With mention to theories, constructs and political orientations of public assistance, critically examine the relationship between societal “problems” , societal policies and professional patterns in one country of societal policy, viz. , public assistance and disablement.
Any analysis of public assistance and disablement is a complex enterprise since it seems clear that definitions of disablement are frequently obscure, ductile and capable to a procedure of classification which has become of all time more sophisticated in recent decennaries. A normally understood and, so, contested, definition of a handicapped individual is that “he or she has a physical or mental damage which has asignificant and long-runinauspicious consequence on his or her ability to transport out normal daily activities” ( DoH, 1995, S.1 ) . This paper will reason that different definitions carry really different premises about the nature of disablement which, in bend, have generated contrasting thoughts about appropriate signifiers of societal intercession. A historical overview will be given to chart the importance of how the lingual nomenclature has become inextricably jump up with the dominant individualized, medical theoretical account of welfare service policy and proviso in this country. A societal constructionist attack will be emphasised to demo how new buildings of disablement are emerging to dispute old impressions which have historically characterised handicapped people as basically destitute, tragic and powerless persons.
Social welfare and the linguistic communication of disablement
The British public assistance province, emerging after the Second World War, constituted a new and universalistic attack to societal policy. It promised to supply security for all British citizens from the cradle to the grave with specific services to be provided for designated groups, such as kids, the aged, mentally sick and handicapped people. Observers such as Hughes ( 1998 ) and Oliver and Barnes ( 1998 ) note that the new public assistance policies represented acknowledgment of province duty for taking attention of those whom, for assorted grounds, were unable to be economically active in society. Many authors have pointed out that the ways in which disablement has been defined and measured have played an of import function for the nature of public assistance service proviso in this country. Hughes ( 1998 ) , for illustration, highlights the being of a myriad of definitions for disablement, proposing that the term is ever extremely contested. He notes the historical complexness of cultural representations of disablement in the UK, reasoning that dominant buildings of disablement have tended to set up ‘the disabled’ as a group of people who are comparatively powerless and aberrant from the seemingly ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ bulk. Hughes draws on the work of the sociologist, Kurtz ( 1981 ) , which presents a powerful instance for the negative effects of pigeonholing with respect to handicapped people and their impact upon the popular imaginativeness and ‘expert’ discourses.
Many dictionary definitions connote disablement as an inability, a loss or deficiency of something in the person and some emphasis disablement in footings of its treatability, or otherwise, through a medical theoretical account. Other definitions, such as those given by Driedger ( 1989 ) and Fulcher ( 1989 ) , distinguish between damage and disablement and besides concentrate upon the latter as a effect of external forces which dis-able people through institutional subjugation. It seems clear that non merely is at that place a diverse array of types of damage and categorizations of ‘handicap’ , including both physical and mental disablements, but there are besides contrasting positions of people themselves in footings of the extent to which they define themselves as ‘disabled’ ( Hughes, 1998 ; Oliver and Barnes, 1998 ) .
Oliver and Barnes ( 1998 ) point out that the linguistic communication we use is extremely influential for the significance of disablement ; for illustration, the term ‘people with disabilities’ implies that the disablement belongs to the individual, whereas the term ‘disabled people’ is more implicative of people of who are disabled by forces outside of the person, such as environmental factors. By associating ‘disability’ with ‘impairment’ the societal and environmental barriers experienced by many handicapped people are handily sidestepped. With the outgrowth of the handicapped people’s motion, Oliver and Barnes ( 1998 ) highlight the importance of the term ‘disabled’ before the word ‘people’ as declarative mood of a corporate individuality. Hughes ( 1998 ) reiterates the importance of linguistic communication and the discourse on disablement, pulling our attending to the thought that societal scientific research itself is portion of the wider societal building of disablement and, as such, must be involved in a uninterrupted procedure of reflexiveness in this country.
