
nay. I hope you realise that what we say now is off-the-cuff and we are trying
to present what we believe in.
"I
think the value of the Alliance is that it brought in a11 organisations any
organisation could join as long as they were working for the disabled; and I
would welcome the Union, not so much because I believe in what you stand for,
but simply because you are an organisation for the disabled, and if you
obviously have a very strong point of view. I can only see that that would
strengthen the Alliance". He said that it was "a slight red
herring" whether or not everyone agreed fully about details of policy
"we are all working eventually towards the same goal, that is, as you quite
rightly said, the control by the disabled of heir own lives. Personally I
believe no problem has one solution. You quite rightly believe you have found a
solution, or at least have recognised the
[page 6, in original document]
problem
where other people have failed to recognise !t, and you may of course be right
in that. I think it is the discussion, the mixing of views, that is the
important thing, and the Alliance is a unique body that can provide this. I see
nothing wrong with the Alliance concentrating on income matters". The
Union, he claimed, could strengthen the Alliance by making use of its expertise,
and for the same reason they had not openly criticised DIG's failings, if any
because then DIG itself might have been a loss to the Alliance.
VIC
FINKELSTEIN then pointed out that there is no disagreement in regard to the
situation which arose in 1973/4 wherein both organisations had their origins. He
said, however, that "the way (you) organise to effect change is going to be
decisive in terms of whether the organisation will succeed in reaching the
objectives or not. If previous organisations failed to help disabled people take
increasing control over their lives, the Alliances is only taking this a step
further by setting up an umbrella organisation on a piecemeal basis". He
said that, for the Union, mass participation by disabled people was crucial; but
"the Alliance has taken almost the opposite approach that the basic thing
to do is organise groups of experts to speak for disabled people, and this can
only entrench the disability of physically impaired people". He insisted
that there is no disagreement on getting an income, but "it's how one's
going to get there that's the fundamental issue", and the Alliance had
still not answered the questions raised on this subject.
PETER
TOWNSEND replied by saying, "I think you underestimate the importance of
the disabled organisations agreeing about objectives". He claimed a
"modest contribution" by the Alliance on this score, in getting an
agreement on a policy statement which went further than DIG. On the subject of
organisation, he said it "would really be rather arrogant" to suggest
that some of the organisations in the Alliance were not representative of
disabled people; he said the. Alliance "is open to different organisations,
development of different groups of people mentally ill, groups concerned with
the mentally handicapped, National Federation of the Blind, who are of disabled
people".
PAUL
HUNT then said that it was the Alliance itself that was under discussion, not
the member organisations. He again pointed out that there was a contradiction as
yet unanswered between the fundamental principles to which the Alliance had
agreed, and its actions both in treating incomes as an isolated issue, and in
having no mention in its policy of the principle that disabled people should
control their own lives. Also he asked again about "the deficiencies in DIG
which led you to your conclusions (that) another disability incomes organisation
was necessary?
PETER
TOWNSEND took up the last point, saying that the Alliance was not another
organisation, but "entirely different". It was a "federation of
organisations" which, unlike DIG and the CCD, acts "in an executive
capacity" and reflects its wider representation in the subject matter of
its pamphlets.
VIC
FINKELSTEIN agreed "there are differences in structure in that
respect". But, he said, "the crucial issue again for us is on what
basis did these organisations get together. Lots of people get together and are
angry and can make a thorough botch-up of their position. What was the
fundamental unity of purpose and unity of perspective in understanding the
problems of disability: because this is going to be the basis from which the
Alliance will produce its work?"
CHARLES
TAYLOR said that the NFB saw the Alliance as an "amalgamation of the
expertise and grass roots effort", enabling them to present their case on a
wider basis, and in no way restricting the member organisations.
VIC
FINKELSTEIN answered that the Union policy welcomed the formation of alliances
on a principled basis, but "precisely this limitation" of lack of
principle is in the Disability Alliance. "The incomes policy", he
said, "is no different from the DIG policy, apart from some minor
details".
PETER
TOWNSEND conceded that "one might wish that there may be a much heavier
representation of organisations of the disabled within the Disability Alliance
in the future". But he protested that the Union speakers "keep on
harping" on why the Alliance did not move forward from DIG's position. He
stressed that "DIG did not, in its Policy Statement, say how much
particular kinds of disabled people would get. The Alliance at least put forward
figures. Maybe they are wrong, and maybe they can be changed democratically
within the Alliance: but at least we went to the effort, as any reasonable
federation ought, of clarifying the objective in very considerable detail".
When
KEN DAVIS and PAUL HUNT pointed out that this had been done by some 30 experts
before the Alliance's Constitution had even been drawn up or ensured the
involvement of disabled people, PETER TOWNSEND explained that the original use
of experts was really just to give dignity to an exchange of correspondence with
the Prime Minister". In fact the Alliance, he said, has become an
organisation of representatives who are involved in discussing the policy
statement and Constitution draft for the first proper AGM in a year's time.
[page 7, in original document]
PAUL
LEWIS added that the value of the Alliance was that it brought in organisations,
such as his own, Age Concern, who were "for groups in society which
happened to contain lots of disabled people". The Alliance's achievement,
he said, is to "present facts to the public".
VIC
FINKELSTEIN pointed to the dramatic difference in approach between the Alliance
and the Union illustrated here. "Putting out more pamphlets to the
public", he said, "is only different to what has gone before in terms
of degree. If it did not work before, why is it going to work in the
future?" Forming an umbrella organisation has not touched the fundamental
issues, and unless you raise and investigate these questions "what is
disability, and how come we are impoverished in the first place you are not
going to deal with the causes of disability, and it may well be that your
approach will help to perpetuate them".
PETER
TOWNSEND then asked, "Who do you have to persuade about what are the causes
of disability? We are trying to educate the public about disability...I mean,
what is the alternative?"
VIC
FINKELSTEIN pointed to the "distinct break with the past" presented in
the Union Policy Statement "in as much as the prime task is to raise the
involvement of disabled people, to help disabled people to recognise their
particular position. This will involve them in their struggles". To PETER
TOWNSEND's question: "What about the non disabled element of the
population?", he replied, "What about the disabled element in the
population? This is the element that has been ignored!"
The
discussion then centred round whether the Alliance was really involving disabled
people, and what it was doing to stimulate such involvement BERIT STUELAND
argued that "There are lots o(disabled people on the committee. Several
disabled people are writing the pamphlets". But VIC FINKELSTEIN said
"We are talking about 1%m disabled people", and asked, where is their
involvement? He suggested an example of the meeting with the Union today, and
asked how the representatives were chosen. PETER TOWNSEND answered, "We had
a discussion on the steering group which agreed to the four people. It's as
simple as that".
PAUL
LEWIS then said "We want disabled people to involve themselves", and
that for him the meeting today is "desperately to try to get yourselves
involved in the Disability Alliance. And if you choose not to be involved, I
hope that you won't in any way feel that it's our fault then that we are not
representing disabled people".
VIC
FINKELSTEIN replied that that was confusing, and that "If we decide not to
loin the Alliance, we decide on a principled basis because we think you are
wrong", adding that the Union would make known and publish its criticism.
Returning to the example of the present meeting, he pointed out that the Union
"circulated the correspondence to all our members we have politicised all
our members to involve them in these issues that affect their lives. What have
you done to actually involve disabled people in this kind of way?"
PAUL
LEWIS said that what the Alliance does only comes about as a result of the
thought and discussion of its members, and had the Union joined it might have
been different. But PAUL HUNT referred back again to the agreed principles for
the meeting, and said that he thought the Union would certainly consider joining
the Alliance if it implemented them "But when you've got this completely
unprincipled approach, how could we? We're committed to control by disabled
people, we accept these principles and we mean them". In answer, PETER
TOWNSEND said that the Alliance's members had democratically agreed to form a
federation, which was not a political movement of the disabled. But in order to
stimulate involvement, he said, "We are publishing material of concern to
disabled people". PAUL LEWIS agreed, "We are doing work that we'
consider important. We agree with your principles
and in my view it is more important for us to spend money publishing
material in a week or so, and 3 pamphlets we've published, than in typing,
duplicating and posting details of a meeting which was about to occur".
