Critical analysis of the representation of people with disabilities in relation to sexuality and romantic relationships and how this may impact one’s identity.

Introduction

This critical paper will be in conjunction with an artefact that aims to provide a visual representation of the lived experiences of individuals with impairments in relation to relationships and sexuality.

Intro for Repressive Hypothesis

Foucault provides a theory of repressive hypothesis which is a perspective of thinking where unspoken topics are repressed, (Cook, P. 157). This is a perspective that is weaved throughout the critical paper. The idea of repressive hypothesis was theorised due to the absent/silence of discourse of sex and sexuality in society. This is built upon the Marxist perspective of society, (Morfino, 2019, P. 274). In result of the dominant culture that suits the bourgeoisie lifestyle. Therefore, creating the feeling of suppression for discourse that does not fit within this dominant culture. Current examples of this are the missing discourse of relationships, sexuality and disability which will be discussed throughout this critical paper. The theme of both disability and sexuality were recently unheard of in social discourse. Providing this there has been very little research into the sector of disability, love and desire.

Philosophy of love and desire

Moseley, (2020) emphasises the complexity of defining the concept of love. Therefore, using the Greek philosophy of love and desire to attempt to conceptualise the idea of love. The Greek philosophy of love is split into three segments. The first segment is ‘Eros’. Green, (2000, P. 9) contrasts the concept of Eros with the ideas of Freud where both human development and development of love is driven by internal and subconscious ‘drives’. The concept of Eros is debated by Moseley, (2020) to be the seed of the ideal body.

The second segment is ‘Philia’. Moseley, (2020) states that Philia is the loyalty and appreciation for the partner in a relationship. Referring to the work of Durkin, (2007, P. 1453) relationships are suggested to be stronger when acts of kindness are performed without requests. A similar trait is stated by Moseley, (2020) which is acts of kindness without request.

The third segment is “Agape’. Moseley, (2020) states that this is the love between God and man. Including a combination of Eros and Philia to have both the desire to love one another but also the kindness to support one another.

Disability and Relationships

There is said to be around 13 million people with disabilities in the UK, (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2017, P. 5). Malinowska, (2018, P. 364) identifies the increased focus on the representation of young people with disabilities and how they experience romantic relationships in pop culture. However, as Clark, (2017, P. 103) quotes Barnes, (1992) who points out, young people with disabilities are usually represented in pop culture as pitiful or superhuman with little reality of individuals in-between the continuum. This is similar to the constructionist view of representation, (Hall, 2013, P. 14) as the imagery and use of language in pop culture portray characteristics of people with disabilities. Rather than using the reflective model of representation where language used to represent an individual Is accurate and not constructed with influences from one’s own bias and attitudes. On the other hand, the reflective model can also be deficit to the disabled community as individuals using the reflective model may only see an individual in a wheelchair as nothing more leading to no thought into the holistic of the individuals, (Boggis, 2017). Therefore, leading to very simplistic thinking towards people with impairments and cognitive differences.

Repressive Hypothesis

Vertoont, (2017, P. 826) states that despite the increase in public discourse of impairments in society as well as the academic field there is still an absence of conversation in relation to more personal issues such as relationship and sexuality. Shakespeare, (2000, P. 160) states that people with impairments often find relationships and sexuality the ‘most difficult concern’ in their day to day lives. Shakespeare and Davies, (1996) suggest this is caused by the society of oppression. Using the usually assumed assumption that people with impairments are asexual and have no desire to be loved, therefore believing that these negative attitudes cause ablism is based heavily on the social model of disability, (Scope, 2020). Shakespeare, (2008, P. 30) also praises the social model to remove barriers as well as promote independence for individuals with disabilities. Which, furthermore, deconstructs the pitiful identity that is also associated with individuals with disabilities.

