1. Critically discuss how ‘disabled’bodies are shaped and constrained by
dominant cultural representations of the ‘able body’.
Introduction
The definition of the term “disabled” varies between individuals, but there is an
overriding belief in most cultures that it is of relating to certain biological constraints
of the body. It’s found that disability is commonly defined as a “substantial limitation”
in regular, daily activities (The Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990, cited in Clarke
et al, 2008). In fact, as will be elucidated in this paper, disability is as much
concerned with disabling socio-spatial and environmental barriers as it is with a
person’s physiological or cerebral limitations, as alluded to by Hahn (1986). That is
to say, the concept of a disabled body is often shaped by society. The urban
environment, for now discounting rural, has been built up over a number of years
with, predominantly, the able-bodied in mind. The focus on ‘ableism’ (Wolbring,
2008) and neglect of the ‘disabled’ has led to environments on which the foundations
of the concept of disability lie. That is not to say that disability is a concept; it isn’t. It
must just be understood that ‘disabled’ bodies are shaped and constrained by
dominant cultural representations of the ‘able-bodied’ and it is these representations
which have built up a belief of what is or isn’t ‘disabled’.
This leads on to the subject of impairment versus disability. What counts as an
impairment can vary massively between different sociocultural situations and
settings. At its crux, though, disability is seen as a negative relationship that an
impaired person has with their socio-spatial environment; despite this, we tend to
use the terms ‘impairment’ and ‘disability’ interchangeably (Ginsburg & Rapp, 2013).
The negative interactions that impaired people have with their environments,
however, are often caused by a focus on ableism and the able-bodied. This is how
disabled bodies can be constrained by cultural representations of the able body. For
the purpose of this paper the terms ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ will be used
interchangeably unless one appears to me more situationally apt than the other.

2. Discussions
The constraints that face disabled people are plenty in number, and often come
about as a result of a focus on able-bodied culture. That is to say disability can
almost be seen as a socially constructed concept and culture, different from being
able-bodied, and one that has evolved over the years. To support this, Morris (1991)
insists that our physical restrictions and differences are entirely socially created and
dominated by our beliefs surrounding the able-body. This encourages the opinion
that the constraints facing disabled bodies occur because of able-bodied culture; a
problem that (as previously stated) we have created ourselves. As defined by the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006, cited in
Darcy & Taylor, 2009), cultural life is a vital part of any person’s citizenship.
Evidently, this also includes disabled people; they must be able to take as full a part
in cultural life as anyone who can be defined as having an able-body. The inability to
take a full part in day-to-day life, though, is what shapes and constrains disability.
Leading on from this, it is understandable that the urban environment has an
important role to play in the involvement of disabled people with their surroundings
and communities. Indeed, urban environments are often built with facilities for
impaired people in mind, but so often these urban jungles overlook disability and
impairment. There is an unconscious focus on the ‘perfect’ body, as defined by
Abbott (2010), whose sole mention of disability in his paper is how it could be fixed
and treated. This attitude, if not a dominant and obvious one, is a concern for those
with impairments and serves as an illustration of how cultural representations can
shape disability. An example taken from Clarke et al (2011) looks at two people who
have a similar disabling impairment which affects their daily lives. One may live in a
good environment with local stores and services and access to a public transport
system, whereas the other may live in a more isolated area with limited services and
no access to public transport. It is environments like this with a focus on ableism,
created with the able-bodied in mind, which shape and constrain disability.
Many places, particularly in the West, try to accommodate for people with disabilities
and impairments. Despite this, there are still numerous complaints and criticisms that
can be found relating to access for disabled people and discriminations against
them. There have been improvements over the years, undoubtedly, but this does not

