Depictions of people with disabilities in the British media





Ashwin Bulsara argues that media's portrayal of disable people in the United Kingdom has a long history of oppressive and negative representation. Disable people have been presented as socially flawed able-bodied people rather than as disabled people with their own identity. (1)

Mention the word 'disability', and three potent images are conjured up: pity, dependent and flawed. In large part those images are perpetuated by the media, that today informs much of our view of the world. Broadcast media and the press are perhaps the two most influential sources of information in the United Kingdom, providing us with both opinion and a view into many different worlds which reach far beyond our immediate circumstances.

The media reflects our norms, beliefs and values, acting as a prism through which we interpret and disseminate words and images which impact our lives in a most profound way. How do representations of disability in the media impact upon the life of a 'dis-able' person? (2) Should we challenge traditional views, opinions, perceptions and prejudice's about disable people and their in place society, and seek a more enlightened perspective?

TWO APPROACHES TO DEPICTING DISABILITY
There are two approaches to disability which enable us to understand our perceptions about disable people. The first is a medical and physical model which views disability as a product of impairment, a form of biological determinism whose primary focus is upon physical difference, such as blindness, deafness, and being wheelchair bound. "Disable people are defined as that group of people who's bodies do not work, or look different, or act differently, or cannot do productive work." (3) This definition assumes a notion of "normality" from which disable people deviate. By defining disable people only in terms of their physical condition it both denies them an identity and disregards their common social experiences. This approach to disability, with its focus on medical difference, disempowers disable people, denying them a voice from which to express wider societal injustices.

By contrast, the social model seeks to redress this disempowerment by focusing upon the relationship between disable people and a discriminatory society. "Disability is defined as an outcome of disabling barriers imposed by environmental or policy interventions." (4) This model is designed to prevent barriers acting as obstacles, and to engage in a process of education designed to remove prejudice - with the goal of ultimate inclusion. (5)

British-based academic Collin Barnes writes that "the link between impairment and all that is socially unacceptable was first established in classical Greek theatre." (6) Cultural stereotypes today continue to perpetuate this negative view, leading to a portrayal of disable people as pitiable and pathetic. Television programmes such as 'Children in Need' and the old ITV telethon encourage pity, in order that the non-disable public can express compassion by giving money. A regular feature of popular fiction is to show overtly dependent disable people receiving help from kind and sensitive persons - and even better if the disable person is endearing, eliciting even greater sentimentality. These images project to the general public the idea that the well-being of disable people is entirely dependent upon the benevolence of others. Historically, popular fiction has depicted disable people as poor defenceless victims: for example Tiny Tim in Charles Dickens' "Christmas Carol" and Porgy in George Gershwin's "Porgy and Bess". (7)

This negative view of disable people is a common feature within the broadcast media. Disable individuals are continuously depicted on TV screens either in hospitals or nursing homes, "perpetuating the myth that disability is synonymous with illness and suffering" (8). Presentations of research into medical treatments and impairment-related cures shown on TV news programmes and documentaries are designed to stimulate sympathy. This portrayal perpetuates the medical model of disability away from the social factors which cause disability. These highly emotive broadcasts use language which induces sentimentality which many disable people find both patronising and offensive. Derogatory language such as 'cripple' or 'dummies' is almost never used, but terms such as, 'the disabled' or 'the handicapped' are preferred, depersonalising disable people, stripping them of their humanity, reducing them to objects. Even reporters who use neutral terminology, still employ terms such as, 'plucky', 'brave', 'courageous victims' or 'unfortunates'. (9)

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ADVERTISING
Advertising, with its cultural obsession with physical perfection and the body beautiful, sees impairment as tragic. This can make social interaction very difficult for anyone who does not conform to the stereotypes - but even more so for disable people who have unconventional bodies. Advertisements continuously generate fear, suggesting that living with disability is a life shattering experience, and often deny disable people the self confidence to overcome discrimination. Advertisements also play on public ignorance by suggesting that disable people have something wrong with them, maintaining the social barriers between the two groups. (10)

Even charities which deal with specific types of impairment such as Mencap, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, tend to portray disability negatively in their advertising campaigns. Britain's Multiple Sclerosis Society has run advertisements depicting stark black and white images of attractive young white men and women with parts of their body - such as eyes and limbs - torn away, to symbolise impairment. The absence of colour adds to the creation of an image of suffering and adversity, and sets up a deliberate contradiction between beauty and the flawed and impaired. Voiceovers tell us how the condition can effect anyone and is associated with paralysis, blindness and impaired speech. One of the advertising campaigns even ran with the slogan "A Hope In Hell".