The idea of repressive hypothesis is also observed in popular culture in progressive television series such as Atypical, (2017) where the anxiety of the mother of the main character with ASD prevents him from forming romantic relationships as well as having a full independent lived experience. Despite this behaviour being intended to be in the best interest of the young person with ASD, this in reality restrict as well as oppress him from usual lived experiences. This representation of the lived experiences of a young person with ASD may experience. This representation of the experience of love and desire of a young person with an impairment support Shakespeare’s push towards the development of a cultural model of disability, (Waldchmidt, 2017, P. 22). Which emphasises the impact of how both positive and negative representation of disability and impairments.

Attitudes towards Disability and Relationships

It is no secret that most people with special educational needs and impairments are seen as asexual, (Bennet, 2017, P. 33). This is similar to the belief of Shakespeare, (1996) where it was discussed there was a hidden discourse of people with impairments had a sexuality and that it is common that the voices and lived experiences of people with impairments were absent. This goes further with the work of Parker, (1993, P. 4) where it was found that the discourse of marriage and maintaining meaningful relationships were absent from discussions. Clarke, (2008, P. 4) supports this within her findings by comparing those with impairments to their non-impaired peers to find a partner.

Due to this ideology and discrimination, there has been a grim history of eugenics in relation to people with impairments. Douglas, (2011, P. 44) states that this is due to the idea that individuals with disabilities have a defect and that the defect should not be reproduced in society. Therefore, causing the idea of eugenics. This ideology creates a negative representation for people with disabilities by portraying the message that individuals with impairments should not partake in romantic relationships. Using Maslow hierarchy of needs individuals with impairments will find it increasingly more difficult to surpass the second layer in the basic needs section, (Or, 2017, P. 537). Resulting in the individuals not being able to reach self-actualisation as it will be more difficult to fulfil the love and relationship needs.

Media Representation

Vertoont (2017, P. 826) identifies the absents of representation of people with impairments and cognitive differences in relation to relationships and dating in popular culture. Therefore, the reality television series ‘The Undateables’ a is valuable insight into the ‘realities’ of dating as someone with an impairment or cognitive difference. If done correctly this can have a positive impact on the sociological view on disability as well as in the field of academic research as there is the hope the television show will create conversations as well as questions to be researched. Hartnett, (2000) states that this kind of representation will provide the public with a more realistic image of young people with impairments and cognitive difference. Rather than the usually stereotyped ‘supercripple’ identity or helpless victim identity, (Vertoont, 2017, P. 826). The fear of programs such as ‘The Undateables’ as stated by Goodley, (2014) is that this will emphasise the participants disability rather than their desire to be loved or personality, creating a disabled identity on camera.

The choice of naming of the television series was aimed to reflect the abilistic thoughts and attitudes of society (Morrision, 2012). Despite, the good intention of the title of the program this reinforced that the individuals on the television series are incapable of love are purely filmed for entertainment purposes. Another assumption created by the show is heavily reliant on the charity model of disability. Vertoont, (2017, P. 831) expresses the shows prejudices that it reinforces, suggesting that people with impairments should only date each other as well as only date in their own private space, again exercising repressive hypothesis discussed earlier.

This overall negative representation of young people with impairments and cognitive differences can impact the secondary socialisation, (Watne, 2011) of children with impairments as they may start to believe that they are incapable of love. Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs if a child does not achieve love and belong, they are unable to surpass level 3 of the hierarchy and therefore cannot reach self-actualisation.

Disability and Sexuality

Perlin, (2016, P. 119) declares that sexuality has evolved and changed throughout history in conjunction with the social consensus and habitus. iCaSH (2020) defines sexuality as the term used to describe the person/persons the individual wants to have an intimate relationship with. Toft (2020, P. 5) emphasises the increased amount of discrimination towards members of the LGBTQ+ community who have an impairment compared to their non-impaired peers. Toft (2020, P. 5) goes further in saying that this is due to further differences those with impairments face even when they are already part of a marginalised group.

