Disability & Society

ISSN: 0968-7599 (Print) 1360-0508 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Activism and the academy: losing the ideological

and material battles

Michael Oliver

To cite this article: Michael Oliver (2019) Activism and the academy: losing the ideological and
material battles, Disability & Society, 34:7-8, 1028-1033, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2019.1612637

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1612637

Published online: 07 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1399

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20
DISABILITY & SOCIETY
2019, VOL. 34, NOS. 7–8, 1028–1033
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1612637

CURRENT ISSUE

Activism and the academy: losing the ideological and

material battles
Michael Oliver

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this article written in the summer of 2018 Professor Received 31 July 2018
Michael Oliver sought to convey a sense of urgency about Accepted 31 August 2018
the need to reinvigorate the relationship between disability,
KEYWORDS
the academy and activism. In his usual clear unswerving
Disability; activism; politics;
style that is both liberating and enabling in its directness pride; social model;
he calls upon all engaged with the journal to remember managerialism; ideol-
that the foundations of disability studies emerged out of ogy; change
democratic organisations of disabled people and must
remain committed to placing the experiences of disabled
people at the centre of academic and activist enterprise.
He places emphasis on the original purpose of the journal
to build on the social model of disability in order to pro-
duce real social change expressing frustration about what
he saw as an increasing ineffectualness within the aca-
demic community to confront what is really happening to
disabled people. He is forthright when describing his hope
that disability activists and academics will strengthen the
future of disabled people, and the future of disability stud-
ies too, by working ever more closely together.

Introduction
In this unashamedly UK-based polemical piece I want to argue that never
before have disabled people in the United Kingdom needed strong and
committed disability studies than now and unfortunately it has failed to
deliver. In making this argument I will divide our history into two distinct
phases; the first between the 1970s and 1997, which was characterized by
‘disability politics, activism and pride’; and the second between 1997 and the
present day, which I characterize as ‘disability corporatism, managerialism
and special pleading’. I will end by looking at the future; a section I will call
phase 3. This framework pays homage to the late Vic Finkelstein and the
framework he used in his ground-breaking Attitudes and Disabled People
(Finkelstein 1980).
#
Professor Michael Oliver wrote this piece for the Special Issue in the summer of 2018. It is published post-
humously with the permission of his wife, Joy Oliver
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1029

Phase 1: disability activism, politics and pride

Disability studies as we know it today in Britain began in the 1970s when
the newly established Open University produced a course suitable for both
undergraduates and professionals alike. While not the prime mover, the dis-
abled activist Vic Finkelstein was a member of the course team that pro-
duced the course and went on to play a leading role in two subsequent
remakes. I was appointed to teach the course from the beginning and went
on to join the course team for the subsequent remakes. When the University
of Kent introduced a postgraduate course along similar lines, I became the
first course director.
Both Vic and I were committed to placing the experiences of disabled
people in the centre of these courses in three ways: by including as much
material written by disabled people as possible; by getting disabled people
to teach on the courses; and by actively seeking to recruit disabled students.
When Colin Barnes introduced disability studies at the University of Leeds,
UK in 1992, he took this to a new level – establishing a centre of excellence,
recruiting students internationally and setting up the first-ever archive of dis-
abled peoples’ writings and the world’s first independent publisher devoted
exclusively to disability issues.
These developments were the foundations of disability studies in the
period of disability politics, activism and pride. But for disability studies to
flourish it needed more than just teaching. Disability research at this time
was largely undertaken by medical and other established researchers, and
disabled people were largely excluded from the research process, which was
justified on the grounds of the need for objectivity and adherence to the sci-
entific method.
However, disabled people were coming out of the shadows and in 1987 a
meeting was held between disabled people and researchers in London to
discuss the growing discontent amongst disabled people about being
excluded from research about us and disillusion amongst some researchers
that much of their work was irrelevant to the daily struggles of dis-
abled people.
This meeting led to Len Barton and myself obtaining a grant from the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation to run a series of seminars putting disabled
people and disability researchers together to explore areas of mutual benefit,
culminating in a major conference in 1992 and the publication of the first
ever special issue of Disability & Society, ‘Researching Disability’ (vol. 7, no. 2).
While it would be wrong to claim that there was universal agreement on the
way forward, the importance of placing disabled people in the centre of the
research enterprise was accepted by all.
The final part of developing a successful and relevant disability studies
was to have an academic journal capable of taking the project forward. Len
1030 M. OLIVER