The constant reference to the medical model by charities who claim to represent disable people undermine the social model. Charities' advertisements often depict disable people as victims who need help - poor unfortunates who require the public's sympathy - and implicitly suggest how lucky the non-disable person is for not being in this situation. Charities perpetuate the notion of inadequacy of a disable person denying them equality and rights. Collin Barnes writes that there is a great deal of misinformation perpetuated by charities acting for disable people, and that none of these charities are controlled or run by disable people themselves. (11)

SHIFTING PRIORITIES
During the late 1990s the focus amongst disable people largely shifted from challenging media representations of disability, to one of civil rights for disable people. Perhaps it was that work carried out within the disability field empowered disable people to become more vocal and visible in demanding equality. Many people, no longer ashamed of their disabilities, sought to challenge the culture of denial which placed the disable in the position of being seen but never heard. Journalists began to write of the upsurge of political activity among disable people as 'the last civil rights battle'. No longer content to be treated as unequal citizens, many disable people sought to challenge the values, beliefs and assumptions of British society in order to gain a better deal. Anne Pointon, in her 1999 study of the images of disability in the civil rights campaigns, noted that the press climate was relatively sympathetic to the call for civil rights, but that this was within a context which included stories which depicted disable people as "tragic victims". She cites stories such as: "a brave young police woman crippled as she tackled a gunman is turned away from a charity event because she is in a wheelchair"; "a woman who has devoted her life to helping fellow blind people is banned from taking her guide dog to Buckingham Palace …to receive the MBE"; and "a soldier who lost his legs in the Falklands cannot get into his local cinema because …there is no lift for his wheelchair". (12)

In 1994 the thirteenth attempt was made to introduce legislation into the British parliament that gave rights to disable people. The Private Member's Bill introduced was significant because it was accompanied by a much more mature anti-discrimination movement called Rights Now, an umbrella organisation representing 84 pressure groups. Rights Now was well organised, adopting the colour blue for unity and yellow for freedom. Disable people involved made clear that they were no longer ashamed at how they looked or how they sounded - some who were wheelchair bound were even prepared to crawl up the stairs to the house's of parliament due to a lack of wheel chair access. Eminent British scientist Steven Hawkins argued that if similar discrimination still existed for black people or women, there would be a public outcry. There was great expectation for the Private Member's Bill, which had cross-party support. But in March 1994 the Bill was emasculated at its second reading by Nicolas Scott, then Minister of the Disabled, with 80 amendments. (Even his daughter, Victoria, challenged Scott's opposition to the Bill - from the headquarters of Rights Now). The political row unintentionally gave voice to a disability movement which until this point had been marginal. Anne Pointon argues that this point marked a shift in the way in which disable people were perceived: the earlier model of passivity and pity was no longer relevant.(13)

Even though an Act was eventually passed that prevents discrimination on the grounds of disability, and that disable people experienced a degree of empowerment, I would argue that prejudice is still widespread throughout British society. As someone who has very little eye sight, I am an eye condition first, before I am a person. I think, feel and experience life like everyone else, yet my experience does not have equal validity in the eyes of the media. Although there are television programmes which provide a service for disable people there is, however, still no realistic portrayal of disable people in British television soap operas or current affairs programmes (as is now common in the case of women and ethnic minorities). And even less so if you have both a disability and belong to an ethnic minority. Although anti-discrimination legislation is welcome, and the principle of equality has been conceded, we are still depicted as victims - brave and plucky, but victims never the less.

In our so-called meritocratic society, disable people are presented with platitudes, but underlying them is the unstated notion that disability implies disfunctionality. Ultimately, therefore, we are not seen as productive members of society. We have to be better than and more exceptional than others, just to be considered equal. This does very little for those who do not have the means to be better or exceptional, or for those who have fallen for the lie that they are not 'normal'. I began by suggesting that the media reflects society's norms, values and beliefs. These need to be radically challenged, not through any mass campaign, but by individuals facing adversity head on - let the personal become the political. It is important not to buy into the media's perceptions of who it thinks we are. To demand a cultural shift, as well as adherence to current anti-discrimination legislation, it is essential for us to empower ourselves. But, from my point of view, perhaps more important is simply the right to be ordinary.

REFERENCE'S

(1) "Disabling Imagery and the Media: An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations" by Colin Barnes, 1992. Here I borrow directly from a comment by David Hevey (25 March 1992) as quoted in Barnes' work: "The history of the portrayal of disabled people is a history of oppressive and negative representation. This has meant that disabled people have been presented as socially flawed able bodied people not as disabled people with their own identity."

(2) I use the word 'disable', rather than the more common usage 'disabled', because 'disable' characterises a physical condition, whereas 'disabled' creates a value judgement laden with stereotypes and negative associations.

(3) to (5) "Exploring the Divide: Illness and Disability" edited by Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer, 1996. Chapter 6, 'Disability, Identity and Difference' by Tom Shakespeare, pages 95 to 97.

(6) to (11) "Disabling Imagery and the Media: An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations" by Colin Barnes. Part two, 'Commonly Recurring Stereotypes', pages 15 to 22.

(12) to (13) "Social Policy, the Media and Misrepresentation", edited by Bob Franklin, 1999. Chapter 14, 'Out of the Closet: New Images of Disability in the Civil Rights Campaign' by Anne Pointon, pages 226 to 230.