We need to keep shifting perspectives

Today I want to talk about a couple of recent events from the disability community, and I wonder if you can tell the connection between the two. 

Story #1

The first story hails from Seattle. Paul (from @matthewandpaul on Instagram), is a blind man who has very limited vision, and he walked into a restaurant he had been to before with his guide dog, Mr. Maple. Mr. Maple was wearing a harness that said “Guide dog for the blind” on it. 

As soon as he walked in, a staff member from the restaurant came up to him and told him there were no pets allowed. And when Paul clarified that Mr. Maple was a service dog, the other person didn't believe him. He told Paul he didn't “look blind” and wouldn't accept Paul's (very generous) explanation that many people in the blind community still have some level of vision. 

After asking Paul if he could see any other dogs in the establishment…sigh…he then said that this wasn't his “first rodeo” and told him to leave. 

Story #2

The second story I want to talk about is the situation that has been going on in the UK for the last week or two. 

Recently, Rishi Sunak announced that his government would introduce new measures to restrict “sick note culture” and “overmedicalizing the everyday challenges and worries of life.” He believes that good work can actually improve mental and physical health. (He even made a cringy video about it.)

Rather than focus on the support systems that could be improved to help people stay healthier, he talks about how the demands on the welfare system are becoming unsustainable. He claims that the huge number of young, working age people who are making these claims and staying out of the workforce are a “huge waste of potential.” He also called welfare a “lifestyle choice.”

Now, this isn't a new story. Past governments in the UK (and elsewhere) have had a tendency to put benefits and welfare services in the crosshairs. If you convince enough people that these systems are being taken advantage of by people who are lazy or don't need them, then they won't mind if you make it harder to access them. Even if it hurts the people who actually need them.

The thread that ties it all together

So, have you figured out how these stories are connected, then?

They're very different tales, but they're quite similar in their impact: they're dangerous narratives for disabled individuals — and they completely erase our voices.

In Paul's situation, the fact that the member of staff had a very clear idea in his own mind of what a blind person should look like, meant that he felt he could use his power to keep Paul out of the restaurant. 

It turns out that this member had had a recent experience where someone came in with their dog, claiming it was a service dog, and that the dog had been unruly and disruptive. (Hence the “first rodeo” comment.) But that shouldn't matter. 

Non-disabled people shouldn't let their kindness or respect towards disabled people be tainted by the people who do take advantage of the policies. If a situation like that happens, then come up with a plan to deal with the people who are clearly taking advantage (e.g. if the dog is unruly and not behaving, ask the person to leave at that point). Don't let it build assumptions in your mind.

That leads me to my second point: there is a universal truth in the world of disability that I wish everyone knew. Not everyone with the same diagnosis has the same needs. Not everyone with the same diagnosis experiences their disability in the same way. Not everyone with the same diagnosis is at the same stage of their journey. 

By going in with assumptions, or what they think they know about a disability, and using that as the parameters for acceptance or respect or service, non-disabled individuals put the weight of the experience on disabled people. We're left having to explain ourselves, or “prove” ourselves, rather than just living life like any other person. 

Multiply this assumption onto a national scale, and you get the Rishi Sunak situation. This attack on sick note culture and the state of the welfare and benefits system is really harmful to disabled people. 

Calling the current welfare and benefits system a “lifestyle choice” completely discredits the experience of thousands of disabled individuals who do need that support (even though that support is actually not enough to live on). 

Making “good work” the ultimate goal for any working-age individual does a couple of things: it can inspire shame for any disabled person that feels like they can't do “good work”, AND it turns disabled people needing support into the enemy of “hard working” non-disabled people. 

This is what the government relies on, right? They can rally the working class doing this “good work” behind putting more restrictions on the benefits system so that no one makes that “lifestyle choice.” (And people tell me language doesn't matter…)

Incorporating more restrictions, relatedly, does nothing more than make it harder for people to access the support they need. Instead, they could be focusing on — oh, I don't know — enhancing their healthcare system so that people can get the healthcare they need, when they need it? 

These stories are why we need to keep having conversations around disability. We need to keep reframing the narratives. We need to keep shifting perspectives.