Different definitions of disablement, so, carry implicit in premises about the signifiers of societal intercession considered appropriate. Writers such as Hughes ( 1998 ) , Barnes ( 1998 ) and Brown and Brown ( 2003 ) have highlighted how the medical discourse came to rule ‘expert’ buildings of disablement in the 19Thursdayand 20Thursdaycenturies as portion of a wider procedure of the ‘medicalization’ of societal jobs. Oliver ( 1990 ) reminds us that the engagement of the medical field with handicapped people, through, for illustration, the diagnosing of damage and the intervention of physical and mental unwellness plays an of import and good function. However, many have questioned the ways in which medical specialty and its allied curative patterns, such as occupational therapy, physical therapy and psychological guidance, have become dominant in the building of disablement as pathology. Within the mental wellness sphere, The Mental Health Act of 1959, for illustration, described conditions such as ‘mental disorder’ and ‘subnormality’ within a model of the medical theoretical account of mental unwellness. Disability within this theoretical account is clearly situated within the individual’s head, an single pathology to be diagnosed and treated by physical or psychiatric medical specialty.
The public assistance state’s everyday proviso for people with mental unwellness, so, was dominated by unintegrated hospitalization and drug therapies until the mid 1970s when such a intervention model was going progressively criticised ( Sedgewick, 1982 ) . The studyBetter Services for the Mentally Illof 1975 was seen by many as a watershed in the intervention of people with mental unwellness and ‘the disabled’ as a class of people ( Hughes, 1998 ) . Although, as Hughes ( 1998 ) suggests, psychopathology and medical specialty were reaffirmed as playing a cardinal function in the diagnosing and intervention of mental unwellness, it seems that definitions of mental unwellness were going broadened to take history of societal and psychological influences upon mental wellness. In short, there has been increasing recognition that people can endure in a broad assortment of ways and in changing grades from this ‘illness’ and for grounds which are non ever rooted in single pathology.
Oliver and Barnes ( 1998 ) present a review of policy developments in recent decennaries, foregrounding the ways in which service proviso has continually and consistently failed handicapped people. They suggest that The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970, heralded at the clip as a new mechanism for service rationalization, really constituted merely an extension of the needs-based public assistance proviso of the National Assistance Act of 1948. Oliver and Barnes ( 1998 ) suggest that because services listed in the Act were to be provided at local authorities’ discretion, many of them did non happen in pattern. They go on to indicate out that despite the displacement towards community-based public assistance proviso, the world for handicapped people was that they were still being denied existent pick, chiefly because of fiscal restraints, between independent life and residential attention. Oliver and Barnes conclude that “despite the rhetoric of integrating, community attention and rights which emerged in the 1980s, neither the Education Act 1981 nor the Disabled Persons Act 1986 significantly improved the quality of public assistance services available to disenable people” ( 1998, p.40 ) .
Observers record the altering ideological and political scene, at the terminal of the 1980s, off from the primacy of professional definitions of demand and encouragement of dependence on the province in the public assistance sphere as a whole ( Jordan, 2000 ; Powell and Hewitt, 2002 ) . They note the atomization of the station war consensus over the public assistance province and increasing concerns about the costs of a province public assistance system which, for many, served merely to socialize people into dependence. The National Health and Community Care Act of 1990 and the commissariats for community attention implemented after 1993 heralded a much-supported displacement from institutional attention to care in the community. Cardinal to this new statute law was the proviso of services under a new managerial ethos supplemented by a market scheme. The purpose was to promote the private and voluntary sectors to move as suppliers of services with the statutory governments re-designated as enablers and buyers of services instead than as exclusive suppliers. Through this new scheme, the authorities were trusting that the thorny jobs of professional laterality and the civilization of dependence would be addressed, every bit good as concerns about the escalating costs of public assistance ( Powell and Hewitt, 2002 ; Oliver, 2003 ) .
With peculiar mention to disablement, Oliver ( 2003 ) is peculiarly scathing of the new community attention scheme and records the go oning laterality of professionals in footings of service bringing as reported by handicapped people themselves. He suggests that the new ‘care management’ ethos of the 1990s represented qualitatively small alteration in footings of the balance of power between professional and service user. New statute law had failed in its original purpose to put handicapped people at the Centre of public assistance reforms in that, although users did now hold entree to, and engagement in, their attention plans they “had no greater rights to service and still no entree to lawfully enforceable grudge procedures” ( Oliver, 2003, p.315 ) .