3. yet mean that “the job is done” (Darcy & Taylor, 2009). People who are in
wheelchairs still find themselves challenged by flights of steps or kerbs (Manley,
1996), and the visually impaired or deaf can still have trouble reading signs or
listening to PA announcements. It is these subtle challenges which face disabled
citizens that able-bodied people overlook; urban landscapes are designed for the
able-bodied and this representation and opinion of the ‘able’ body is what shapes
disabling barriers for the impaired. Additionally, due to the commonness of able-body
in society, urban design and planning often gives a low priority to disabled people
and the older generation (Greed, 2010). It can be debated, then, that this neglect of
the impaired combined with the focus on building urban environments for the able-
bodied is what causes, shapes and constrains disability. However, the issue is not
that a person’s impairments are neglected in urban planning; it is that this negligence
of the impaired and the focus on ableism is what shapes disability.
A further problem in the shaping of disabled bodied by cultural representation of the
able, ‘normal’ body lie in the Western ideals of bodily perfection and the ‘othering’ of
disabled people as a result. According to stigma theory as explained by Taleporos
and McCabe (2002), if two people were to meet and one had a physical disability,
the other instantly becomes aware of this ‘discrediting attribute’. Instantly, negative
assumptions about the attractiveness, intelligence and other attributes are made by
one person about the other who has a disability. The disabled person is discounted
as a potential friend, lover or other, all because of the western ideals of what is a
normal and perfect body; that is, non-disabled. Our Western society highly values
health, looks and independence and disabled people are often seen as bearers of
negative traits (Barnes, 1996, cited in Green, 2003). Again, these judgements by the
able-bodied about impaired people are what shape disability. We have a certain view
on what an able-body is, so we see disabled people as different. This can lead to the
othering of disabled people, resulting in discrimination and isolation.
Society has something of a fascination with abnormality and disability, often
combining the two notions. This can be traced as far back as the middle ages as
many royals retained those of shorter stature as jesters or those who feigned idiocy
to provide entertainment (Barnes and Mercer, 2001). The same ideology applies to

4. 19th and 20th century ‘freak shows’, wherein people with physical impairments were
used as a source of amusement (Bogdan, 1996). This othering of the impaired and
view of them as abnormal is the very thing that shapes and constrains disabled
bodies. Our culture has evolved to see disabled bodies as abnormal, creating a
divide between disabled bodies and able bodies. The creation of environments for
the able-bodied, therefore, influences an ‘othering’ of people with impairments. Even
disability policy itself plays a part in shaping disability (Mabbett, 2005). By
acknowledging the need for a disability policy society has created yet another way of
‘othering’ those with impairments. These are the things which shape and constrain
disability. As a society, we have an idea of what represents the able body and any
deviation from this is classed by us as impaired or disabled. This separation in
bodies and in mind creates an unspoken definition of disability which infiltrates our
everyday lives.
A prominent way in which disabled bodies are shaped and constrained by cultural
representations of the able-bodied is through the Paralympics. Every 4 years, on a
global scale, there is a celebration of the sporting prowess of disabled athletes which
takes place alongside the Olympic Games and a selection of sports which have been
specifically designed for disabled athletes (DePauw & Gavron, 2005, cited in
Blauwet & Willick, 2012). Do the Paralympics, though, challenge the negative
stigmas associated with disabled people or is it merely a celebration of ‘disabled
heroes’? It could be argued that the Paralympics actually shape and define disability
and act more as a barrier than a gateway for acceptance.
As previously discussed, the Paralympics also contribute to the theory of ‘othering’,
whereby a clear difference is seen between the able-bodied and those with
impairments. However, the successes of Paralympic athletes are celebrated and
atheletes have even achieved a celebrity-like status in certain countries (Gold &
Gold, 2007). Again, though, we are lead back to the sensitive topic surrounding
previous centuries’ freak shows and similar. This begs the question: would these
athletes be famous if it weren’t for their disability? The ‘othering’ of disabled athletes
can be looked at in one of two ways. The first is a positive outlook, wherein impaired
athletes are seen as ambassadors for the disabled and are connecting disability with

5. the rest of the world. The second, a more solemn attitude, perhaps sees
Paralympian athletes as ‘disabled heroes’ and a struggle to escape the tag of being
‘disabled’. This can be mirrored at all levels of sport, as shown in research
undertaken by Fitzgerald and Kirk (2009), wherein young people found it a struggle
to escape the label of being disabled, despite the longing for a closer identification
with other sporting males.
Disability-focused sporting events such as the Paralympics, though, will undoubtedly
encourage a younger generation to partake in relevant sports and activities. This,
though, has no indication that those with disabilities feel ‘constrained’ by able-bodied
culture. In fact, Paralympic events can increase funding for disability sport (Darcy &
Appleby, 2011) and have a huge positive influence on the attitudes of disabled
people towards sport. Despite this, there has been no significant research into the
effect that the Paralympics has on participation in sport and physical activity within
the disabled community (Misener et al, 2013). Still, disabled bodies remain at the
mercy of able-body culture and representations which shape and constrain the
impaired. Disability sport has the potential to change opinions and bring together
disabled and able bodies, allowing people to bond over a common ground. However,
the risk remains firmly in the possibility of creating a scenario in which ‘othering’
continues to be a real problem in the shaping of disability.
Taking this example of the Paralympics even further, what we define as a ‘disabled’
body can be limited massively by the publicity and accessibility that can come about
as a result of events like London 2012. The charity Scope actually published the
results of a survey following the 2012 Paralympic games which suggested that 81%
of disabled people felt attitudes towards the impaired had not changed and that 22%
believed they had gotten worse (Rose, 2013). At its simplest, disability is still defined
as “mental or physical limitation” (Nagi, 1965, cited in Clarke et al, 2008). Society
would do well to forget this, but it remains ingrained in the depths of so many minds.
It is difficult to escape the knowledge that, because of able-bodied culture, those with
disabled bodies are different. This is what causes discrimination, othering, and
conflict surrounding disability. It is a problem that must be overcome if disability
wants to move away from the ‘different’ that able body culture has shaped it into.