Barton found a publisher willing to take a chance on something new and

innovative because, while we wanted a publication that was academically
rigorous, we wanted to make it accessible to disabled people both as writers
and readers, and at its heart we wanted it to be committed to building on
the social model of disability and producing social change. Accordingly, a
wide variety of editors were appointed across the spectrum from academics
to disabled activists and others. Rigorous and confidential review procedures
were also put in place.
Throughout the period under consideration there was constant interflow of
ideas and actions between academics and activists. Activists often came to
conferences and seminars and entertained in the evenings, and academics
spent time in organizations of disabled people and on demonstrations. Of
course, some people were both academics and activists. All of this meant that
the period from the 1970s to 1997 saw great improvements in the lives of dis-
abled people through changes in the law, increases in the number of benefits
available and the promotion of independent living, and improvements to the
built environment and transport systems became more inclusive.
All of this occurred against a backdrop of successive Conservative govern-
ments committed to rolling back the state. In Phase 1, disabled activists in
alliance with a committed disability studies won both the material and ideo-
logical battles. Disabled peoples’ lives were improved significantly and dis-
ability pride meant that disabled people were able to throw off the shackles
of personal tragedy theory and reject identities based on charity and victim-
hood. But everything changed from 1997 onwards.

Phase 2: disability managerialism, corporation and special pleading

New Labour came to power in 1997 with the intention to manage capitalism
better than the three previous governments had, rather than reform or even
transform it which had been the historic mission of previous Labour govern-
ments. It came in on a tide of hope and optimism that things could only get
better. Many disabled peoples’ hopes were raised with the establishment of
the Disability Rights Commission and the publication of the Prime Minister’s
Support Unit report (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit 2005), which adopted a
social model definition of disability and promised new policies to support
independent living.
Promises were cheap, but the size of the welfare bill was not and disabil-
ity benefits became a prime target if the government was to manage the
economy better. Conflict over their plans ensued and the Direct Action
Network paid Downing Street a visit and threw red paint, symbolizing the
blood of disabled people, all over the entrance gates. This symbolic act sig-
nalled the end of Phase 1 and attracted media attention from all over the
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1031

world. New Labour began to realize that if they wanted to reduce the size of
the welfare bill, they had to do it in different ways. They realized that they
needed to win the ideological battle over the size of the welfare budget
before attacking its material base.
They embarked on this project by raising issues around fraud and
scrounging in the benefits system, the bureaucratic nature of the health ser-
vice and the dependency-creating nature of state welfare generally. All of
these were legitimate concerns, of course, but they were used to enable the
ongoing developments in privatization and the contract culture and to allow
the private sector to expand while shrinking the public sector, particularly in
health and social care. In other words, they set about changing the ideo-
logical climate to enable an ongoing attack on public expenditure in general,
and the welfare state in particular.
A central plank of this was the notion ‘from welfare into work’ and so
they introduced new employment-oriented policies whilst still tightening
access to social security benefits. While, as far as disabled people were con-
cerned, the new policies acknowledged the existence of many barriers into
the employment market and work, they still relied on medically informed
views of incapacity and impairment and thus targeted their assistance pro-
grammes at disabled individuals. These individually orientated policies had
all been tried and failed before, and they turned out the same, making little
dent in the numbers of disabled people unemployed.
The global recession, precipitated by greedy bankers and financiers, only
made matters worse when it hit in 2007. New austerity policies were ushered
in and when a new Coalition Government was elected in 2010, these policies
were pursued much more rigorously. This impacted on disabled people, with
reductions in benefits and the shrinking of social care, and protests became
much more muted and reliant on special pleading trying to defend what still
existed. Privatization and the contract culture benefitted the big disability
charities more than the organizations of disabled people who often found
themselves short of funds and forced to close. The key distinction in Phase 1
between organizations ‘of’ and ‘for’ was disappearing as the charities rein-
vented themselves, often as user-led organizations.
These reinvented organizations were not going to speak out against a gov-
ernment that was funding them. Protest was further muted as the Disability
Rights Commission was merged into the Equalities and Human Rights
Commission and disability issues virtually disappeared. This also laid the ground
work for the Equalities Act (2010) which replaced the Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA) (1995). Effectively many of the legal obligations of the DDA were
replaced by guidance only, making the legal framework permissive rather than
regulative. By 2010, disability corporatism had replaced disability politics.
By this time, disability studies had established a strong academic base in
the United Kingdom and could have mounted a rigorous defence of disabled
1032 M. OLIVER

