Across most nations, a tradition of charitable "support" of disabled persons, at times informed by religious doctrine, is an ever-present contributor to cultural ascriptions about disability. Organisations and institutions have undertaken attempts at providing for disabled persons excluded from much of social and economic life, and abandoned by the state. But – it is argued – in the process of "providing", the discourse of charity has increasingly entrenched the oppressed position of disabled persons, via their reconstruction as passive objects of benevolence, rather than legitimate, entitled citizens. Pity and kindness, thus, become the unstable grounds upon which disabled persons' "rights" are provided for, with the concomitant implication of lives falling evermore under the control of "expert", "professional" – and "philanthropic" – decision-making (Rioux, 2002, p. 214). Whilst potentially providing appropriately for some basic needs – inappropriately for others – charity typically does little to alter the status quo regarding the ideological positioning of disabled persons; it may, in fact, perpetuate such distortions (Coleridge, 1993, p. 3; see also Jack, 1995). If development is equated to the notion of individuals assuming control over their own lives, much charity-
based "disability work" probably militates against this (ibid.). A crucial point is that charity organisations, for their very existence, are dependent upon the reproduction of images of disabled persons which evoke pity and altruism; that is, on stereotypes such as dependency, damage and abjection (Marks, 1999a, p. 167). This imperative to demean disabled persons within the ken of the general public routinely confirms and buttresses prejudices, thereby continuing the cycle of exclusion (ibid). The "fetishising" images of charity advertising have been linked to the role which pornographic imagery plays in gender oppression. In both cases, close focus on the somatic "locus" of difference is present (the breasts, the impairment), in a manner which evokes an othering response. Further, in both cases the circumstances in which the images are created, interpreted and dispersed are beyond the influence of the subject, and are located within broader relations of oppressive power (Barnes & Mercer, 2001, p. 521). The act of giving, comment Murphy et al (1988, p. 236), is not a gesture of unity with the receiver, but a symbol, and act, of separation. Ravaud and Stiker (2001, p. 496) locate charity organisations as one further means – beyond the organs of the state – whereby identity distinctions are established and maintained. One must "qualify" for "charity support", via the appropriate assigning of a disabled identity, along with the donning of the host of wordless ascriptions which this entails (ibid.). All such institutional categorising of citizenship, they add, calls forth social forces which militate against the possibility of "acceptance" of the other "in his or her irreducible difference", resulting in a loss of the rich benefits of exposure to multiple ways of being human (ibid., p. 496).
As argued earlier, if disabled persons do, indeed, serve as ciphers for the disavowed, shameful existential parts of others, it is likely that instinctual impulses toward this group will be of a hostile nature. At a conscious level, and via reaction formation, sadistic drives may be experienced as guilt, along with reparative, altruistic intents (Marks, 1999a, p. 167). The "pay-off" of this psychic manoeuvre is considerable, allowing the guilt-ridden responsibility for hostility to resolve into an act which positions one as both powerful and generous (Shakespeare, 1994, p. 287). Young (1994, p. 131), considering the political functioning of projective identification, writes of the "mapping" of internal processes onto groups, institutions, and organisations, in a manner which allows us to "experience the virulent as though it is benign and part of the definition of a good social order". Charity organisations certainly fill this reassuring role, comforting us with the knowledge of social cohesion and generosity to the "unfortunate", whilst obscuring the abhorrent origins of preventable oppression. The public is treated, via these indulgences, to the reaffirmation of a paternalistic assumption that disabled people are generally treated with kindness (Davis, 2002, p. 155). I
term this very familiar stereotype the "fantasy of filled needs"; an idea that "things are in place" in our society to provide for "those in need", or "those who cannot provide for themselves". The brutal, global truth of the indignity and naked suffering of disabled lives remains as unbelievable as it is obscure.
Within the primal splits which characterise the Kleinian model of the emotional world of infancy, aggression and hatred are ever-present forces (Klein, 1959, p. 252). In fact, it is the anxiety surrounding aggressive impulses which gives rise to the earliest defences of the ego (Klein, 1948, p. 27). The familiar idealisation of disabled persons, as plucky, spiritual, "inspiring", or otherwise gifted, may embody the reformulated essence of aggressive impulses, with charity discourse providing the convenient, sanctioned means for their discharge. The need to reshape internal hostility into the practice of public virtue, is captured in the American cultural phenomenon of the disability charity telethon. Longmore (1997, p. 140) describes the telethon as a moral allegory, a ritual of "cleansing and renewal". This "moment" of generosity forms the (psychically) essential, defensive counterpoint to the looming knowledge of self-interest and conspicuous consumption, rendering the need for "equally conspicuous contribution". The "unfortunates" here assume centre stage, "ritualistically enacting a reversal of everyday reality" (ibid., p. 136). Whilst the material, evident aims of the telethon ritual are "the physical repair of those socially invalidated by disability", at a latent level the ritual performs the purpose of moral restoration for those who give, or simply observe (ibid. 140). Needless to say, the intrinsic meaning-system regarding disability which is at play across the charity spectrum is one which identifies impairment as the cause of suffering and lack, making impaired persons available as helpless unfortunates in need of succour. The message is that disability equals impairment (Hevey, 1992, p. 50), thus setting the scene for the wholesale splits of projective indulgence, and entirely circumventing any interrogation of society, let alone self. It is at the telethon that temporary redemption is found, from the guilty, egocentric excesses of consumption, as well as the deeper, more haunting co-existence of "freedom", "opportunity" and "equality" with the horrors of social suffering. To encapsulate, David Hevey (1992) writes:
Charity advertising...represents the highest public validation of the isolation of disabled people. It presents a solution to the "problem" of disablement by a disguised blaming of the victim. It fails to find a solution because it is itself the
problem...
Having over the past segments reflected on aspects of modern, Western cultural responses to disablement, we return now to the more traditionally psychological terrain of the family. Here, we shall examine the potential impact of culturally condensed disability meanings within the dynamic, relational context of psychological development, with a view to unpacking elements of disablist ideology within the socialisation of disabled subjectivity.