The new Labour authorities in 1997 were committed to further reform of the public assistance province within the overarching rules of societal rights, duties and citizenship. As authors such as Pierson and Castles ( 2000 ) and Lewis and Surender ( 2004 ) have observed, New Labour’s belief in equality of chance as distinguishable from equality of result marked a move off from the traditional Labour equalitarian ethos, but was however underpinned by a continued concern for societal justness. Prime Minister Tony Blair stated his belief that “social justness must be founded on the equal worth of each person, whatever their background, capableness, credo or race” ( 1998, p.3 ) . Oliver ( 2003 ) high spots two of the chief mechanisms designed to better chances for handicapped people, in peculiar, viz. , the publicity of independency, notably through the Direct Payments Act of 1996 and undertakings aimed at assisting handicapped people to return to work. Oliver ( 2003 ) , nevertheless, records that by the twelvemonth 2001, less than 5000 handicapped people were profiting from the direct payments statute law and unemployment rates among handicapped people remain intolerably high.
New buildings of disablement
It seems, so, that at the bend of the millenary, although perceptual experiences of damage and disablement have moved on and there is increased acknowledgment that disablement is in many ways socially constructed, handicapped people remain capable to want and disadvantage ( Hughes, 1998 ; Oliver, 2003 ) . Peoples antecedently regarded as ‘idiots’ , ‘mongols’ , ‘mentally subnormal’ , ‘mentally handicapped’ or ‘retarded’ became progressively viewed as holding ‘special needs’ or ‘learning difficulties’ in societal policy and within the professional sphere. The term ‘learning difficulties’ arose from a new position that ‘subnormal’ people could be educated and that their troubles could be identified and consequently measured across a spectrum from mild to severe. Critics have suggested that this building of disablement was designed to suit with bing service proviso and administration instead than to run into demands as experienced by handicapped people themselves ( Hales, 1996 ; Brown and Brown, 2003 ) .
The ‘special needs’ anteroom were acute to de-stigmatise those people historically labelled as ‘retarded’ or ‘subnormal’ . There continues to be lively argument, particularly within the educational sphere, about whether services should concentrate upon integrating of kids into mainstream instruction or whether children’s demands are best served through specializer, separate proviso. It is noteworthy that appraisal of ‘special needs’ has remained, for the most portion, within the medical, psychological and educational professional spheres. Hughes ( 1998 ) draws our attending to the unstable nature of the linguistic communication sing disablement, the ways in which emergent ‘expert’ discourses come to have the ‘problem’ and how, later, these apprehensions come to be institutionalised. Given the destiny of old buildings, as Hughes ( 1998 ) suggests, we can merely theorize upon the length of clip the term ‘people with larning difficulties’ will retain its currency. Brown and Brown ( 2003 ) repeat this position, reasoning that the term ‘disability’ itself is going progressively irrelevant, non least because in the actual sense of the word as ‘a deficiency of ability to make certain things’ about all of us have trouble with specific life undertakings. It may be more accurate to propose that we all have different sets of abilities and ways of making things.
Whilst services for handicapped people have varied throughout history, Brown and Brown ( 2003 ) observe that about all have included impressions of attention and protection. As mentioned earlier, the modernist medical theoretical account of disablement has accentuated this through its building of disablement in footings of single pathology and its focal point upon the damage instead than the individual. The thought of handicapped people as tragic persons in demand of aid, intervention, protection and even welfare proviso, nevertheless, it is argued, runs counter to the impression of citizenship. Ignatieff ( 1989 ) , for illustration, is cited as proposing that “the pattern of citizenship is about guaranting everyone the entitlements necessary to the exercising of their autonomy. As a political inquiry, public assistance is about rights, non caring” ( Oliver and Barnes, 1998, p.49 ) . Therefore, a policy discourse which dictates that handicapped kids have ‘special educational needs’ , that the Numberss of unemployed handicapped people continue to lift and which allows increasing Numberss of handicapped people to populate in poorness is basically exclusionary ( Oliver and Barnes, 1998 ) .
The subject of exclusion has been explored from a sociological position, notably the construct of ‘normalisation’ which is peculiarly influential in the field of disablement. Many theoreticians and policymakers have championed the standardization rule which basically begins with a culturally legitimated position of ‘normal’ life conditions, including behavior, visual aspect and experience, for the mean citizen. Those people deemed as pervert from these ‘normal’ conditions, for illustration people seen as holding larning troubles, are therefore constructed as in demand of aid and support to suit in with the predominating cultural norms ( Oliver and Barnes, 1998 ) . However, this position, in common with other functionalist attacks, as Oliver and Barnes argue, tends merely to reproduce “discriminatory norms and values by neglecting to turn to the cultural and economic forces which precipitate them” ( 1998, p.52 ) . In this analysis, the alone features and societal part of those who do non look to conform to predominating cultural stereotypes are efficaciously undermined and devalued. The function of practicians of standardization, those who play a cardinal function in service creative activity and bringing, is therefore ensured. In short, both policymakers and practicians can go on to endeavor to ‘enhance’ the lives of handicapped people without holding to turn to wider, more profoundly entrenched, issues of disenabling environments and society.
