My name is A.J. Withers
and i am a queer, disabled community organizer
in Toronto around anti-poverty and disability, uh, issues.
And i have a book coming out in January
called "Disability Politics And Theory"
from Fernwood Press.
Hi my name is Karine,
and i'm a member of Common Cause
and i'm also a health professional in a community health centre.
Um, i was also, i also had before a disability, a temporary disability,
and i also have a sister that has a permanent disability,
that is living currently with a disability.
So this is why i wanted to be part of this, uh, interview.
My name's Bryan, i'm with Common Cause, Toronto.
My name is Ann, i'm a member of Common Cause,
i also work with people with developmental disabilities,
and [?]
Disability is a social construct,
and depending on the culture, the time, or the context one is in,
will determine whether or not disability is marked on that person.
So in some places and times and cultures,
something that's considered disability
isn't considered disability in other times, places, or cultures.
And fundamentally, disabled people are constructed
as people who are considered abnormal or unwanted or unfit
within a given economy or social system.
The medical model of disability
is the mainstream way that people understand disability as a pathology or a sickness,
and, um, it... seeks out, um pathologies or abnormalities,
and works to find them and fix them, or cure them,
and failing that, accommodate them.
The social model of disability
is a model of understanding disability
which presents a separation between impairment,
so the physical or mental characteristics
that a person has that may be different from what other people typically have,
and disability or disablement, so the social process that oppresses people with disabilities,
through different institutions in our society,
such as work, school, the state.
So the social model of disability
what i find important to remember,
locates the problem of disability, the challenges,
in the society,
rather than in the individual,
and looks to address those through social action
rather than through changing individuals with disabiities.
Radical disability politics
is a shift from the mainstream way of thinking about disability.
The mainstream way is a medical model.
The disabilities studies canon, um,
is a way that incorporates an understanding of oppression
while still adopting some of the medical model.
And a radical disability analysis
is a complete rejection of the medical model
as something that has been implemented
in order to maintain power and control
for people with privilege in society.
And fundamentally questioning that
and recognizing disability as an entirely social construct.
The idea of what's "normal",
that disability is constructed as being abnormal,
was brought into the english language around the 1850's, around the time of eugenics.
And that idea that, um, many times we think of as being always there,
was findamentally rooted in, um,
the creation of an Industrial Revolution, um
changing capitalism to the capitalism that we know now.
and constructing workers as, um, normal bodies that could function within factories.
And so, all of the people that couldn't function within factories became abnormal or disabled.
And up til the Industrial Revolution,
things like intellectual disabilities and oftentimes physical disabilities
weren't thought of as disabilities at all.
They were just thought of as human variance.
The description of disability and the marginalization of disabled people
is really, um, fundamental to the success of capitalism,
both in marginalising people that aren't participating in the capitalist system
the way that the system requires people to participate,
but also in the way that, um, disabled people, um non-disabled people are given a threat.
So, disabled people are often times forced to live in poverty,
marginalized, experience any number of different kinds of segregation,
and that's a threat to people that aren't seen as disabled to be productive,
and to work in the capitalist system, and if they don't there are these consequences,
and disabled lives are the manifestation of that kind of consequence.
For me, for me, the kind of, the ways that, that work, or or labour, um,
interacts with disability or ability,
in thinking about it more, i kind of appreciate...
i'm starting to appreciate more and more how important, um, it actually is, for me.
And i also see the importance of of of people that i work with
and people that i have worked with all throughout my life, like,
conceiving of themselves as able-bodied,
while also terrified of or recognizing the lie of that.
i think it's a rarity for me to have actually like shared a workplace with anybody
that i would, in, kind of like full consideration consider an able-bodied person
But it's centrally important that they consider themselves able-bodied,
uh, and we always have, um no matter how absurd that actually is.
It's a really substantial disciplining mechanism
that's almost bred in the bone of almost every single working class person i know.
And that's chasing after being
the strongest, most productive worker
not just for the sake of your boss
but almost for your sake as well.
