3.1 Who are disabled people?
Although there are the legal definitions of both the Equality Act 2010 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, discussions about this project and during the interview process have demonstrated that there is still widespread confusion and misunderstanding around who can use and may be covered by the term disabled.
Many people are unaware of the use of the word disabled as a political identity and still conceive it negatively to do with limitation. This confusion leads to underreporting and under disclosure which means many disabled leaders don’t realise their rights or reach out for support.
The confusion around who are disabled people also leads to a distinction between disability and mental health which exists in wider society and while there are distinct challenges for those with mental health impairments/conditions the distinction also makes it harder for many to understand the legal protections they have.
We don’t have a good idea of what disability is beyond a wheelchair user, in the sector we don’t connect mental health and disability.
During the interviews it became apparent that the lack of understanding of who is covered by the term disabled person – both by individuals who could identify, organisationally and in the sector – is detrimental to challenging the underrepresentation and inequality that exists. In addition, the confusion over who is covered by disability as a protected characteristic has inadvertently led to the perpetuating of hierarchies of impairment.
The uncertainty around who is covered has consequences for the disclosure of needs and the understanding of who the population of disabled leaders are. Many leaders with hidden impairments are driven to either assimilate – to the detriment to their well-being – or feel obligated to justify and explain needs to a greater degree than their visibly disabled peers. It also presents challenges for the sector around ensuring that access needs are met; it is easy to see if a wheelchair user can’t get into an event, however if the leader is in chronic pain because appropriate seating has not been provided that can often be hidden.
I have powered through inaccessibility to make it seem like there’s no problem, masking and accommodating inaccessibility to the detriment of my own well-being.
During the interview process the confusion surrounding who are disabled people led to a dominance of leaders with visible impairments and adjustments being disproportionately named. This does not help the disclosure of disability or celebration of disabled leaders in the sector, as statistics suggest that 70% of disabled people have hidden or non-visible impairments.(1) Very few of the leaders named during this research project had hidden impairments, and people’s understanding of needs was dis- proportionately weighted to physical interventions. This may be also indicative of lack of knowledge and understanding of what reasonable adjustments might be for those with hidden impairments; for example the provision of quiet rooms, microphones and seating. The fixation on disability as a visible thing can also pigeonhole visibly disabled leaders into only being asked to talk about disability.
The hierarchy of impairment
The hierarchy of impairment is a social construction which operates consciously and subconsciously to place different impairments in opposition to one another in a hierarchical structure. In simple terms, this might look like someone being judged as ‘more disabled’, or ‘not disabled enough’, when compared to others. The hierarchy of impairment has no basis in lived experience and does not reflect the day-to-day reality of any individual. However its existence is used to exclude certain groups from accessing support and can lead to internalised oppression around someone’s right to support.
The hierarchy of impairment perpetuates negative stereotypes, dependency and exclusion from support. The hierarchy of impairment also feeds into negative stereotypes that appear in ‘inspiration porn’ style communications: those which emphasise the individual overcoming adversity, rather than the structural barriers created by an ableist society.
Traditionally people with so-called ‘high status’ impairments – such as visible mobility needs, being deaf or being blind – are considered to be disabled and heavily impacted in their day-to-day lives. People with so-called ‘low status’ impairments – such as hidden disabilities, chronic pain, mental illness or neurodivergence – often have their disability status questioned or undermined.