PAUL HUNT said that this was the same contradiction: "You set up a
spontaneous, ad hoc organisation, putting forward policies to the Government in
the name of disabled people" without involving them.' PETER TOWNSEND said,
"Give us enough money" and we will. "We are", he said,
"at least consulting other organisations of and for the disabled. We don't
have individual members. This is the point. We were talking at great length
today about trying to get the different organisations that were represented (at
an earlier meeting) to go back to their executive and get agreement and
circulate details about the Alliance literature and its work, in order to try
and sell enough pamphlets to pay for the service of this umbrella
organisation".
CHARLES
TAYLOR said that he appreciated the points made by the Union speakers, though he
thought they were a little hard. "My organisation", he said,
"certainly wouldn't agree to anything that in any way took away from
disabled people the control over their own activities. At the moment the
[page 8, in original document]
Alliance
is feeling its way still as an aftermath of the spontaneity which brought it
about; and in another year's time the Constitution will be framed, and it will
be then that your criticism will be valid if it doesn't conform".
At
this point. Paul Lewis gave the meeting his apologies and left.
PAUL
HUNT then directed a series of questions to Peter Townsend, which he answered
with great hesitation. He was being asked why, when he had already agreed to the
Union's policy and the principle that it is a priority to help disabled people
become involved, he did not "concentrate on helping disabled people in this
way".
PETER
TOWNSEND said, "there are several ways" of helping, and he found it
"difficult to say" which was "the best way", given that he
had a limited amount of time and energy. He was unable to make any clear
statement when it was put to him by PAUL HUNT that, in our opening statement, we
said "poverty was a symptom rather than a cause of disability: does it not
make sense to concentrate on the cause rather than the symptom, with your
limited energy?" PETER TOWNSEND said he thought "it is not too easy to
distinguish cause and effect here". When pressed, he said he did not
disagree with the Union position, but that "it depends what you mean
VIC
FINKELSTEIN said that the Union Policy Statement was clear about what it meant,
but the Union found Peter Townsend's position a "bit confusing", which
was "why we keep asking these questions". PETER TOWNSEND then said
that statements of policy, etc, were "open to different and acceptable
meanings". But PAUL HUNT reminded him that they were talking about
absolutely fundamental principles, and PETER TOWNSEND then replied, "You
must understand, a social scientist who is asked to make a declaration about
cause and effect takes up a very complicated position about factors which are so
associated as to make it difficult to, in lay terms, to distinguish cause from
effect I have to make that point".
VIC
FINKELSTEIN interrupted to say, "That's just not acceptable, because it's
implying that disabled people can put their necks out by making a declaration of
what we feel is cause and effect, but you as a social scientist can't". He
pointed out again that the Alliance and the Union had faced exactly the same set
of problems, nevertheless we find it absolutely essential to clarify (this) and
sharpen our understanding so that we are able to get to the fundamental issues,
because we feel that this has been hitherto the failing of all previous
organisations".
PETER
TOWNSEND replied, "I don't know why you are making such heavy weather of
this". People belong to organisations without necessarily subscribing to
every phrase of the policy or Constitution. When asked again about the
fundamental principle of not treating a single issue in isolation because of the
agreed, social definition of disability, he said; "I don't think in the
solution of the incomes question you can fail to affect the other issues
PAUL
HUNT then referred to the Alliance's pamphlets, and said that there, "as
far as I can see, you don't accept the social definition of disability. You talk
about disability as though it's something personal. Now, we just find it very
strange you appear to be saying two things".
CHARLES
TAYLOR said that he saw the Union's point quite clearly and that it was in
agreement with the NFB position. But, he added, "we do not see the Alliance
as treading on our toes", because it was not preventing the NFB taking up
the social issue and bringing their view of it to the Alliance.
VIC
FINKELSTEIN took this point and said that the Union clearly had a lot of
sympathy with the NFB. But he said that the Alliance's position of treating
incomes in isolation appeared to arise from an incorrect definition of
disability. "If the question of incomes arises out of the oppression of
disabled people, it's not an issue that you'll be able to deal with and put
aside and then get onto other issues". He said that when resources and
effort were limited, it was most important to be sure that they were directed in
the right way: but the Alliance is turning things on its head. It would seem to
us that the correct way to form an umbrella organisation would be on the social
issues, because this would give the framework to tackle the incomes issue.
You've taken an aspect, an important aspect to be sure, of the oppression of
disabled people, but made that into a major issue around which you
organise". Looking at the actual incomes policy, he went on to say,
"some of the solutions about assessment involving panels of professional
people coming around with tape measures and so on we have already had
means-testing and we know what this means: it would be to perpetuate the
stranglehold the professions have over disabled people. Far from freeing them,
would put them in more chains. And it seems to us that there is a certain logic
in this approach, and this arises from organising around the question of incomes
before you organise around the question of social organisation".
PETER
TOWNSEND said that "That comment does not tell us how disabled people will
get their income. If you cannot assess the degree of disability", he
[page 9, in original document]
asked,
"how do you do it?". The Union representatives referred him back to
their own position as outlined in their Policy Statement, which "talk(s)
about the disablement of impaired people by society. It is not a question of
degree". They insisted they were at the meeting to discuss "how we can
involve disabled people more in their own affairs", and PAUL HUNT said,
"I think the answer is that the Alliance doesn't see any different way of
acting than in the past". PETER TOWNSEND said he could not "get away
with that. . . I'm really, genuinely trying to find out, to understand
more" about what specific policy the Union advocates on incomes and social
security, in the light of its definition of disability. PAUL HUNT then offered
to hold another meeting, or for the Union to correspond in discussing
definitions of impairment in relation to Union policy, where "incomes is
integrated very closely into all the other arrangements we need". But he
emphasised that the present meeting should stick to the agreed purposes.
PETER
TOWNSEND again asked, "What would it be to organise on the social basis
that you mention?". PAUL HUNT replied that "These are the issues that
disabled people need to discuss. Don't you accept", he asked, that disabled
people should discuss their own affairs?" PETER TOWNSEND said, "Of
course", and PAUL HUNT replied, "Well, let's go and discuss with them:
that's what this meeting is about. We don't take final answers to disabled
people. We want to involve them in discussion it's their lives, after all".
BERIT
STUELAND suggested that the Union could have been formed 10 years ago when she
started DIG. You see things this way now, she said, but we ought to be able to
work together; and the Union could find some way "perhaps of informing the
Alliance, of feeding information if you think we get the message wrong".
PAUL
HUNT asked, "What have we been doing today?" and added, "We see
no sign that the Alliance is going to implement the principles. You won't talk
about involving disabled people".
BERIT
STUELAND argued that disabled people were involved, "and I never do
anything without trying to ask disabled people to join me".
PAUL
HUNT said they were not talking on a personal level, but about "what the
Alliance says and does". The principles of involvement were not seen in its
Aims or actions.
CHARLES
TAYLOR pointed out again that "they will be embodied in the Constitution;
and as soon as the Alliance doesn't embody it in the Constitution, my
organisation will be out. But regardless of that, we do consult our
members" and, he said, "I don't feel the Alliance ought to do the same
thing".
PAUL
HUNT replied that the first suggestion would be something worth considering, but
at the moment there was no consistent effort to involve disabled people.
PETER
TOWNSEND then conceded that maybe the Alliance had not sought as energetically
as it might to achieve involvement through its organisations; but they had felt
they were doing it by "acting as an agency for the transmission of
information". He said ,it was a problem of time and organisation. The Union
representatives replied that they had the same problem: "If you are poor
what do you think we are?", and they pointed out the cost of getting their
members to the present meeting. PETER TOWNSEND again agreed, said he was
"very conscious of this", and suggested that the Alliance could do
more to ensure that disabled people themselves could get to their meetings. He
said, "I certainly would like to accept this last thrust", but he
pointed again to the newness of the Alliance and suggested that the Union was
impatient with them.
PAUL
HUNT replied that that was a question of priorities, which they had already been
over, and of finding new ways rather than old ones, when the latter had been
found not to work. He added, "To disabled people it's crucial whether we
put all our energies into fighting for incomes in DIG or the Alliance, or set up
a separate organisation. To us it's a matter of life and death which way we
go".
PETER
TOWNSEND agreed, but said, "We don't see it as an alternative. We regard
the two activities as complementary". He felt, "There is nothing to
prevent a political movement and complete representation of disabled people in
an organisation working with such an organisation as the Alliance". He
added that a political movement representing disabled people "may make the
Alliance entirely unnecessary, I hope".