Um, so, i think it's fundamentally important that we understand
the associations that capital has,
or the importance that capital puts on our bodies,
and it's important that we understand
the ways in which we've been hoodwinked into, into agreeing with that.
For me, what i do for a job?
I work with people who have a label of developmental or intellectual disabilities.
Um, i've seen how, first of all, many of the situations they're put in in terms of work
can be extremely exploitative,
like working for much less than minimum wage, in environments that like,
what used to be called sheltered workshops,
where they do sort of fairly like, menial, repetitive tasks for an extremely low wage.
Sort of the pressure in a way that's put on people to work in order to be sort of...
that that's what makes your life meaningful
as like a functioning adult, is that you should be working.
The ways in which disablement or being disabled interacts with that
i think is kind of, isn't quite as, isn't quite as descriptive as what it means to be able bodied.
As opposed to disabled.
Um, and,like, every every minute of the working day and even after work...
like, myself and almost every single person i've ever worked with
is in this battle to assert that they're actually physically capable of doing things
that their only, the only reason that they're doing them,
and the kind of, the degree to which they're pushing themselves
is because it's their job.
We conceive of ourselves as completely competent, independent, able-bodied people
and really nothing could be further from the truth.
The Canadian state is intertwined with capitalism,
um, but also, um, i think that one of the things that disabilty politics can bring
is like an understanding of people as individuals,
and negotiating different people's needs,
and that that, um, can help work to undermine the state and the state's power,
and really looking at what people, um, need, and how we can provide community support
and build community strength is a really important contribution
that radical disability politics can make to anarchism and to the ways that we understand the state.
So i think the state plays, like, many roles.
And... it has a fair bit of influence in like the lives of many disabled people.
Um, the state often makes decisions about who is disabled or not disabled,
who's eligible for different incomes or programs.
The state also, in Canada, administers medical and social services
that can, um, impact on the lives of disabled people.
Like for example in the past, large institutions...
um, i think when you're talking about the state and disability
something that you have to talk about eugenics.
Um, so you can look at the idea of, like, the body politic, right?
and how the state is in some ways invested
in having, like, a healthy or fit population.
Um, and, in the past we've seen, uh,
the state impose eugenic policies on PWD
for example, like, forced sterilization of PWD
in Alberta and BC.
For me, ive done a lot of research into anarcho-primitivism,
ive also done a lot of research into, uh, historically,
the eugenic movement and the role that anarchists played there.
And some anarchists were very against eugenics,
like Kropotkin.
But other anarchists were eugenicists,
and actively called for the sterilization of disabled people, or the "unfit".
Um, and i think that that's something that's important
for disabled people to recognize
has been the case in all movements,
and there have been elements of that, um, throughout history.
And that doesnt necessarily reflect all anarchism.
And i think that people can make that distinction,
but i think that its really important
that people are accountable to,
that anarchists are accountable to the eugenic past,
and the eugenic present,
through anarcho-primitivism
and actively challenge it
and actively work against it,
in order to how the solidarity that disabled people i think need to see
in order for there to be mroe trust in building a more collective movement.
It's just one component,
their ableism is just one component
of like a holistically misanthropic social outlook.
Almost more misanthropic,
almost more anti-person,
or anti...
not just anti worker,
but like, anti-person,
almost as misanthropic as capitalism
or potentially even more so.
Theres a number of different ways
that people view primitivism
but fundamentally, uh, in order to have this utopic view for certain people
oftentimes very privileged people,
um, disabled people have to die.
And that is very sad,
and its not ok,
and i think its important for all anarchists
because primitivism is so linked to anarchism
and claims to be a part of anarchism,
that anarchists challenge that,
and confront that,
and work to express that that is not their view.
And to ensure that disabled people are included and valued.
There's lots of different kinds of anarchism,
and um, for me,
any kind of good politically sound form of anarchism
has a strong anti-oppression analysis.
And disability is a really key component of that.
Because of the 1st principle, one of the 1st principle of anarchism
is everyone gives what they can
and they take what they need.
So thats exactly what PWD need, so they can participate,uh, fully
within their own capability,
uh, in the society.