Disability as a subcategory of sexuality

Hulko, (2018, P. 428) states that usually marginalised groups are less likely to ‘come out’ as a different sexuality or identity to heterosexual or male or female. Rusk (1993) provides research on how sexuality is fluid and sexual identity changes throughout life. The theoretical bases of Rust are in conjunction with the idea of liquid love by Bauman, (2003). This is where it is believed that the concept of love is fluid and has many meaning in today’s context. An example of this is Hughes, (2012, P. 18) finding that the meaning of love is more fluid in children as children often say they love their friends.

Missing Discourse of Sexuality

Shildrick, (2007) believes that there is a missing public discourse in relation to sexuality and disability. With this lack of discussion as well as representation in society this can impact individual’s embodiment as well as identity. Using the looking glass self McComb, (1997, P. 126) emphasises the impact of the view other people have on an individual moulds their identity. Using the work of the sociologist Becker, labelling is proven to have a significant impact on one’s identity as well as embodiment through both emotionally positive and negative labelling and representation. Due to the lack of representation, it is argued by Bernert, (2011) that individuals with disabilities do not know how to disclose their disability to potential partners as well as how to get into the dating discourse.

Media Representation

The term of popular culture is defined by Dustin (2018, P. 5) as the combination of both high and low culture which is the influences of secondary socialisation from both national/global media as well as local media. Looking at popular culture through an economic lens sociologist Gans, (2008) says the growth of the middle class has caused a shared lifestyle where middle class families can afford things that they need however, cannot afford to hire a craftsman specialised belonging. Therefore, creating a shared behaviour of buying and consumption.

Conclusion

As seen in the critical paper the field of disability, relationships and sexuality is in its infancy and despite there being a small amount of recent literature in the academic field the theme of disability, relationships and sexuality is explored in popular culture with credit to the progressive television programs such as Atypical on Netflix as well as what some debate as a negative representation of individuals with impairments and cognitive differences such as the reality television series ‘The Undateables’ where the main aim is to provide entertainment to the nation’s population rather than aiming to provide a positive representation and the lived experiences of young people with impairments. Using the newly formed cultural model of disability this critical paper has critically explored the possible impact corrupt television series such as this one may have on young people with impairments and cognitive differences.

To conclude this critical paper, it is evident that representation in popular culture is essential for embodiment and identity development as well as general self-worth. Using theoretical knowledge of interpersonal development such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs it is clearly seen that the topic of representation, embodiment and identity is essential for the achievement of self-actualisation.

Reference Page

‘Julia Says’ (2017). Atypical Season 1, Episode 3. Sony Picture Television. Available at: Netflix. Accessed on 7th December 2020.

Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling Imagery and the media: An exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. London: BCODP.

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid Love. On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge: Polity. Found in Best, S. (2019). Liquid Love: Zygmunt Bauman’s thesis on sex revisited. Sexualities. 22(7–8). PP. 1094–1109.

Bernert, D. (2011). Sexuality and Disability in the Lives of Women with Intellectual Disabilities. Sexuality and Disability. 29(2). PP. 129–141.

Boggis, A. (2017). Dis/abled Childhoods? A transdisplinary Approach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Clark, J. (2017). Embodiment and Representation. PP. 99–120. Found in Boggis, A. (2017). Dis/abled Childhoods? A transdisplinary Approach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cook, D. (2014). Foucault, Freud, and the Repressive Hypothesis. Journal of the British society for Phenomenology. 45(2). PP. 148–161.

Douglas, C. (2011). These Pushful Days’: Time and Disability in the Age of Eugenics. Health and History. 13(2). PP. 43–64.

Durkin, K. (2007). Language, Social Behavior, and the Quality of Friendships in Adolescents With and Without a History of Specific Language Impairment. Child Development. 78(5). PP. 1441–1457.