VIC
FINKELSTEIN said this was "pretty tortuous logic" because it meant
such a strange idea of priorities if it were correct.
PETER
TOWNSEND in conclusion, said he thought "we've benefited a lot from this
exchange of views, and you certainly provided speakers from the Alliance with a
lot to think about". He said that, on their part they thought the Alliance
still worth experimenting with for a year; but "whether it is the sort of
organisation that disabled people want to keep in being a year hence, that is
very much up to them to make known.
[page 10, in original document]
PAUL
HUNT pointed out that the contradictions had not been resolved either regarding
the Alliance's development from DIG, nor its actions in relation to the agreed
principles.
BERIT
STUELAND took up the first point again and said, DIG "became not democratic
enough, and the result of that was not enough pressure by disabled people
themselves".
VIC
FINKELSTEIN agreed that this was precisely so, and that was why it was necessary
to put our energies into creating an organisation that was democratic. Speaking
finally, he said: "I think that from our side we need to stress once again
that we don't welcome experiments with disabled people. We think that there are
rights and wrongs about this a right way of organising, learning from the
lessons of the past, of DIG; and not just to experiment with different kinds of
organisations because this is what comes into mind, into the minds of many
people. We think that one needed to look at what was wrong with the other
organisations and correct those mistakes".
[page 11, in original document]
Comments
on the discussion held between the Union and the Disability Alliance on 22nd
November, 1975
(This
Commentary is attached to the Summary of the Discussion, prepared from a
cassette recording made at the meeting. For background information, see the
opening statement made by the Union, which is included in the Summary. Copies of
the letters between the Alliance and the Union, preparatory and subsequent to
the meeting, can be made available to those interested. The Union's Aims, Policy
Statement and Constitution are also available.)
Right
from the opening remarks made in the discussion, physically impaired people and
those who seek to help us in our struggle for a better life, will be able to see
significant differences between the ways that the Union and the Alliance
prepared for the meeting. On the one hand, in a carefully prepared statement,
the Union representatives immediately began to draw out and develop the agreed
topics for discussion, relating these to the basic principles which both sides
had previously accepted as being fundamental to the struggle against disability.
The Alliance, in contrast, responded to what they called this "very
respectworthy statement" by apologies for their lack of preparation, and
because "we can't" as they said, "reply in the same carefully
prepared way". The question is, why not? This was not a spontaneous or
improvised meeting. It was the Alliance who had originally asked for it to be
held, and they had had at least as long as the Union to prepare. Nevertheless,
they continually pointed out that their statements "trying to present what
we believe in" were "off-the-cuff", implying they should not
therefore be held up for serious criticism. Having made no preparation for the
meeting, the spontaneous urge of the Alliance's speakers was to talk only about
State benefits, assessment proposals and strengthening the Alliance. Thus they
totally ignored the agreement with the Union that the purpose of the meeting was
to discuss "ways in which disabled people can become more active in the
disability field" and involved "in discussions about their own
affairs". When the Union tried to raise this point (of vital concern to
every physically impaired person), the Alliance's speakers were curtly
dismissive, saying: "Give us enough money" and we will involve
disabled people, and "it is more important for us to spend money publishing
material . . . . than in typing, duplicating and posting details of a
meeting". As we shall see, this attitude which allows indifference to
previously accepted fundamental principles, to agreements made with an
organisation of disabled people and to the need for a serious analysis of
disability itself, consistently characterises the way in which the Alliance
works. It applies to even the simplest agreement they had made with the Union;
for example, they "hadn't really made the distinction between speakers and
observers".
During
the course of the discussion, the Alliance's speakers took up the emotional
stance of anger and frustration at the failure of DIG's incomes campaign, which
had characterised their pamphlets and numerous public statements. When
confronted by the Union's principled position, however, it soon became clear
that they had never taken the time to analyse the very basic and elementary
problems which they wish to help overcome. They had accepted our fundamental
principles without even understanding what they had accepted! Thus it emerged
that at the time when both organisations were being developed to take account of
the same set of circumstances, it had been left to the Union to take the first
historically significant step of turning to question the real cause of
disability rather than just railing at one of its symptoms. From this, the Union
had logically gone on to consider the best organisational structure to involve
disabled people actively in the struggle for our emancipation. This meant a
struggle to encourage disabled people to think through the problems, to plan
carefully the action we need to take and to make the task of understanding
disability a serious endeavour. The Alliance's paternalistic tolerance of the
Union's serious preparation for the meeting, when they were themselves unable to
produce anything constructive or new, demonstrates their conception of the role
they are able to see for disabled people in our own affairs.
The
Union's firmly principled approach to disability is so radically different from
the Alliance's own approach that it quickly got to the centre of their weakness
and thereby threatened to expose their way of working to disabled people. They
therefore tried to blunt out attempts at clarifying their way of working by
asking "why you are making such heavy weather of this" (the
fundamental principles), and "keep on harping" on the Alliance's
position? They maintained that there are many acceptable interpretations of
fundamental principles. They said that the policy was "open to different
and acceptable meanings, and even that it was "a slight red herring"
whether or not everyone agreed about what they
[page 12, in original document]
called
details of policy. Clearly, this method of working without principles means that
any interpretation of anything is acceptable and the whole struggle for
emancipation becomes an academic question in which "it is the discussion,
the mixing of views, that is the important thing". Thus the Alliance's
approach leaves them indifferent to, what they have already accepted as
fundamental principles. They therefore can see no need for a rigorous and deeper
analysis of the real nature of disability and the development of a principled
approach which would flow from this. In other words, their approach is the very
opposite of an expert way of working which would seek to clarify the correct
interpretation of the cause of disability and hence the correct way of
struggling to improve our lives.
While
it is true that many interpretations of fundamental principles are possible, it
is sheer childishness to believe that any interpretation serves equally well.
But rather than seek the correct, and therefore most effective approach, the
Alliance rushes headlong into action. For the Alliance "no problem has one
solution" (in effect, any interpretation any solution), and by this formula
they encourage us to use the most amateurish approach possible in our struggles.
It is quite plain that this is the weakest way to organise, and the surest way
to misdirect our energy and resources. The Alliance has learnt nothing from the
failures of the past; and, although they maintain they have particularly sought
to achieve "authority" for their opinions, disabled people should ask
what sort of authority is due to such amateurish views. When it comes to
considering even the most fundamental principles of disability, the Alliance
(and its "experts") behave like amateurs and the Union (and its
"amateurs") behave like experts!
Imagine
a lecturer going into a class to talk about sociology, starting by saying that
he had not thought very much about the fundamental principles of sociology.
Serious students in the class would consider that they were being mocked and
that the lecturer was patronising their desire for education. Yet the Alliance,
they tell us, was seen "as primarily an educational body, trying to convey
to the public that they had been misled, and what the issues really were about
poverty". Obviously, we cannot have any confidence in their ability to
educate the public when they have shown clearly that they themselves do not even
understand the fundamental principles of disability. The Alliance's amateurish
and "unprincipled approach" is in sharp contrast, and functions as a
barrier, to any attempts by physically impaired people to make our struggle
serious and to approach it in an expert way.
The
Alliance, having reacted with extreme frustration and anger to the failure of
"ten years" campaigning by the Disablement Income Group and
others", neglected the fundamental question of why this failure had
occurred. Physically impaired people might have expected that this failure was
significant enough for their lives to be an urgent reason for re-examining
fundamental issues. The Alliance, however, saw only the possibility of a
superficial "counter-move". This follows from their failure to produce
an analysis of what went wrong, and from their reliance only on their
spontaneous feelings about the cause such as, that DIG did not put enough
pressure on the Government, did not educate the public enough about the need for
a comprehensive incomes policy, and DIG did not have enough
"authority" for their policies to be accepted, etc. Consequently the
Alliance set out to meet these imagined defects in the previous incomes
campaign. "The idea", they say, was that, if we got enough support,
then this whole issue of a comprehensive income would gain fresh
authority". Yet, at the same time, they try to sell us the view that the
Alliance contains something new, and is "entirely different" from what
has gone before!