peoples’ living standards and a public expose of what was happening, but
this never occurred. Instead, the radical theoretical basis grounded in
Marxism was eroded and all but disappeared. In its place came a ragbag of
perspectives including postmodernism, poststructuralism and critical realism,
and more recently ableism and crip theory. Academics also failed to confront
all of the misleading propaganda the government was putting out about
what was really happening to disabled people as a result of their cuts.
Some academics suggested that in many instances professional care was
better than independent living and that the big charities were misunder-
stood and could now be trusted to look after the interests of disabled peo-
ple. There were numerous attacks on the social model of disability which
had been the beating heart of the relationship between disability activists
and academics in Phase 1. Unfortunately, by this time the disabled peoples’
movement had been decimated and, with a few significant exceptions, pro-
test against what was happening was much more muted.
Old ideologies reasserted themselves and personal tragedy theory was the
only defence that disabled people had. Disability pride virtually disappeared
except in the hearts and minds of a few ageing activists. All of this meant that
the disability charities were now back in control of disability agendas and they
could now resume their historic mission, which was to look after tragic victims.
In fact they continued to do what they had always done historically, sucked up
to the government and failed to meet the needs of disabled people.
Throughout all of this, this journal remained committed to the values and
practices established by the original executive editorial board and expanded
the numbers of articles published and built an effective electronic platform.
However, the proportion of articles that might be relevant to disability activists
and other disabled people has declined considerably. In reality, however, the
journal can only publish articles that are submitted and not those they would
like to be submitted, and the set of conditions existing in Phase 2 is very differ-
ent from those in Phase 1, as I hope I have made clear in this article.

Phase 3: facing the future

Vic Finkelstein thought that the coming of Phase 3 would herald a new
dawn in the relationship between disabled people and the rest of society.
Even though there are some grounds for optimism that the austerity
approach might be coming to an end and that voters will not support it any
longer, ideological and material attacks still continue. Cuts to benefits and
services continue to work their way through to the welfare system and the
ideological battleground has now shifted.
Government propaganda now suggests that the problems stem from divi-
sions between the old and young and between those who work and those
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1033

who do not, when, of course, the real divisions in society are between the rich
and poor and between the top and bottom ends of the workforce. All govern-
ments in Phase 2 have failed to address these fundamental divisions and divert
attention from this by blaming the poor and those who do not work.
I do not want to abandon Vic’s optimism entirely and I would point out
to activists and academics alike that, in the early 1970s, none of the things
described in Phase 1 existed and while much that was built then has been
attacked or reduced, when Phase 3 finally begins the base on which to build
is much larger than it was then.
To conclude, I know that there are committed and passionate scholars still
working in disability studies and I fully recognize that the conditions under
which they work are very different from Phase 1. I also acknowledge that disabil-
ity activism has different conditions to contend with, but the need to produce
relevant political analysis has never been greater. Finally, I fully realize that the
disabled peoples’ movement has largely been swept aside by the rampant cor-
poratism of the big charities.
On my wall at home we have a Leonard Cohen poster and at the bottom
there is the following line: ‘There is a crack in everything, that’s how the
light gets in’. Disability activists and academics need to support each other
to ensure that those cracks where the light gets in are blown wide open.
The future of disabled people depends upon it, and maybe the future of dis-
ability studies too.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Colin Barnes and Len Barton for their comments on an earlier
draft of this article.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Finkelstein, V. 1980. Attitudes and Disabled People. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. 2005. Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People.
London: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.