Equality and Human Rights Commission, (2017). Being Disabled In Britain: A Journey Less Equality. <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/being-disabled-in-britain.pdf>. Accessed on 11/11/2020.

Gans, H. (2008). Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation Of Taste. United States: Basic Books.

Goodley, D. (2014). Becoming dishuman: Thinking about the human through dis/ability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 37(1). PP. 1–15.

Green, A. (2000). The Chains of Eros: The Sexual in Psychoanalysis. Taylor & Francis Group.

Hall, S. (2013). The Work of Representation. PP. 1–59. Found in Hall, S. (2013). Representation. 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications.

Hartnett, A. (2000). Escaping the ‘Evil Avenger’ and the ‘Supercrip’: Images of disability in popular television. The Irish Communications Review. 8. PP. 20–28.

Hughes, A. (2012). Building Positive Relationships with Parents of Young Children: A guide to effective communication. Routledge: Florence.

Hulko, W. (2018). Intersectionality in the Lives of LGBTQ Youth: Identifying as LGBTQ and Finding Community in Small Cities and Rural Towns. Journal of Homosexuality. 65(4). PP. 427- 455.

iCaSH. (2020). Sexuality. < https://www.icash.nhs.uk/sex-and-relationships/sexuality>. Accessed on 9thDecember 2020.

McCombs, B. (1997). Commentary: Reflections on motivations for reading — through the looking glass of theory, practice, and reader experiences. Educational Psychology. 32(2). PP. 125–134.

Morfino, V. (2019). Beyond the “Repressive Hypothesis”: “Subject-” and “Libido-Effect” in Althusser. A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society. 31(1). PP. 273–290.

Morrison, S. (2012). The Undateables: Freak show TV or challenging prejudice?. < https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/undateables-freak-show-tv-or-challenging-prejudice-7584595.html>. Accessed on 9th December 2020.

Moseley, A. (2020). Philosophy of Love. <https://iep.utm.edu/love/>. Accessed on 2nd December 2020.

Or, O. (2017). Rethinking the Place of Love Needs in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Society. 54(6). PP. 537–538.

Parker, G. (1993). With This Body: Caring and Disability In Marriage. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Perlin, M. (2012). Sexuality, Disability, and the Law: Beyond the Last Frontier?. Palgrave Macmillan US: New York.

Rusk, P. (1993). ‘Coming Out’ in the age of social construction: Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society. 7. PP. 50–77.

Scope. (2020). Social model of disability. < https://www.scope.org.uk/about-us/social-model-of-disability/>. Accessed on 7th December 2020.

Shakespeare, T. (1996). The Secual Politics of Disability. Found in Quarmby, K. (2015). Sex, Lives and Disability. <https://mosaicscience.com/story/sex-disability/>. Accessed on 20th November 2020.

Shakespeare, T. (2000). Disabled sexuality: Towards rights and recognition. Sexuality and Disability. 18(3). PP. 159–166.

Shakespeare, T. (2008). Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.

Shakespeare, T. And Davies, D. (1996) The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Desire. London: Cassell. P. 826. Found in Vertoont, S. (2017). Would you date ‘the undateables’? An analysis of the mediated public debate on the reality television show ‘The Undateables’. Sexualities. 21(5–6). PP. 825–839.

Shildrick, M. (2007). Dangerous Discourse: Anxiety, Desire, and Disability. Studies in Gender and Sexuality. 8(3). PP. 221–244.

Toft, A. (2020). Young, Disabled and LGBT+ : Voices, Identities and Intersections. Taylor and Francis.

Vertoont, S. (2017). Would you date ‘the undateables’? An analysis of the mediated public debate on the reality television show ‘The Undateables’. Sexualities. 21(5–6). PP. 825–839.

Waldschmidt, A. (2017). Culture — Theory — Disability. Bielefield: Transcript Verlag.

Watne, T. (2011). Children as agents of secondary socialisation for their parents. Young Consumers. 12(4). PP. 285–294.