It
did not seem to occur to the Alliance, when making its "kind of improvised
response, angry response, to Government failure", that the incomes campaign
has largely failed, not because of a lack of authority in Dl C's approach, but
in the first instance because of a basic weakness in the incomes approach to the
poverty of physically impaired people in this society. When the failure of DIG's
campaign raised the pressing need for thinking, the Alliance turned its back and
chose "spontaneous" action.
The
Alliance adopted "spontaneity" as its basic method for reacting to the
problems we face and we find that they use this approach every time it is
necessary to stop and think about what needs to be done. Therefore, when it
emerged in the discussion that the Alliance did not know what it was talking
about, they made no attempt to understand why they were in ignorance, but
"spontaneously" began excusing this by blaming their past
"spontaneous" actions. "I suppose I would want to try to
argue", their spokesman said, "that the Alliance was very much a
spontaneous development"; and another explained that "the Alliance is
feeling its way still as an aftermath of the spontaneity which brought it
about". Yet this group has already published a number of pamphlets setting
out in considerable detail their views on disability, apparently with disabled
people's support. It is time that we asked how long the plea
[page 13, in original document]
of
"spontaneity" can excuse and justify the fact that the Alliance has
not yet considered the fundamental questions raised by the failed incomes
approach. Their excuses are only another way of saying that physically impaired
people are not capable of, or ready for, thinking clearly about our problems,
and that the Alliance's "experts" are not going to do it for us. Yet
they are ready enough to "educate" the public!
While
the Union's Policy document conclusively proves that "spontaneous"
reactions and "spontaneous" excuses for ignorance are not the only
ways people can respond to their problems, the Alliance organises in a way that
entrenches blind "spontaneity" and perpetuates this by refusing to
examine basic questions, even when the discussion with the Union showed the
inadequacy of their understanding of what they were doing.
"Spontaneity" feeds on the genuine emotional feelings of physically
impaired people and those who want to help us. See, we are united in fury, the
Alliance proclaim, as though this is the only way to establish the sincerity of
their actions. But, having raised the emotional temperature to gain the sympathy
of disabled people, they then divert our attention from the fundamental issues,
posed by DIG's failed incomes campaign, into common, "spontaneous",
unthinking reaction. The Alliance certainly does not have any monopoly of
"uniting in fury". All organisations really struggling against the
conditions of life of physically impaired people have been angry. Such anger
can, for example, be seen in the Union's Policy document, but we have no need to
promote our anger as a focal point in encouraging a campaign. On the contrary,
we display our anger by drawing attention to the way in which we are oppressed
by society. It is clear that the Alliance, lacking analysis and a new approach
to disability, parades its anger so as to create the climate for
"spontaneously" continuing a campaign based upon a demonstrably
inadequate incomes approach to poverty. They cannot see any new approach, and
like frustrated children they stamp their feet while making the same old demands
of society with their discredited incomes panacea.
Any
scientist, seeking to deal effectively with a problem, knows that the cause must
first be identified. Therefore, if disability is a social condition then an
analysis of the ways in which society actually disables physically impaired
people is obviously required before the condition can be eliminated. To persist
in concentrating on the effects, on the other hand, is to divert attention from
the real problems; and in fact it entrenches disability even further by seeking
its remedy in the opposite direction from the social cause by concentrating on
the assessment of the individual. The Alliance's approach would increasingly
direct us to an analysis of the minutiae of the ways in which the individual
performs social activities. They thus encourage us to neglect the task of
analysing how our society is organised in such a way as to segregate out
individuals with physical impairments and exclude us from the mainstream of
social life.
Although
the Alliance was prepared to accept the fundamental principle that disability is
a social condition, their preference for "spontaneity" rather than for
any considered examination of the real problem, reduced this principle to a mere
form of meaningless words. Blindly adhering to a failed campaign, the Alliance
tries to give its intellectual bankruptcy some respectability by suggesting a
fine-sounding formula: we should, they say, stop looking at the cause of
disability but instead look at its effects.
When
the Union challenged the Alliance's "spontaneous" retreat from
analysing the cause of disability by insisting that, "For us, as disabled
people, it is absolutely vital that we get this question of the cause of
disability quite straight", they became devious. First they agreed with our
proposal that, "disability is a situation, caused by social conditions. .
.", and then they protested "it is not too easy to distinguish cause
and effect here". Thus it emerged that far from agreeing with our
principles they were in fact patronising our carefully worked out position. This
consistent position of the Union on the cause of disability, and the fact that
the Alliance had originally agreed with it while in fact not feeling committed
to the view, finally reduced their argument to the pathetic defence: "You
must understand, a social scientist who is asked to make a declaration about
cause and effect takes up a very complicated position about factors which are so
associated as to make it difficult to, in lay terms, to distinguish cause from
effect".
The
social problem of the poverty of physically impaired people requires for its
solution the same intellectual rigour as any other problem which is approached
scientifically, not less. The approach of the Union of the Physically Impaired
has clearly demonstrated that disabled people do not need to be talked down to
in "lay terms". On the contrary, when we seriously address ourselves
to the problems of our own social situation, we are capable of rapidly
developing an expert approach. Even in its infancy, the clarity and consistency
of the Union's approach makes an important break with the traditional amateurish
"spontaneity" encouraged by the Alliance. Our approach helps to clear
the confusion that the "experts" introduce into what is basically a
straightforward issue, requiring the application of funda-
[page 14, in original document]
mental
principles, drawn from the actual experience of disability, rather than the
adoption of "a very complicated position".
The
Union maintains that, far from being too concerned with the cause of disability,
the "experts" in the field have never concerned themselves with the
real cause at all. The fact that they had delusions that they were looking at
the cause, when they were typically concentrating on its effects, or confusing
disability with physical impairment, underlines the imperative need for disabled
people to become their own experts. It is only when we begin to grasp this
expertise that disabled people will be able to see through the
"experts" attempt to disguise as something" entirely
different" the traditional, clearly failed, "spontaneous"
struggle against aspects of disability, such as poverty.
No
one can accuse the Alliance of inconsistency in the amateurishness 'of their
approach to disability. Having elevated "spontaneity" to their
preferred method of working, they not only obscured the vital connection between
cause and effect, but then went on to make the other clearly stated fundamental
principles quite meaningless. They accepted, for example, that "no one
aspect such as incomes" should be "treated in isolation", while
at the same time publicly stating that this was precisely what they intended to
carry on doing. "At the moment", they said, "we are concentrating
on incomes", and they insisted that they "see nothing wrong in the
Alliance concentrating on income matters". To them, it appears that if you
state that you will not isolate incomes from other questions, you can continue
to do this provided you maintain that you will not stop others, such as the
National Federation of the Blind, from acting on this fundamental principle.
Such verbal nonsense could normally be dismissed with contempt, but the Alliance
is bent upon obtaining "authority" so that "it could decently
claim to speak on behalf of the majority of organisations concerned with
disabled people". If its amateurish views were left unchallenged we would
concede their right to gain respect as "experts" in the field, when
they have clearly not gained this right through intellectual competence.
The
Alliance's "spontaneous" avoidance of serious thought on the subject
of disability left them unable to conceive alternatives to an incomes approach
to poverty. They reacted almost with incredulity to the very suggestion that
such a possibility existed. "I mean", a spokesman said, "what is
the alternative?" To answer the same questions which the Alliance has
clearly avoided, and to prevent the errors of the past which the Alliance
blandly perpetuates, the Union from its inception spent much time reconsidering
the prevailing interpretations of the nature of disability. The result of this
groundwork was that at the meeting with the Alliance the Union representatives
spoke with a single voice and were able to state unequivocally that, our own
position on disability is quite clear...In our view, it is society which
disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of
our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full
participation in society. Disabled people are therefore an oppressed group in
society". To understand this it is necessary to grasp the distinction
between the physical impairment and the social situation, called 'disability',
of people with such impairment. Thus we define impairment as lacking part of or
all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organ or mechanism of the body; and
disability as the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a
contemporary social organisation which takes no or little account of people who
have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the
mainstream of social activities. Physical disability is therefore a particular
form of social oppression. (These definitions refer back to those of Amelia
Harris, but differ from them significantly).