6. As a sort-of case study, the deaf community can be looked at as an example of how
ableism and the concept of able-bodies can define and shape disability. Many deaf
people actually reject the label of disability (Ginsburg & Rapp, 2013) and this is
understandable. After all, there is no visible physical difference or any variance in
mental capacity from someone who we would consider to be able-bodied. Young,
deaf people especially identify being deaf as normal (Skelton & Valentine, 2003). It is
a regular part of their lives which they have learned to cope with in a mostly stress-
free way, and is often all they have ever known. This type of attitude lessens the
bride between able and disabled bodies and poses questions relating to whether our
ideals of able bodies really do define disability.
There are barriers with deafness, though, as there are with any impairment. Sign
language, for example, is central to the lifestyle of deaf people, but even knowing
sign language cannot break down the barriers which stand between the hearing
(able-bodied) and the deaf (disabled) (Dennis, 2004). It is the culture of sign
language and the underlying, simple things such as appreciation of music which will
always define the deaf and separate them from the hearing. Since it is more
common, those with unimpaired hearing think of deafness as straying from the norm.
Deafness is considered abnormal and a disability. It is shaped by us as a society
because of our perceptions of an able-body being capable of hearing. Valentine and
Skelton (2007) support this further, stating that those who struggle to communicate
in the State language can become marginalised and excluded from society. Again, it
is this alienation which shapes and constrains disability – the differences that exist
from what we consider the norm. Even if the impaired do not consider themselves to
be disabled, the able-bodied will too often categorise the impaired as disabled and
form opinions and stigmas based on this.
In relation to the title of this paper, deafness is indeed a social construction (Senghas
& Monaghan, 2002). The majority of people, for the greatest part of their lives, have
unaffected hearing and for most of us it is a normal thing to be able to hear (Evans
and Falk, 1986, cited in Harold, 2013), so any deviation from this is unnatural. This is
why deafness can be classified as a disability. Despite this, reading is rarely
affected, sporting ability is rarely affected, intelligence is rarely affected and physical
appearance is almost never affected. Still, our cultural representations of an able-
body dominate and shape hearing impairments as a disability. Disabled bodies are

7. shaped and constrained by our cultural representation of the norm, and any
deviation from this norm will find it extremely difficult to avoid the tag of disability.
Simply, deafness has its own language and culture (Senghas and Monaghan, 2002)
and while this culture remains separate from social norms it will shape and define
how deaf people are seen as disabled. The able-bodied and the deaf will be seen as
separate, and this constrains the hearing impaired and forces them to remain
detached from the entire concept of ableism.
Conclusion
To conclude, it appears that society and culture has created a distinct difference
between the able-bodied and the disabled. We prefer certain abilities over others
because we see them as ordinary and normal (Wolbring, 2008) and dominant
cultural representations like this are what shape disability. In disability policy, for
example, people’s personal opinions about disabled people can have a detrimental
effect on achieving disability equality in the workplace (Woodhams & Corby, 2003).
However, in turn, it could be argued that a need for a disability policy actually
encourages inequality in the first place. To label a group of people as disabled or to
employ certain people because they are disabled can create conflict and separation.
So often, impaired people would rather their disability not be a main point of focus.
Society’s obsession with the ‘perfect’ body, though, shapes a stigma surrounding
disability that is difficult to escape.
It is a lack of adequate skills and physical functions which prevent most disabled
people from engaging in most jobs (Jeon & Haider-Markel, 2001), but this is not
always the case. A line must be drawn, therefore, between disability and impairment.
There is already a difference between the two, but it is not common knowledge. As a
result of this, many people who are impaired are just labelled with a tag of disability.
In reality, however, disability is a socio-environmental problem. The way in which
society interprets a ‘disabled’ body appears to be fully dependant on our beliefs
surrounding what an able-body is. Anyone who is impaired has their disability
shaped by how we represent able-bodies as a norm, leading to constraints and
stigmas that we ourselves have created.

