It's not every day Society Guardian is accused of inciting hatred against disabled people. In fact, I'm sure it's never happened before. So it was a novelty, and a bit worrying, when the accusation came, in the wake of our publication last week of Stewart Dakers' monthly Real estate column, which bore the headline: "My dislike for this woman goes beyond her disability."
Once you've read or re-read Stewart's piece, you can read the letters in response, in which the author is variously accused of hate crime, of disrespect towards disabled people, and of being nasty, offensive, and patronising. Of the five letters and emails we received, one appears to defend Stewart, noting that he "challenges us all with his candid and perceptive exposé of the reality of naked disablism".
Indeed, Stewart's piece is challenging, and uncomfortable. That's his brief. He's a volunteer youth worker of many years standing. His columns, based on his experiences on the estate where he lives and works, are essentially an exposition of the causes and consequences of poverty (material, but also emotional), told through stories often peopled with grotesque characters (amalgams of real people, conversations and situations, rather than straight reportage). They try to tell it how it is, in all its authentically dismal, raw, unspinned glory.
It's not a comfortable read: the Real estate tales (you can read more of them here) don't deal in glib certainties; their point is to try get beyond the commonplace and the cliche. The Real estate world is one where residents can be at the same time random victims of economic circumstance and familial neglect, and feckless, abusive and self-abusing idiots; where social workers and the police can be heroic and dumbly incompetent; where statutory services are critical and much needed, but also oppressive and feared.
I suppose my general point is, Real estate doesn't necessarily tell the story you want, expect, or hope to hear.
More specifically, Stewart could have written a heartwarming (but unreal) piece about how Dave and Sue got married, seamlessly brought up their kids, were in receipt of high class, sensitive and wall-to-wall support from social services, and were welcomed unquestioningly into the bosom of the community, where they lived happily ever after. Stewart could have glossed over his own doubts, motivations and preconceptions (and those of his fellow residents), as if "disablism" didn't exist, or the volunteer-service user relationship was unproblematic (see this week's letter about a mental health service user's unhappy experience of a volunteer "befriending" scheme to see what I mean). But would it be honest and authentic to do so? And what and whose purpose would that serve?
Of course, nastiness and prejudice can easily travel under the banner of honesty and authenticity - but is the article offensive? Some of the views expressed by the characters are nasty and offensive, but they are carefully contextualised, and are hardly endorsed by the article. Does the piece argue that people with a learning disability should not be allowed to fall in love, get married, have children, live independently? No. Might Stewart's epiphany be troubling, his logic baffling? Yes, possibly. As for hate crime, Wikipedia tells me this is a physical or verbal attack, threat or insult motivated by prejudice and hatred. That doesn't describe the article I'm reading.
That's my defence, my reading. The beauty of the blog is that you now tell me why I'm wrong (or right). Over to you.