From
this social point of view it follows that the impoverishment of physically
impaired people arises out of the fact that, as a group, we are excluded from
the mainstream of social activities. In the final analysis the particular form
of poverty principally associated with physical impairment is caused by our
exclusion from the ability to earn an income on a par with our able-bodied
peers, due to the way employment is organised. This exclusion is linked with our
exclusion from participating in the social activities and provisions that make
general employment possible. For example, physically impaired school children
are characteristically excluded from normal education preparatory to work, we
are unable to achieve the same flexibility in using transport and finding
suitable housing so as to live conveniently to our possible employment, and so
on. The need to make a full analysis of the organisation of society is most
pressing as this leads to the very essence of disability and its poverty aspect.
It is clear that our social organisation does not discriminate equally against
all physical impairments and hence there arises the appearance of degrees of
exclusion (degrees of disability). For example, people having mild visual
impairments (wearing glasses) are doubtless not more impoverished than their
visually unimpaired peers. Our
[page 15, in original document]
social
organisation does not exclude people using glasses to the same extent that it
excludes people who are blind, or deaf, or cannot speak, or who have brain
damage, or who use wheelchairs. Nevertheless, it is the same society which
disables people whatever their type, or degree of physical impairment, and
therefore there is a single cause within the organisation of society that is
responsible for the creation of the disability of physically impaired people.
Understanding the cause of disability will enable us to understand the situation
of those less affected, as well as helping us to prevent getting lost in the
details of the degrees of oppression at the expense of focusing on the essence
of the problem.
A
crucial factor in this coming together, this growing social identification
amongst disabled people, and hence the realisation of a social cause of
disability, is that in the last fifty years or so developments in modern
technology have made it increasingly possible to employ even the most severely
physically impaired people and to integrate us into the mainstream of social and
economic activity. It is this development that the Alliance is unable to
assimilate in its redundant thinking. The Union's social theory of disability,
itself a product of the technological changes in society, reflects the most
advanced developments which make it clear that the alternative to an
"incomes" (or more properly, "pensions") approach to the
particular poverty in disability is to struggle for changes to the organisation
of society so that employment and full social participation are made accessible
to all people, including those with physical impairments. Setting
"incomes" in the context of this struggle to change the organisation
of society, would help physically impaired people recognise the correct emphasis
to be placed upon incomes. To avoid retreating in the face of DIG's failed
incomes campaign it is necessary to go forward with the serious struggle for the
right to paid, integrated employment and full participation in the mainstream of
life.
Of
course the Union supports and struggles for increased help for physically
impaired people, there can be no doubt about our impoverishment and the need for
urgent change. However, our Union's Aims seek the "necessary
financial...and other help required from the State to enable us to gain the
maximum possible independence in daily living activities, to achieve mobility,
undertake productive work and to live where and how we choose with full control
over our own lives". Financial and other help is placed here in relation to
the achievement of independence and integration into ordinary employment. This
is the fundamental principle by which schemes for meeting the financial and
other needs of disabled people can be judged. This means that for people of
working age financial and other forms of help must above all be geared to the
retention or achievement of integrated employment: dependence on the State must
increasingly give way to the provision of help so that a living can be earned
through employment. Similarly, the assistance given to physically impaired
children must be directed towards their progressive integration into ordinary
employment. And for physically impaired people of all ages, the financial and
other special help required to meet the extra costs and problems of living with
impairments must increasingly be replaced by arrangements which include us as an
integral part of society for example, fully accessible and reliable public
transport.
"Benefits"
which are not carefully related to the struggle for integrated employment and
active social participation will constantly be used to justify our dependence
and exclusion from the mainstream of life the very opposite of what is intended.
This is why the Alliance's appeal to the state for legislation to implement a
comprehensive, national disability incomes scheme is in reality nothing so much
as a programme to obtain and maintain In perpetuity the historical dependence of
physically impaired people on charity. It does not even have the merit of
revealing to the public it wishes to educate that its incomes policy is really a
form of State Charity that is, help which essentially entrenches our dependence
on the state instead of encouraging our independence and active participation in
the mainstream of life. The Alliance's appeal to the public on our behalf is
still the same old appeal to pity, the begging bowl in modern form. A hundred
years ago such an appeal for state rather than personal or voluntary charity
might have made some sense. But today, when technological and social changes
have radically altered the possibilities for us to take independent control over
our own lives, to continue to stress our incapacity and helplessness is to bind
us with more chains instead of emancipating us. What we really need is to be
helped to make our maximum active. contribution to society as full members.
The
Alliance's analysis makes no attempt to grasp the central importance of our
exclusion from work in the genesis of poverty amongst physically impaired
people, but treats poverty purely empirically as a fact which does not have to
be explained. Yet the struggle to achieve integration into ordinary employment
is the most vital part of the struggle to change the organisation of society so
that physically impaired people are no longer impoverished through exclusion
from full participation. Only when all physically impaired people of working age
are as a matter of
[page 16, in original document]
course
helped to make whatever contribution they can in ordinary work situations, will
secure foundations for full integration in society as a whole be laid. All the
other situations from which physically impaired people are excluded are linked,
in the final analysis, with the basic exclusion from employment. The
discrimination against physically impaired people as a whole (including children
and those over retirement age) and the lack of positive help for us all to
participate fully in areas of life outside employment, can only be
systematically and successfully struggled against when this connection is
grasped.
It
is obvious that this struggle requires a major rethinking of old attitudes and
ideas about the social roles of disabled people. It will be necessary to draw
the mass of disabled people (of whatever age or type of physical impairment)
into the great movement to raise our consciousness of our social identity. A
general mass movement of disabled people, and our increasing integration into
normal work and other social situations, will radically improve our social
status as a group. Experts begging for state charity on our behalf can do
nothing but lower our status, by reinforcing out-of-date attitudes. There are no
easy options of the kind the Alliance is trying to sell us. The struggle for the
right to employment and full social participation, that is, to eliminate
disability and its poverty aspect, of necessity requires our active involvement.
If the mass of disabled people do not engage in this struggle we will not
develop the physical and mental capacity to meet the active demands of
employment and other integrated situations.
Once
the struggle for incomes and benefits is divorced from the struggle to make
employment and the other related areas of life accessible, the involvement of
disabled people is no longer required. The campaign to provide more charity
(whatever it is called) requires only a small group of "experts" who
know the laws, who are recognised as "authorities" on the subject, and
who have detailed schemes for negotiation. None of this requires any attempt
actively to educate physically impaired people, nor to raise our level of social
awareness. On the contrary, the struggle of a small group of people for
"authority" on incomes means turning their backs on our needs while
they concentrate on parliament. It is not only that the so called
"experts" suffer a poverty of thinking, but also that this narrow
approach impoverishes the intellectual development of disabled people in our own
struggle by continuing to isolate us from the social and ideological
developments of our time.
The
past decade has seen a growing storm of criticism of the way society treats
physically impaired people. This storm built up during the passing of the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (1970), and culminated in the failure
of DIG's incomes campaign. It was in this period and subsequently that there was
a growing need for our criticism to be sharpened and directed into the correct
channels. At the same time as we were presented with this challenge for greater
understanding the Alliance "spontaneously" set about raising its
umbrella against the storm. The Union maintains that the umbrella structure
serves to prevent the development of clear thinking lust at the time when this
is most needed.
Basing
itself on the struggle to achieve State Charity, even in the light of DIG's
failed incomes campaign, the Alliance has "spontaneously" seen more
consistently than DIG the way to organise for this purpose. Since the incomes
approach does not require the active participation of disabled people (in fact,
dealing with our grumbles may take much time away from the "experts"
single-minded concentration on the incomes issue), it is more logical to do away
with the active membership. At the same time, the incomes "experts"
cannot completely ignore the disabled population, because this is necessary
today to help establish their "authority" in talks with the Government
and in "education" of the public. The ideal formal structure, then,
for organising around the incomes content of DIG, is one that can establish a
legitimate distance between the "expert" leaders and the
"amateur" ordinary members. The answer is "a federation of
organisations" which, unlike DIG and the CCD, they claim, acts "in an
executive capacity" and reflects its wider representation in the subject
matter of its pamphlets. This frees the incomes "experts" from the
cumbrance of dealing directly with disabled people and at the same time allows
them to claim "authority" through the membership of the constituent
organisations (which are then left to deal with the problem of what to do with
their members). This amounts to no less than the willingness of the incomes
"experts" to use disabled people to give authority !o their own social
interests. That they can use people in this way is frankly demonstrated when
they say that the original use of many other experts by the Alliance "was
really just to give dignity to an exchange of correspondence with the Prime
Minister" a remark which, less than flattering to the other experts, says
even more of the Alliance's real attitude to disabled people It would be folly
for us to have any confidence in such an organisation which can "use"
people in this manner. The tendency, then, of separating incomes
"experts" from those they claim to represent was initially built into
DIG by its organising around the single issue and is now completed in the
structure of the Alliance. Far from this
[page 17, in original document]
being
a new approach, the Alliance has carried the weakness in DIG to its logical and
consistent organisational level.
