In 2022, a television series titled “This is Going to Hurt” captured the public’s attention (Kay, Whishaw, Austin, & Mod, 2022). Based on the book by former doctor Adam Kay, the show quickly gained popularity for its comedic yet authentic portrayal of an obstetrician�gynecologist’s daily life.

Like millions of other avid viewers, I was immediately drawn to the series, fascinated by the intricacies and challenges of the medical profession.

However, one scene from the show lingered in my mind for days. It depicted a trainer instructing doctors on using more appropriate vocabulary in their work environments. For instance, doctors were advised to refer to pregnant women as ‘clients’ rather than ‘patients’, as the latter term can sound paternalistic and demeaning, while ‘client’ is more neutral (Kay, 2018). Similarly, termslike ‘disabled’ were suggested to be replaced with ‘differently abled’ to mitigate the negative connotations associated with ‘DIS’ in ‘disability’. Despite these recommendations, the doctors in the show appeared indifferent to the suggested vocabulary changes, arguing that there were more pressing concerns to address than such minor wording adjustments (Kay, Whishaw, Austin, & Mod, 2022).

The debate resurfaced in my mind immediately upon encountering a quote by Robert M. Hensel, the Guinness World Records holder for wheelchair wheeling, who stated, “I choose not to place ‘DIS’ in my ability”.

His statement echoed the sentiment depicted in the television clip. Hensel expressed dissatisfaction with being labeled as someone with a ‘disability’. Curious about his perspective, I sought to understand the root of his negative feelings towards the term ‘disability’ and what he meant by rejecting the prefix ‘DIS’ before ‘Ability’. 

Analyzing the word ‘disability’, I discovered that it is a classic English structure consisting of the preexisting word ‘ability’ and the prefix ‘dis’. This structure is common in many English words like ‘dissatisfy’, ‘disappear’, or ‘disappointment’, where the prefix ‘dis’ implies negation or absence.

The prefix ‘dis’ inherently carries a negative connotation, indicating the opposite or a lack of something. When added to a word, it alters its meaning to signify the absence or negation of the original concept. For example, ‘dissatisfy’ means ‘not satisfied’ and ‘disappear’ means ‘not appearing’.

Similarly, by prefixing 'dis' to 'ability', which denotes possessing a certain skill, the resulting word ‘disability’ signifies the absence or lack of that skill.

A notable aspect of this word-building process is that the newly formed words rely on the foundation of preexisting words. For example, for the term ‘dissatisfied’ to exist, the word ‘satisfied’ must be known. Similarly, to understand ‘disappear’, one must grasp the meaning of ‘appear’. Words like 'dissatisfied' or 'disappear' cannot stand alone; they require their root words. Consequently, they don’t represent independent concepts but rather extensions of existing ones.

Reflecting on the term 'disability', when people use ‘disabled’ to describe certain groups, they aren’t introducing a new concept. Instead, they’re extending the concept of 'ability'. This word fits into a narrative centered on ‘ability’ or the ‘abled’, oversimplifying a community of people as a mere contrast to the 'abled'. It fails to acknowledge the complexity and uniqueness of individual situations.

By labelling individuals as ‘disabled’ or possessing a ‘disability’, the term subtly segregates them from the ‘abled’ or the broader public represented by the ‘abled’. Similarly, by identifying as ‘disabled’, individuals automatically separate themselves from the standard of ‘abled’ or normalcy. They begin to perceive themselves as lacking certain abilities or unable to meet the standard of normality.

However, as Robert M. Hensel expressed in his quote, “I choose not to put ‘DIS’ in my ability,” everyone possesses abilities, regardless of their appearance or circumstances.

A person with two legs has the ability to walk, while someone who uses a wheelchair has the ability to manoeuvre it skillfully. Thus, what defines being ‘abled’? What abilities classify a person as ‘abled’ while others are labeled ‘disabled’? What determines ‘normalcy’ versus‘disability’?

Upon examining the concept of ‘ability’ and ‘disability’, it becomes apparent that these terms are inherently social constructs.

As the renowned YouTuber Jessica Kellgren-Fozard once questioned, “If I’m forever living in a room by myself, would I still consider myself as having disabilities?” (Kellgren-Fozard, 2022). Similarly, if an individual had always lived independently or within a community of similar individuals, they may never perceive themselves as ‘disabled’.

Just as the term ‘disability’ relies on the concept of ‘ability’ to exist, individuals rely on societal labels to classify them as ‘disabled’. Rather than being an inherent biological fact, the label of ‘disability’ is merely a social construct imposed on individuals by society, based on a common standard of the ‘abled’.

The crucial question to consider is what defines the standard of being ‘abled’, and ultimately, does it hold any validity?

The answer is that there should be no fixed standard of ‘abled’. Each individual has a subjective perception of what constitutes being 'abled'. Individuals should have the autonomy to determine their own abilities rather than being rigidly categorized as 'disabled' by external standards.

For example, emotional regulation and physical mobility are both considered abilities. However, do we label someone who struggles to manage their anger as ‘disabled’? Similarly, if one person can run exceptionally fast while others cannot, does that mean they are all ‘disabled’ in comparison? Can we truly claim that some individuals are more ‘disabled’ than others? When examining the specific categorizations of disabilities, we observe that the standard of disability becomes a slippery slope. In essence, there is never a truly, objective standard; all the standards we use to categorize others are subjective. Through comparing ourselves to others, we begin to perceive those who are different as ‘disabled’. The underlying message in this behavior is that they are the issue, while we are not.

This self-centered attitude is not limited to the realm of the abled and disabled. Throughout history, groups with more influence often perceive themselves as normal, while labeling others as abnormal or in need of special treatment. For instance, the LGBTQ+ community is often deemed abnormal by the heterosexual community, and women are mistreated in patriarchal societies due to purported biological reasons.

The existence of minority communities in the world stems from our failure to create equal opportunities for everyone. Some group’s needs are not acknowledged or met to the same extent as others. This is the primary cause of their struggles, rather than biological factors. If we haven’t constructed ramps for people to navigate, their struggles are not due to their own shortcomings but rather the lack of accessibility. Similarly, if we haven’t provided stairs for people with two legs to walk on, they would face similar changes.All people’s needs are equal; the issue lies in whose needs are being heard. To truly combat ableism, we must ensure that everyone’s voice is heard and their needs are addressed.

References

Kay, A. (2018). This is going to hurt : secret diaries of a junior doctor. London: Picador, an 

imprint of Pan Macmillan.

Kay, A., Whishaw, B., Austin, M., & Mod, A. (2022, February 8). This Is Going to Hurt. 

Retrieved from IMDb website: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8681148/

Kellgren-Fozard, J. (2022, November 17). Ableism vs. Disablism. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from 

www.youtube.com website: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqJxfnioF3Y&ab_channel=JessicaKellgren-Fozard