Where identity as well as disability have a place!

A Fanie Dreams Perspective

Can we respect identity without losing sight of disability rights?

Our Position

Fanie Dreams believes that identity matters — but identity should not become the only lens through which disability is understood. People should have the freedom to describe themselves according to their culture, community, diagnosis, lived experience, neurological characteristics or other aspects of who they are. That choice deserves respect.

At the same time, we believe that identity, impairment, disability, functional limitations, environmental barriers and legal rights are related concepts, but they are not identical. A person's identity should never be used to determine whether their functional needs or legal rights are taken seriously.

Identity and impairment are not opposites

Recognising an impairment does not mean viewing a person negatively. A person can say: “This is part of who I am.” and at the same time: “This impairment creates functional limitations for me in certain circumstances.” There is no contradiction.

Acknowledging an impairment can simply be an honest description of a person's functioning and the barriers they may encounter. Disability is more than impairment: The Social Model of Disability has helped us understand that disability is not simply located within an individual. Disability can arise through the interaction between a person's impairment and the barriers within society. A workplace without appropriate communication access can create significant barriers. An educational environment without appropriate support can create barriers. An inaccessible public service can create barriers.

Therefore, we should ask not only: “What is the person's impairment?” but also: “What barriers are preventing this person from participating equally?” But the impairment should not disappear from the conversation.

There is also a danger in interpreting the Social Model as meaning that impairment itself is irrelevant. It is not. Understanding the impairment and its functional impact can be essential to understanding what barriers a person experiences and what support or accommodation may be appropriate.

A useful way of thinking about the process is:

The question should therefore move beyond: “What is your diagnosis?” towards: “What difficulty are you experiencing, what barrier is causing it, and what reasonable adjustment would enable you to participate effectively?”

Two people with the same impairment may need different accommodations. Two people with different impairments may need similar accommodations. Accommodation is therefore not one-size-fits-all. Identity should not become a test for belonging.

We should be equally careful of the opposite extreme. A person should not have to adopt a particular disability identity before their functional difficulties are taken seriously. Someone may not identify with a particular disability community. Someone may reject the word disabled. Someone may prefer another description. That does not make their functional limitations or accommodation needs disappear.

Legal rights should not depend on belonging to the “right” identity group. Where legislation establishes particular definitions or eligibility requirements, people should be helped to understand those requirements rather than being told that disability terminology is irrelevant.

From disagreement to dialogue

Disability discussions can become emotionally charged because they involve people's lives, identities and lived experiences. We should respect those experiences. But disagreement does not have to become conflict. Instead, we can ask:

• What barrier are we trying to remove?

• What does this person need to participate equally?

• What accommodation would be effective?

• What does the applicable law provide?

• How can we work together towards a solution?

These questions move the conversation from ideology towards solutions.

The Role of the Bridge-Builder

There is an important role for people who can bring different perspectives together. People with lived experience. Families. Employers. Educators. Health and rehabilitation professionals. Disability organisations. Government. Service providers. Researchers. Advocates.

We do not have to agree on every concept or every word before we can work together. The bridge-builder creates enough common ground for meaningful cooperation. Sometimes the most productive question is simply: “What can we do together to remove this barrier?”

Inclusion Should Be Bigger Than Any Single Concept

We should be careful not to allow any single model, terminology or identity to become so dominant that it unintentionally excludes another person's experience.

We can recognise:

·       Identity.

·       Culture.

·       Impairment.

·       Disability.

·       The Social Model.

·       Medical intervention where appropriate.

·       Universal design.

·       Reasonable accommodation.

·       Individual choice.

These concepts do not have to compete with one another.

Our Principle

The goal is not to win the argument. The goal is inclusion. Respect identity. Recognise impairment. Remove barriers. Protect rights. Enable participation. We may not always agree. But we can still work together. Because, at the end of the day,

INCLUSION IS FOR ALL

Together we are stronger.

Fanie du Toit

Adult Basic Education Practitioner (UNISA)

Fanie Dreams Movement