The
way this separation between the "experts" and the "amateurs"
works can be demonstrated when we look at the production of the Alliance's
educational pamphlets. A relatively tiny group of individuals write, discuss and
print pamphlets advocating State Charity. These are then circulated to the
public in the name of disabled people before we have had a chance to evaluate
their contents critically. The mass of DIG members, for example, were not
consulted about the contents of the Alliance's pamphlet, 'Poverty and
Disability', which, because of DIG's membership of the Alliance they found
themselves ostensibly supporting. The Alliance, by a neat organisational trick,
is able to disclaim responsibility for the lack of consultation of physically
impaired people. "We are," they told us, "at least consulting
other organisations of and for the disabled. We don't have individual members,
this is the point". The point being (quite correctly) that the Alliance
does not have the responsibility for consulting physically impaired people, as
this lies with the constituent organisations in our example, with DIG, who must
bear the responsibility for bringing their disabled members into such an
organisation as the Alliance. By its umbrella structure the Alliance of amateurs
is able to render harmless and shelter from any storm of criticism levelled at
its State Charity approach. The "experts" have expertly protected
themselves from direct contact with the mass of disabled people, while at the
same time they claim to speak for us.
We
need not despair, however, of having an effective say in our own affairs. The
umbrella is full of holes.
The
horrific implications contained in the inexorable logic of the Alliance's State
Charity approach are best revealed by their plans for assessing what they call
the "degree of disability". It is here, in their scheme to control our
lives, that these amateurs are truly transformed into "experts", as we
shall see.
We
should firstly note that the Alliance makes no attempt at a careful, critical
analysis of the various methods of assessment which have already been developed
for existing schemes. Such an analysis is the least we expect from
"experts" who are promoting their own supposedly improved brand of
assessment as a big advance. It is even more significant that the Alliance's
incomes proposals bear a marked resemblance to the War and Industrial
Disablement Pensions Schemes, except for the method of assessment, which is
replaced by their own method without discussion. Yet, of those methods of
assessment developed to date, the one used in the War and Industrial Schemes
appears to have most advantages and least disadvantages. It is based on a
medical examination of impairment, and is relatively objective and
straightforward. Once awarded, the basic allowance payable is not affected by
the achievement of greater independence and activity through determination, aids
or techniques in contrast to the Alliance's scheme. In looking for an assessment
procedure for an expenses allowance which would positively assist and not
discourage active participation in work and other situations, this is the one
which seems to have the most potential for development. At the very least we can
expect that a method of assessment which was evolved in the context of struggles
by workers and service personnel for decent treatment will contain some basic
elements for advance and be worth very careful study.
However,
the Alliance typically ignores what it wishes to ignore, and concentrates on
selling its own pet schemes the superior merits of which we are supposed to take
on trust. And we find that by also ignoring the social cause of disability, and
therefore the need to bring about integrative social change, the Alliance
encourages us to see our oppression as a matter for detailed negotiation. Their
narrow proposals immediately create for us a vested financial interest in
claiming what becomes our main asset "disability". In addition, since
the amount of charity will be determined by the degrees of disability,
physically impaired people will also have a vested interest in playing down our
abilities. The best financial contribution we could make to our families would
be to become, or pretend to become, more dependent. The State, of course, will
automatically be in conflict with us for it will seek to limit its handouts,
otherwise there would be no one at work. State Charity, therefore, creates a
conflict of interests between the State and its social administrators on the one
hand and physically' impaired people on the other. Thus the Alliance logically
sees the need to establish objective criteria which would enable the State's
social administrators to determine the "degree of disability" and to
exclude the malingerers from benefit. A whole new generation of researchers and
testers will be created to administer the incomes policy of the Alliance.
The
scene facing every physically impaired person, then, is of an army of
"experts" sitting on panels which are set up all over the country.
These "experts", armed with the latest definitions and tests for
measuring, will prod and probe into the intimate details of our lives. They will
bear down on us with batteries of questions, and wielding their tape measures
will
[page 18, in original document]
attempt
to tie down the last remaining vestige of our privacy and dignity as human
beings. To calculate the "degree of disability" they will be forced to
snoop and spy. How else could they decide whether a physically impaired person
dresses her/himself, for example, or is helped? Just to test this simple act
would require considerable investigation to make sure the person was not
"malingering" (or, what would inevitably be the new jargon,
"dress-lazy"). It should take physically impaired people little
imagination to see where all this leads. Every single act would have to be
performed in front of a panel while they measure and pry. Already the details
are being worked out, the definitions constructed, criticised and reconstructed.
The hated means-testing would seem like a formula for privacy compared to the
Alliance's proposals for assessing "degree of disability".
It
is a horrifying picture; but, a logical extension of the campaign to assess
"Needs not Means" which the incomes approach of DIG developed and the
Alliance now takes forward. As we have already seen, the Alliance puts no store
by organising itself in a principled way. It has not yet even clarified its
function with a proper, democratic Constitution that seeks the involvement of
all disabled people in controlling its affairs. Nevertheless, the Alliance's
"experts" have already drawn up and published their minute and
detailed plans for how we disabled people -should be controlled. When we look at
these plans we can get a glimpse of just how close the Alliance is to putting us
into the situation outlined above. The following is a direct quotation from
their pamphlet 'Poverty and Disability', taken from the section subtitled
'Assessment':
"First,
there is impairment arising from some physical or mental condition. Second,
there are consequences of such impairment, or functional incapacity or
disablement. This incapacity or disablement underlies the actual behaviour, and
is usually consistent with such behaviour. However, there are individuals who
make Herculean efforts to conceal their incapacity, and other individuals, by
contrast, who exaggerate their incapacity. The assessment would therefore be
based on an individual's considered judgement (or that of someone living with
him) about his capacity to undertake a list of activities, checked as far as
possible with other evidence whether from medical practitioners, social workers,
tests of physical or mental performance or other sources. The testimony neither
of the individual disabled person nor of specialist witnesses can be
ignored". (emphasis added in the last three sentences).
Can
one imagine able-bodied people passively putting up with this?
Thus
in practice the Alliance's assessment plans, developed logically from the narrow
incomes approach, can be seen to increase the isolation and oppression of
physically impaired people. We would be required to sit alone under observation
on one side of the table, while facing us on the other side, social
administrators would sit together in panels. We would be passive, nervous,
deferential, careful not to upset the panel: in short, showing all the
psychological attributes commonly associated with disability. It would be the
social administrators who would gain strength, support and confidence from
colleagues on the panel. A token number of the more privileged physically
impaired people might be included, as they are in the Alliance. But the whole
approach would reinforce the historical and traditional situation whereby
physically impaired people are made dependent upon the thinking and decisions of
others.
The
Alliance's "spontaneous" defence of the failed incomes approach can be
understood when we realise that it is the result of the social experience of
"experts" in close affinity with sociology. While the medical
profession has long been the traditional, dominant group in
"disability", sociologists have been engaged in chipping away at this
privilege for some time and it is this group the sociologists who instinctively
gain from an incomes approach to "disability". The achievement of a
national incomes policy would of necessity require an army of social
administrators who would be given enormous power over physically impaired
people. In this way sociologists would oust the medical profession and replace
them as the dominant group in the field. The Alliance's structure and its
ability to gain "authority" as the voice of disabled people, enables
social administrators to use disabled people (just as they used other experts
earlier) to become the dominant profession in our lives. In other words, if we
as disabled people do not become our own experts, but concede that role to the
Alliance, we will be helping them to advance their cause as our new social
controllers!