The societal constructionist position of disablement is an alternate attack which suggests, for illustration, that the ‘normalisation’ thesis simply legitimates the state’s power over the lives of its citizens through its control over entree to the state-sponsored public assistance system and the distribution of its services. Observers, such as Oliver ( 2003 ) and Lewis and Surender ( 2004 ) , have suggested that the retreat from state-sponsored welfarism and re-emphasis on single duty and citizenship in recent old ages are closely connected to turning frights, from all places on the political spectrum, about the escalating costs of what many see as an ever-expanding and progressively stiff needs-based province public assistance system. Alongside these political considerations and within the current societal and cultural clime, it seems that new buildings of disablement have begun to emerge, chiefly as the consequence of the new societal theoretical account of disablement and the activist disablement motion. As Hughes ( 1998 ) notes, “disabled militants have waged what may be termed ‘language battles’ , ‘rights campaigns’ and ‘identity wars’ against the frequently conniving spouses of the mass media, charities, medical specialty, jurisprudence and the province in the subjugation of handicapped people” ( p.77 ) .
The position of disablement as a signifier of societal subjugation contrasts aggressively with the medicalized and individualized theoretical account which constructs able-bodiedness as ‘health’ and disablement as ‘individual pathology’ . The former position logically leads to societal policies which recognise handicapped people as both single subsisters and thecollective‘victim’ of a prejudiced and prejudiced society. Structural intercessions, such as alterations to the physical environment, the redistribution of resources, the relief of poorness and enforceable equal rights policies, are seen as instrumental in the relief of subjugation ( Hales, 1996 ; Hughes, 1998 ; Oliver, 2003 ) . Oliver ( 2003 ) stresses the ways in which institutional favoritism is embedded in public assistance service proviso. For illustration, he notes broad fluctuations in the ways in which local governments, charities and other involved bureaus have implemented legislative and consultative codifications which, he suggests, has led to the proviso of inappropriate, intrusive and segregative services. Barnes ( 1998 ) observes that the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, implemented in 1996, marked an of import measure frontward. Oliver ( 2003 ) is nevertheless scathing of the Act, reasoning that despite its subsequent alterations by the new Labour authorities, retains an individualistic, instead than societal, theoretical account of disablement. Furthermore, the Act outlaws discrimination merely selectively and is hard to implement ( Oliver, 2003 ) .
It would look that handicapped people themselves are aligned, in rule, with the Labour government’s dogmas of continuing civil rights, equality of chance and citizenship. However, as Jordan ( 2000 ) points out, many handicapped militants, from their ain lived experiences, have highlighted the spread between baronial Third Way impressions of partnership and authorization and the worlds of being a service user. Lister ( 1999 ) has argued that there has been a pronounced reluctance on the portion of Labour curates to include service-users and carers in the policymaking procedure. Furthermore, the government’s preoccupation with restricting public outgo and bettering economic public presentation combined with instead narrow and stiff constructs of work and independency has tended to run counter to the perceptual experiences of handicapped people themselves about facets of life most of import to them ( Jordan, 2000 ) .
Jordan advocates corporate action by service users which he suggests encouragements morale and Fosters “mutuality, solidarity and self-help” ( 2000, p.123 ) . Other political militant groups, such as the women’s motion or the sapphic and cheery motion, have had well-documented success in awareness-raising for their causes. Oliver and Barnes ( 1998 ) distinguish between these groups and those buttonholing for the involvements of handicapped people. They suggest that whilst some groups are united by a individual feature, such as gender or gender, “disabled people are united merely by their exclusion from mainstream society because of sensed impairments” ( Oliver and Barnes, 1998, p.73 ) . It is besides, of class, of import to retrieve that disadvantage for many handicapped people can be compounded by the added effects of gender and gender favoritism.
