THE PAUL DARKE INTERVIEW – for RADAR by JIM POLLARD in December 2004

A wheelchair-user in the UK’s coolest comedy The Office, wall to wall coverage of the Paralympics, feature films, disabled presenters on Radio Four, the representation of disabled people in the media has never been better in this country, right? Wrong, says Paul Darke. In some ways, things have got worse.

Writer, artist and academic Dr Paul Darke’s well-argued but unexpected take on media mainstreaming turned RADAR’s meetings at the parliamentary party conferences last autumn into the ‘must-have’ event of the fringe. Don Foster, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Culture, Media and Sport was so taken aback and, as he put it, ‘pleasantly challenged’ by Dr Darke’s remarks that he opted not to deliver his own prepared introduction and admitted that he would be revising his views – an impressive show of genuine humility from a politician.

So what was it all about? It is about, says Dr Darke the dangers of mainstreaming or normalisation.

‘Since Labour came to power, the representation of disability in the media has, sadly, become “normalised” or what is often called “mainstreamed”,’ says Dr Darke. ‘To me that means devoid of political significance whilst being covertly part of the increasingly insidious ideology and a social pathology of assimilation: normality.’

Darke stress that his is no conspiracy theory but one based on current trends in many areas of society - economics, science, political culture. ‘Ironically, it was easier to be different when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister,’ he says. ‘There was more acceptance of extreme views. Now, under Tony Blair, there is a bland ideology with a narrow band of consensus. Alongside there is an increasingly powerful medical lobby interested in genetics and cloning and there is an economic movement that is about cost-cutting and the eradication of socially expensive groups.’

Broadcasters have ‘significantly shifted their attitude towards disability,’ he says. ‘I am not against mainstreaming per se. It is vital, especially in the commercial sector. The problem is really with the public sector broadcasters – those with a remit to do cultural diversity and public service broadcasting. Before Labour came to power there were politicised disability television series’ – programmes made by disabled people with a belief in their own value as disabled, different, people - on every major UK terrestrial broadcast channel. Since then we have witnessed a significant de-politicisation of disability and difference in favour of a move towards a dangerous cultural homogeneity. What we are seeing is a form of cultural assimilation: a dogmatic belief in a human sameness that denies difference. This is, I believe, a betrayal by public service broadcasters.’

It is ironic, Darke argues, that while ‘we all believe in bio-diversity we, as a society, increasingly squash human diversity’.

This cultural homogeneity is even depoliticising politics itself. ‘Politicians wonder why people become increasingly disengaged from politics when the BBC and Channel 4 increasingly de-politicise the essence of politics: everyday life, all our everyday lives. Politicians have allowed this to happen with out a whimper. All that mainstreaming has done, or will do in the future - for blacks, gays, the old, the young, or women even, let the disabled – is create further divisions within and between communities by propagating the idea that there is only one right way to be physically, morally, religiously and behaviourally: ‘normal’. This is not culturally diverse broadcasting but the worst type of social assimilation that will only lead to ever increasing cultural ruptures that are self and socially destructive.

’As with race, gender and sexuality, the politicisation of disability that had taken place within society and the media in the last thirty years is being rejected. It is being replaced by ‘mainstreaming': a process that is merely a sanitising, a normalising, of difference. As such, mainstreaming is no less destructive and oppressive that what had gone before.

Darke does not lay the blame wholly at the door of politicians and broadcasters. ‘One cannot ignore the role disabled people themselves have played in this trend through their own articulation, in the early days of disability politics, in arguing for ‘positive' images or “role models” over what they saw as ‘negative' ones. The simplification of the issues, the politics, of disablement has facilitated a retrograde move towards a sanitised imagery of disability being shown: an imagery that is no more or less realistic than that presumed to be negative imagery.’

On the face of it this normalisation process may not appear to be such a bad things as far as some disabled people are concerned. Fit, strong disabled people can become paralympians, photogenic ones can become media personalities and intelligent ones can wear suits and become business people. But beneath the surface is an insidious trend.

Darke stresses that his argument is not about or with individuals. ‘The rewards for mainstreaming can be high and I wouldn’t condemn anyone for seeking a little comfort in a tough world. It’s not about people who want to compete in the paralympics, it’s about how society uses that competition to marginalise disabled into deserving and non-deserving groups.

‘This process affects everyone, black people, gay people, women but it is disabled people who are at the sharp end because it is about the nature of our very existence, our bodies, our impairments and the costs of them,’ he goes on. ‘If you want to know our real views about disabled people look at the statistic that 99% of babies with spina bifida or Downs syndrome are aborted – a success rate Hitler could only have dreamed of. There is increased support for the voluntary euthanasia of disabled people and the whole issue of euthanasia now gets a sympathetic airing on the media.

‘Few of us are, or want to be, Paralympians. The danger of such a perspective is that “normalised” imagery, mainstreaming, creates the increasingly dominant idea of the “good cripple”: one who is normalised and worthy of equality. This is in stark contrast to its increasingly common flip-side: the “bad cripple”. The ‘bad cripple’ is one who is only worthy of charity, institutionalisation, abortion or euthanasia - the tragedy model so loved by charity). The media, and politicians, only seem to be able to see these two extremes.’

Darke cites the movie Inside I’m Dancing about two disabled men living in a care home as a good example of recent mainstreaming. ‘It creates a clear distinction between the worthy – the film’s stars – and the unworthy – others in their home. A hierarchy is created of who is capable of “normalisation” and independent living and who is not.’

Darke doesn’t use the term genocide but the implication of what he is saying for the long-term future of a diverse disabled community is clear. But surely disability legislation means that can never happen? Darke disagrees. It is no surprise to him that the mental capacity bill is in parliament at the same time as the new disability discrimination bill.

‘Disability equality legislation is part of mainstreaming. Currently, it has no bearing on the life of poor, disabled people living in institutions. If you have legislation that is supposedly about equality then it must give that equality – independent living for everyone.’