While
the Alliance proposes to assess physically impaired people (what they call
"degree of disability") as though we were things, the Union encourages
the alternative of physically impaired people assessing things (found in what we
have called the "organisation of society"). Since it is the social
organisation that prevents us from gaining an adequate income from employment
and meeting our other needs it follows that it is this social organisation that
needs to be assessed by physically impaired people and our supporters. Thus the
logic of the Union's approach based upon its definition of
"disability" also leads to the creation of assessment panels. But
[page 19, in original document]
in
contrast to the Alliance, the kind of panels the Union supports would be made up
of disabled people (who are experts in their own right) sitting with committed
experts and others who are equally involved. In this situation physically
impaired people would come together, help each other in the assessment procedure
and so develop our own confidence in social participation. Helpful experts of
many professions would undoubtedly contribute to the work of these panels. But
these experts would be committed to seeing the social organisation from the
point of view of our true interests as a group, and therefore would be in our
service. Thus the committed experts would need to be, not those who take up a
"very complicated position", but rather those who have really
understood the objective fact that society causes our disablement by the way it
is organised. The involvement of others op these panels would follow according
to how the social situation which requires change to bring about our integration
also excludes from full participation other oppressed groups, or to the extent
that changes in the social situation will affect the lives of other people.
Although
the details of assessing "disability" in this way obviously need
careful consideration the basic ideas can be easily seen. Office blocks and
factories, for example, would have to be designed with accessibility for
physically impaired people and once a business occupied such a building it would
be required to maintain that accessibility and improve it. The State would be an
active participant in this process. Since society already has the technology
that could integrate severely impaired people into social life it would be the
task of the panels to ensure that adequate assistance, human and technological,
is provided for the working person at his or her place of work. This would help
ensure that nobody is refused work on the grounds of physical impairment.
Instead of approaching physically impaired people as though our physical status
decides whether or not we can work (as implied in' the Alliance's assessment of
"degree of disability"), the conditions of work, and those other
environmental situations leading to a working life and enabling one to get to
work, etc., would be assessed. The purpose would be to solve the problems and
make the work situation accessible to the successful applicant. A strong Union
responsible to the mass of physically impaired people would obviously have an
important part to play here providing representatives for the assessment panels,
working as a political movement through which disabled people can gain expertise
and take control over our own lives, and campaigning for the legislative support
that the panels would require for their work to be effective. In this way, the
problems of poverty, immobility, unemployment, etc., of physically impaired
people would be increasingly integrated into the common problems of social life
which also include these aspects and affect many other social groups. Increasing
numbers of people who are not physically impaired experience problems with
employment, transport, the educational system and retirement? for example, and
we would be able to work with these groups to the same ends. Thus the Union's
approach to disability does not avoid these pressing social problems but leads
the way to a truly integrative struggle to bring physically impaired people into
line with the general, social situation and away from 'special' struggles, etc.
Whereas the traditional segregationist approach, which treats our problems as a
'special' case, has always left us isolated and weak, the struggle for full
integration will develop our strengths and bring us into contact with many
groups who also have an interest in influencing social change. This is the
realistic alternative which the Union proposes to the incomes scheme of the
Alliance's "experts" which still seeks to tie down physically impaired
people with tape measures and inflict on us the probing, prying, interfering,
dominating control that we have all experienced and struggled against.
While
the Union could have no objection to the Alliance conducting its "fragile
experiment" with umbrellas, we do emphatically reject this academic
approach applied to our lives.
Clearly,
from our discussion, we can see no indication that the Alliance really does, nor
will, accept the fundamental principles to which they ostensibly agreed for
their meeting with the Union. They could not defend their position on
disability, nor their actions, in terms of these principles, and show no
significant signs of seriously implementing them. We therefore hope that the'
National Federation of the Blind will hold to the principled stand which they
took during the discussion, when their spokesman said that, "as soon as the
Alliance doesn't embody it" (the principle of involvement) "in the
Constitution, my organisation will be out". In the Union's view, physically
impaired people should struggle for active participation in all our
organisations, and for their withdrawal from the Disability Alliance, leaving
the discredited incomes approach to a discredited body of "amateurs".
The
Union considers that the Alliance represents an historic and significant step
backwards, following the failure of DIG's incomes campaign. Its adherence to the
traditional charity approach serves to confuse the
[page 20, in original document]
fundamental
issues that face disabled people; and the Alliance has not, therefore, earned
the "authority" to educate the public, or in any way speak for the
true interests of physically impaired people. We will therefore publicly
campaign against the Alliance, against its false interpretation of the nature of
disability, and against its "spontaneous" promotion of sociology as
the new, dominant profession in disability. We will encourage physically
impaired people to read the assessment plans of the Alliance, drawing their
attention to the dehumanising implications of this scheme, and to why a State
Charity approach leads to this situation. We will also draw attention to the
fact that, on its own figures, if the Alliance's State Charity scheme were
implemented in full, this would still leave about 1 million disabled people in
need of means tested Supplementary Benefits -~ although their declared aim is to
eliminate poverty!
The
Union maintains that the ultimate failure of DIG, its loss of vitality and
campaigning spirit, are related to its organisation around the "rather
narrow basis" of an incomes approach to the poverty of disabled people.
This has led DIG to rely on a small group of "experts", who
concentrate on Parliamentary work, while the mass membership stagnates and
becomes increasingly uninvolved. While the Alliance builds on these past
mistakes, and becomes increasingly uninvolved. While the Alliance builds on
these past mistakes, DIG itself still retains the organisational potential to
involve its mass membership in a wider struggle which does not isolate incomes
from related social issues, such as the right to employment. The State Charity
approach developed by the "experts" has become a powerful and
insidious disease within the consciousness of disabled people, and the
Alliance's consistent organisation around it should enable 'DIG to rethink its
own basic premises. The choice has been presented by the Alliance for DIG either
to follow lamely behind the more consistent incomes campaign and thereby
continue its own decline, or else to break with this discredited approach and
move forward to the campaign for the right to employment and an earned income
and full integration into society. This, of course, would mean developing the
possibilities for a close, constructive exchange of critical ideas between
membership and leadership in the DIG organisation.
In
contrast to the Alliance, the alternative struggle proposed by the Union is
logically developed from a social theory of disability. We pose the question as
to why the Alliance and its "experts" have not produced an adequate
social theory of disability. We ourselves look for our expertise to the wealth
of talent and intellectual imagination of disabled people, which will be freed
for expression once we contemplate our own situation from our own collective
experience. The Union therefore seeks to help disabled people to 'recognise and
oppose all approaches which can only see answers to our problems in terms of
different forms of charity. We call on physically impaired people and others who
want to help to join the Union and help us build a mass, democratic
organisation, with a principled approach to disability that will struggle to win
the right to employment in integrated work situations, and to eliminate from our
society the disablement of people who have physical' impairments.
[page 21, in original document]
Commentary
on the summary of the tape recorded discussion between the Union of the
Physically Impaired and the Disability Alliance on 22nd November, 1975
The
background to the communication leading up to the meeting on 22nd November, 1975
has been described in the attached summary. Essentially, it began on a personal
basis when the Union of the Physically Impaired sent a copy of its Policy
Statement to Peter Townsend, who is Chairman of the Disability Alliance, and he
replied giving his personal support to the Union's objectives, and requesting
Associate Membership. Before this could be decided upon, the UPI requested
clarification on a number of points in his letter which appeared to be at odds
with the Union's position and Peter Townsend thought that these might be
discussed personally, rather than through a prolonged correspondence. He also
suggested that the Alliance and the UPI might be able to co-operate in some way
in the future, and therefore suggested a meeting between himself and several
members of the Steering Committee of the Alliance and the UPI.
The
Alliance anticipated an informal meeting in which these points might be
discussed and a further understanding gained of all points of view, and that
this might in turn lead to further discussions and perhaps an eventual agreement
and statement of mutual co-operation and assistance. When the UPI submitted its
written conditions for a meeting, the Alliance was therefore surprised by its
approach and its desire for strict formality, but was willing to agree to its
requests in the interests of co-operation. The Alliance felt that there was no
need for the careful planning of contacts and statements at this stage, since
this first meeting was to be essentially an exploratory one, based on mutual
trust and friendship. It was therefore not anticipating a written statement from
the UPI, and would have found it helpful (a) to have been given notice of this,
so that it could have prepared a similar document, and (b) to have been given
copies of this statement for easier discussion and reference. This would have
been especially appreciated by the blind representative from the Alliance.