Jordan ( 2000 ) champions the paces towards liberty and existent freedom of pick being made by handicapped service users. Writing from a societal work position, he suggests that practicians, despite a historical reluctance to make so, should prosecute with, take part in and organize links with groups of handicapped militants. Jordan ( 2000 ) argues that the constitution of such on the job partnerships could play a important function in transforming handicapped people from objects of societal policy into topics who are able to hold their demands understood and met. Oliver ( 2003 ) , nevertheless, along with other authors such as Barnes ( 1997 ) , presents a profound challenge to the really thought that ‘need’ should keep centre-stage in finding public assistance policy and proviso. He remarks that justly, handicapped people themselves are demanding new statute law to criminalize favoritism on the evidences of disablement. Whilst Oliver ( 2003 ) acknowledges that “the foremost probationary stairss to implementing a rights-based attack to the public assistance province have been taken” ( p.73 ) , he argues that the sorts of demands being made by handicapped people are still far from being met.
Brown and Brown ( 2003 ) follow a more optimistic stance than Oliver ( 2003 ) , noticing upon our enhanced apprehension of the experiences of handicapped people, mostly as a effect of the human rights and self-advocacy motions. They suggest that the rights of handicapped people are actively being addressed and prejudiced patterns within physical, societal and educational environments are going better recognised in legislative dictats and processs.
It seems, so, that disablement itself is a really slippy term capable of being defined in a myriad of ways which, in bend, will deeply impact public assistance policies and services. Historically dominant impressions of needs-based proviso and the power of professional and institutional buildings of disablement are now being challenged by handicapped people themselves, as evidenced by many authors, notably Hughes ( 1998 ) , Barnes ( 1998 ) and Oliver ( 2003 ) . There are ongoing quandary and arguments centred upon a figure of thorny issues, many of which are relevant to all countries of societal public assistance. These issues include the tenseness between the government’s concerns about public disbursement and its committedness to civil rights to an independent life for all citizens, the weighting of professional opinions along with those of handicapped people themselves and the accomplishment of true engagement and partnership between the suppliers, and receivers of services. Oliver and Barnes summarise the undertaking in front therefore “we all need a universe where damage is valued and celebrated and all crippling barriers are eradicated. Such a universe would be inclusionary for all” ( 1998, p.102 ) . They suggest that everyone in society must be involved, particularly those who develop and implement societal policy, in assisting to do this a world.
Barnes, M ( 1997 )Care, Communities and Citizens,Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow
Barnes, M ( 1998 ) ‘Whose Needs, Whose Resources? Accessing Social Care’ , in Langan, M ( Ed )Social welfare: Needs, Rights and Risks,Routledge, London
Brown, I, Brown, R ( 2003 )Quality of Life and Disability,Jessica Kingsley, London
DoH ( Department of Health )Disability Discrimination Act 1995, HMSO
Dreidger, D ( 1989 )The Last Civil Rights Movement,Hurst, London
Fulcher, G ( 1989 )Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Education, Policy and Disability,Falmer, Lewes
Nathan hales, G ( Ed ) ( 1996 )Beyond Disability: Towards an Enabling Society,Sage, London
Hughes, G ( 1998 ) ‘A Suitable Case for Treatment? Constructions of Disability’ , in Saraga, E ( Ed )Incarnating the Social: Constructions of Difference,Routledge, London
Jordan, B ( 2000 )Social Work and the Third Way: Tough Love as Social Policy,Sage, London
Lewis, J, Surender, R ( 2004 )Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way?Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lister, R ( 1999 ) ‘First Stairss to a Fairer Society’ , Guardian Society, 9ThursdayJune, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk accessed 09/01/06
Oliver, M ( 1990 )The Politics of Disability,MacMillan, London
Oliver, M ( 2003 ) ‘Disabled People’ , in Alcock, P, Erskine, A, May, MThe Student’s Companion to Social Policy,Blackwell, Oxford
Oliver, M, Barnes, C ( 1998 )Disabled Peoples and Social Policy,Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, Harlow
Pierson, C, Castles, F.G ( 2000 )The Welfare State Reader,Polity Press, Cambridge
Powell, M, Hewitt, M ( 2002 )Welfare State and Welfare Change,Open University Press, Buckingham
Sedgewick, P ( 1982 )Psychopolitics,Pluto, London
Entire words: 3746