8. References
Abbott, P. (2010). Should utopians have perfect bodies?. Futures. 42 (3), 874–881.
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2001). Disability culture. Handbook of disability studies,
515-534.
Blauwett, C & Willick, S. (2012). The Paralympic Movement: Using Sports to
Promote Health, Disability Rights, and Social Integration for Athletes With
Disabilities. Exercise and Sports for Health Promotion, Disease, and Disability. 4
(0), 851–856.
Bogdan, R. (1996). The Social Construction of Freaks. In: Thompson, R. G.
Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. New York: New York
University Press. 23-38.
Clarke, P, Ailshire, J, Bader, M, Morenoff, J & House, J. (2008). Mobility Disability
and the Urban Built Environment. American Journal of Epidemiology. 168 (5),
506-513.
Clarke, P, Ailshire, J, Nieuwenhuijsen, E, de Kleijn - de Vrankrijker, M. (2011).
Participation among Adults with Disability: The Role of the Urban Environment.
Social Science and Medicine. 73, 1674–1684.
Darcy, S., & Appleby, L. (2011). Sydney 2000 - Moving from post-hoc legacy to
strategic vision and operational partnership. In D. Legg & K. Gilbert (Eds.),
Paralympic Legacies (pp. 75–98). Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.
Darcy, S & Taylor, T. (2009). Disabled people, voluntary organisations and
participation in policy making. Leisure Studies. 24 (7), 419-441.
Dennis, C. (2004). Genetics: Deaf by design. Nature. 431, 894-896.

9. Fitzgerald, H & Kirk, D. (2009). Identity work: young disabled people, family and
sport. Leisure and Disability. 28 (4), 469-488.
Ginsburg, F & Rapp, R. (2013). Disability Worlds. Annual Review of Anthropology.
42 (2), 53-68.
Gold, J & Gold, M. (2007). Access for all: the rise of the Paralympic Games. Royal
Society for the Promotion of Health. 127 (3), 133-141.
Greed, C. (2010). Planning for sustainable urban areas or everyday life and
inclusion. Urban Design and Planning. 164 (0), 107-119.
Green, S. (2003). “What do you mean ‘what's wrong with her?’”: stigma and the lives
of families of children with disabilities. Social Science and Medicine. 57 (0),
1361–1374.
Hahn, H. (1986). Disability and the urban environment: a perspective on Los
Angeles. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space. 4 (1), 273-288.
Harold, G. (2013). Reconsidering sound and the city: asserting the right to the Deaf-
friendly city. Environment & Planning. 31 ( ), 846-862.
Jeon, Y & Haider-Markel, D. (2001). 1. Tracing issue definition and policy change:
An analysis of disability issue images and policy response. Policy Studies. 29 ( ),
215-231.
Mabbett, D. (2005). Some are more equal than others: Definitions of disability in
social policy and discrimination law in Europe. Social Policy. 34 (2), 215-233.
Manley, S. (1996). Walls of exclusion: the role of local authorities in creating barrier-
free streets. Landscape and Urban Planning. 35 (2), 137–152.

10. Misener, L, Darcy, S, Legg, D, Gilbert, C. (2013). Beyond Olympic Legacy:
Understanding Paralympic Legacy Through a Thematic Analysis. Sport
Management. 27 (0), 329-341.
Morris, J (1991). Pride against prejudice: a personal politics of disability. London:
Women's Press. 10.
Rose, D. (2013). What is the legacy of the Paralympic Games?. Available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-23861941. Last accessed 19th April
2015.
Senghas, R, Monagham, L. (2002). Signs of Their Times: Deaf Communities and the
Culture of Language. Annual Review of Anthropology. 31 (1), 69-97.
Skelton, T & Valentine, G. (2003). ‘It feels like being Deaf is normal’: an exploration
into the complexities of defining D/deafness and young D/deaf people's
identities. The Canadian Geographer. 47, 451-466.
Taleporos, G & McCabe, M. (2002). Body image and physical disability—personal
perspectives. Social Science and Medicine. 54 (2), 971-980.
Wolbring, G. (2008). The Politics of Ableism. Development. 51 (1), 252-258.
Woodhams, C & Corby, S. (2003). Defining Disability in Theory and Practice: A
Critique of the British Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Social Policy. 32, 159–
178.
Valentine, G, & Skelton, T. (2007). The right to be heard: Citizenship and language.
Political Geography. 26 (4), 121–140.