Disability in Mass Media essay
Jun. 26th, 2006 05:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethExamine and evaluate the extent to which disability is stereotyped in the media
Disability is commonly thought of as a stable category with a biological basis. Individuals are labeled 'able' or 'disabled', but this simple binary is actually a product of the dominant discourse, an effect of what is perceived as 'normal' in a particular society. Disability is in fact a socially constructed category which varies temporally and geographically.
The oldest model of disability explained it all as individual moral deficiency. Physical or mental differences were taken as evidence of moral failings, or as punishment for immoral actions. So an unwed mother was considered disabled. The response was segregation, to protect the majority from the danger of immorality. Sadly some modern media still fits in to this model. Horror films in particular use impairment as a symbol, loss of body parts representing loss of humanity. Captain Hook or the Candyman with their hook hands become monsters, emblems of evil. [Holborn, 2002] [BFI, 2006, Stereotypes].
This moral model was gradually replaced by the medical model, which saw disability as a physical problem where an individual had something wrong with their brain or body. Another deficit model, the disabled were now seen as physically inadequate. The new appropriate response was medical intervention to cure or control their condition, and television documentaries often follow the search for such cures. Dependence and vulnerability are seen to be what disability is all about.
Charity appeals often concentrate on this kind of portrayal. Posters portray an impairment instead of an individual. Difficulties are played up for pity. 'They', the 'disabled', constantly need help from 'us', the 'able', presumed to be the ones reading the messages. The appeals want to get a specific action from their audience – they want to be given money. And it usually works – Children in Need and similar appeals gather huge amounts. This fits how the maipulative model sees the media – as controlled by the owners to get money and power from the audience. “Few senior people in media are disabled” [Holborn, 2002] so they do not control representations. Disability is defined by the government as something that interferes with the ability to work, so 64% of disabled people were unemployed or economically inactive in 1998 [Haralambos (2004) p665]. Trying to get money out of the poor doesn't work half as well as using the poor to get a lot of money. Portraying a minority as powerless and claiming to speak for them takes some of their power. So by this model representations are totally stereotyped, to get a specific response from the 'able' majority, and gain money and power. However, this model is simplistic, and doesn't fully account for even the limited variety of representation that exists.
The hegemonic model proposes that the powerful still control the content of mass media messages, but in order to remain popular and reach an audience to influence it, they must appear fair and balanced. They therefore allow different portrayals of disability. Specialised shows, ie with sign language, exist but are marginalised in the timetable, pushed to late at night or very early in the morning. They are also translations of mainstream shows. The Deaf community create texts in sign language but these are even harder to find. Portrayals of characters with disabilities, even when they exist in mainstream shows, are also skewed in other ways.
Cumberbatch and Negrine (1992) [Haralambos (2004)] “suggest that what is missing among these stereotyped representations: is the portrayal of people with disabilities as an integral part of life [...] to appear as a person, an individual, who happens also to have a disability.” 'Able' characters routinely play a wide variety of roles, 'disabled' people tend to play characters defined by their disability. That reinforces the dominant discourse, that 'the disabled' are quite different from 'normal' people, and supports the ideology that 'disabled people' only have 'disabled issues', relevant to them personally but not to wider society.
But there are some exceptions - the Highlander tv series had a character who'd lost both legs, but had a full range of storylines mostly unrelated to legs. He even got to be the gun toting action hero sometimes. Yet it could be argued that he is an example of a different stereotype – that of “disability leading to courageousness and achievement”[Haralambos (2004) p855].
Many media portrayals are about accidents leading to impairment, and how individuals triumph over these personal tragedies. So disability is presented as a problem about and for individuals. This in turn suggests that individuals who still face problems in society, who find themselves disadvantaged, are in that position through their own (lack of) efforts, not through any fault of society. This reinforces the still-dominant medical model, the power of the medical establishment, and the dominant ideology. But it gives the appearance of positive portrayals of disability, and hence defuses opposition. So the hegemonic model suggests that portrayals are still highly stereotyped but try and give an impression of fairness.
Alternatively, the pluralist model theorises that the media are neutral brokers, reflecting society in a genuinely fair and balanced way. Media reflect society, and therefore any stereotyping in the media simply reflects attitudes in society. When campaigners are shown on the news chaining themselves to buses to demand access, this reflects change in social attitudes, the emergence of the social model of disability. Individuals are not deficient, disability is created by social conditions that make some things difficult, and consider those difficulties significant. Wearing glasses isn't considered 'disabled', but using wheels is, so ramps are not provided. This new model, and the disability rights movement, appears in the media as it reflects society. And even if it instead becomes part of a new negative stereotype - disability as obstructive – that is not a media creation, that reflects existing discourses.
Pluralist models theorise that all groups have equal access to the mass media and power to control content, which has not been true. Spin doctors and media gatekeepers such as editors and journalists influence portrayals. But with new media, such as the internet, everyone can be a content producer. Every individual can put their own message on a web page. So it is possible new technologies will make mass media reflect diversity more.
Content analysis of prime time television shows that there are less than 1% of speaking roles on television to represent a disabled population of about 19%, and this has been true for at least ten years. The roles are often children or old people, associated with vulnerability, and disability is central or relevant most of the time. [Ofcom (2005)]. This does not reflect the diversity present in society. It seems disability is stereotyped to a very great extent, the forms shaped by and supporting dominant ideologies about disability. But new technologies are making it easier for people to speak for and represent themselves in mass media, allowing future diversity.
Bibliography
Edgar, A & Sedgwick, P (2002) Cultural Theory The Key Concepts Routledge
Haralambos & Holborn (2004) Sociology Themes and Perspectives 6th ed. London: HarperCollins
Holborn & Lanley (2002) Sociology: Themes & Perspectives. Student Handbook. Collins
Lawson, T. & Garrod, J. (2003) Complete A-Z Sociology Handbook, 3rd ed. Hodder Arnold
Ofcom (2005) The representation and portrayal of people with disabilities on analogue terrestrial television: Content analysis research report [online]
Available from: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/portrayal/portrayal.pdf
[26th June 2006]
British Film Institute (2006) Disabling Imagery? - A teaching guide to disability and moving image media [online]
Available from: http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/
[26th June 2006]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 10:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-01 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-01 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-01 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-06 03:50 pm (UTC):-)