The
discussion was devoted to the discussion of the Union's two main questions,
i.e.:
"How
can the Alliance be said to conform with the fundamental principles we have all
agreed on for this meeting?"
"What
was thought to be wrong with DIG so that a second organisation concentrating on
disability incomes was considered necessary?'
The
Union clearly felt that the Alliance could not in fact accept the fundamental
principles by virtue of its aims and its structure, and further made it clear
that nothing less than complete alignment with the Union view point could be
acceptable if progress was to be made. Discussions on the purpose of the
meeting, i.e. "to consider ways in which disabled people can become more
active in the disability field, and to consider a long term programme of action
to involve disabled people in discussions about their "own affairs",
could not really take place, and this is reflected in the summary.
Although
the Alliance agreed with the Union that "disability is a situation, caused
by social conditions", it also believes that the issue of finance is
fundamental to much of their oppression, and is a major contributory factor to
the isolation and segregation of disabled people. The Union's first question
("How can the Alliance be said to conform with the fundamental principles
we have all agreed on for this meeting") challenges the possibility that
the Alliance can recognise that a large number of social conditions combine to
further impair disabled people, whilst at the same time be pressing for the
introduction of a comprehensive income scheme for all disabled people. It
suggests that the Alliance could not in fact agree with the Union's first stated
principle ("Disability is a situation, caused by social conditions, which
require for its elimination (a) that no one aspect such as incomes, mobility or
institutions is treated in isolation .") if it is pursuing a campaign for a
change in legislation of a financial nature. The Alliance would reply that its
work is not devoted solely to income in isolation, since income is inextricably
linked with education and employment opportunities, mobility, adequate
accommodation, clothing, recreation, freedom from anxiety, and so on, and all of
these are discussed in its research work and is emphasised in its arguments with
Government representatives. The absence of income for disabled people has a
traumatic effect on all aspects of their life, whereas deficiencies in specific
areas mentioned above could be eased to some extent by a reliable and adequate
income.
The
Alliance therefore submits that the absence of income has a far greater effect
on a disabled person's life than other individual aspects of his social
situation, and that in fact all of these individual aspects are crucially linked
to his financial status. It further submits that a full examination of the
implications of inadequate income cannot but include his entire social
[page 22, in original document]
situation,
and is therefore not discussed in isolation, as principle 1 might suggest. The
aim of the Alliance's research work as published in its pamphlets, memoranda and
press statements is therefore to draw attention to the disproportionate effect
that the continued denial of a reasonable income has upon the lives of disabled
people, whilst at the same time illustrating how this and other attitudes as
expressed through current legislation and administration result in their
segregation, and their condemnation to the status of a second class citizen.
The
Alliance believes that the introduction of a comprehensive income scheme would
make substantial inroads into these oppressive social conditions, and bring
about the beginnings of a fundamental change in the status of disabled people in
society. The adage that money is power has some bearing here, since his lack of
entitlement to a standard of living at least equal to that of the able-bodied,
and his inability to buy services, reduce the status of a disabled person to
that of a dependent, in which his right to free choice, action and association
are curtailed in direct proportion to the degree of his disability and the
extent of his financial means. The curtailment of these rights are crucial in
causing the disabled person's isolation and exclusion from full participation in
society, just as admission to the workhouse meant the withdrawal of all rights
to emphasise society's condemnation of the individual's insolvency. Thus the
absence of an income as of right for disabled people is -. in our view more than
just one more symptom of their oppression and segregation: it is rather
fundamental to the way in which Society exacts payment for being "not as
others". Penalising those who are different whether in health, skin colour,
marital or sexual status, or physical ability through financial sanctions is a
powerful means of confirming the supposed superiority of the majority. The
movement for women's equality, for example, aptly illustrates the importance
given to the relationship between status and income. Although women are pressing
for equality in all aspects of life, it is primarily in the arena of income and
so employment opportunity that they are concentrating their fire, since it is
through these that they will most effectively gain control over their own lives.
The
relation between income and status has thus repeated itself too often to be
classified simply as one more symptom of the disabled person's oppression. When
the Government announced its financial package for the chronically sick and
disabled in 1974, many individuals and organisations concerned with the disabled
were therefore disgusted, and responded with a desire to express that disgust
with a united voice that could not be long ignored. Unity and co-operation
between such organisations, and agreement on a radical change of policy, is a
rare commodity, a sad fact which has led them on many occasions to the
Government's "divide and rule" strategy as illustrated in the invalid
trike affair. These organisations and individuals did not want a new grass roots
organisation devoted to disability incomes, so much as a common platform upon
which they could repeatedly state their individual and joint view that the
disabled person was getting a raw deal by virtue of his neighbours' and his
political leaders' attitudes. They had their own grass roots members, calling
for the same thing. They did not want to join an organisation such as DIG, and
so lose their sovereignty, so much as to link with other groups of the same
opinion on a broad front to illustrate their solidarity on the need for
legislative change, whilst continuing with their own work. That common platform
became known as the Disability Alliance.
The
Union observed that the Alliance differed only in structure from DIG. Even if
that were so, the structure is sufficiently different to merit a different
approach. For the first time, a wide and very diverse number of fragmented
organisations and groups for and of people with many kinds of disabilities are
joining together to press for a fundamental and long overdue change of attitudes
to and legislation for disabled people. For the first time they are saying, not,
"We want a larger slice of the cake for our own blind/deaf/mentally
ill/physically impaired members", but rather: "The cake must be made
bigger to provide equally for all disabled people, whatever their
impairment". This willingness to begin sinking partisan differences and
loyalties for a common cause is something of a revolution of attitudes in
itself, in which the social status of disabled people is being placed
increasingly within the broader context of changing the entrenched attitudes of
the able-bodied world towards them.
The
effect of this changed approach should not be underestimated. More and more self
help groups are joining the Alliance or expressing interest in its activities,
and we hope that they and their disabled representatives will wish to become
involved in its administration. We are grateful to the Union for pointing out
the lack of clarity in the wording of our aims in our draft constitution, and it
has subsequently been amended with the unanimous agreement of all member
organisations to read:
"As
part of the process of transforming the position and status generally of
disabled people in society, the object of the Alliance is to persuade society to
pay an income as of right and on equitable principles to all disabled persons,
whatever
[page 23, in original document]
their
age, cause, type or place of disablement, or working capacity, in order to
eliminate their poverty or financial hardship...
...In
furtherance of the above object the Alliance shall have the following powers:
(i)
to promote a more widespread understanding of the circumstances, needs and views
of disabled people, especially as they relate to living standards and the
distribution of resources.
(ii)
to advocate the right of disabled people whether living at home, in residential
homes, or in hospitals to exert control over their own lives...
There
appears to be some confusion about the role of able-bodied
"specialists" and "experts" in the development of the
Alliance which requires clarification in the light of the Union's conditions 1b
and 1c. In the early stages of co-operation between the organisations that were
to form the basis of the Alliance, it was agreed that a round-robin letter be
sent to the Prime Minister, condemning the paucity of the announced provision
for the chronically sick and disabled, and calling for a further review. In the
style of round-robins, the signature of a large number of well known individuals
in professions related to disability were sought and obtained to lend emphasis
to its contents. These "specialists" added their approval to the
Alliance's proposals, but have had little to do with its further development as
a pressure group.
This
has been supervised by meetings of its elected Steering Committee and by
mailings to and from representatives in all member organisations. Election for
the Steering Committee will take place at our first ACM in December, and we are
encouraging members to nominate disabled representatives wherever possible. Much
of the work carried out during the last year has been in answering queries from
disabled correspondents, in contacting groups that might be interested in
sharing in the Alliance, and in talking to variously disabled people as a basis
for the views put forward in our pamphlet series. Much remains to be done to
encourage more disabled people to become closely involved in the Alliance
through their own organisations, and we would like to see at least half of the
places on the Steering Committee taken by disabled representatives.
The
Disability Alliance is essentially an educational form in which disabled and
non-disabled people alike are coming together to press for fundamental changes
in attitude and policy, but it in no way takes away from the activities of its
member organisations who might concentrate on a specific disability, or from the
growth of a movement entirely made up of disabled people pressing for broad
social reforms. Whilst its members wish it to continue, the Alliance will
complement their efforts and activities, and so contribute to the realisation of
the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, as adopted by the United
Nations in 1975. If it achieves its aims, it will in time be no longer needed.