And also take what they need, the needs, the support, they need
they can take it from the society.
So as someone that believes in radical disability politics and anarchism
i think that they both, like for me theyre inseparable.
My understanding of mutual aid
isn't so much that it's an aspiration that anarchists have,
but that it's actually a recognition that it's one of the primary elements of our world.
and it goes unrecognized, um, that there is an interdependence.
i think that mutual aid and ... if we focus more on the fact that
everything that we do is collective, um,
it offers a lot more possibilities
for a society in which people who may have differing abilities, different needs
can be respected as equal members of that society
and the contributions they can make, and they do make are respected,
and that it's seen that their, all of our successes or failures
and the various things that we try are based on everyones work,
and not just you as an individual.
which i think is ultimately positive for all people,
but especially those people who are are in society considered disabled.
And often times in disability communities
that manifests in "care collectives",
and people coming together to help folks
you know, go pee or make dinner or shop or whatever it is,
but the acknowledgement that that's a reciprocal relationship,
that the disabled person gets something from it,
but the non-disabled person, or the person with different needs
gets things from it as well,
and that both of those roles are really meaningful and important.
Um, but, mutual aid and the spirit of collectivity
and acknowledging that interdependence, i think are super important,
and, um, beyond like yknow a do-it-yourself culture,
like in creating a do-it-together culture.
Well, disabled people have been engaged in direct action for decades upon decades.
And have participated in a lot of different really creative actions
that have been acceptable for lots of different people,
and I think that we can bring that creativity to all different kinds of organizing
around direct action.
and even just like case actions,
where, um, disabled people have oftentimes fought Disability or Welfare to get what they need.
Um, but also disabled people oftentimes
instead of having our bodies treated as burdens or hazzards,
use our bodies in ways that are really powerful in direct action.
And i think that a lot of times people fall into boxes of what direct action means
and what it looks like,
and, and, broadening that box
and making sure that it's inclusive and accessible to people is really important.
And in doing that, oftentimes actions can be stronger and more powerful.
We often exclude people with disabilities in our movements,
or during our events,
I think we don't, we often don't think about their issues,
and, but, it's part of everybody's issues,
because everybody at one point will be disabled,
either temporarily or permanently.
So it's something that affects everybody,
every single person will be affected with disability issue.
In terms of the way that people organize,
um, often times radicals will view people's worth in a movement with how much they produce,
and how productive they are.
And that is just like a, an adoption of a capitalist value
that's really unfortunate and problematic,
and shifting that to value people for any number of ways that they participate in the community,
beyond what's viewed as production,
is really important
and is something that I think a lot of anarchists really struggle with.
So, collective responsibility is, um, sort of a concept that is present in anarchism
that describes how,
it sort of puts into practice I think our focus on the social over the individual.
So not only am I responsible for the things that I do individually,
but also the things that happen around me.
Um, just to give a really quick practical example,
if I'm in a political organization,
and I didn't promise to make the poster,
but someone else did,
but I never took the time to ask them, you know, if they needed help,
if the poster doesn't get made, it is also my responsibility as well as theirs.
Right? Even though... so it's focusing on the social,
sort of like taking precedence over the individual.
Um, how I think that relates to disability that's important,
is that it can also relate to issues around accessibility.
Um, so that we would all have a collective responsibility
to make the spaces that we work in politically,
accessible to as many people as possible.
I think what we should be trying for,
is to create spaces where we are responsible for what we do,
but where there's also support available,
and where there's also a culture where it's OK to ask for that support when needed.
Um, I think that in terms of mutual aid and collective responsibility,
that it shouldn't be so much about
"oh, ok, well we have to provide these accommodations for this person,
and we have to make sure that there's a ramp for this person",
and that kind of thing.
As much as like building,
sort of like building a broader culture of solidarity
where we all take responsibility for ensuring that the space allows for as much as possible
the full participation of anyone who would want to participate.
One of the ways that anarchist organizations can structure themselves
is implementing a culture within their organization
that um automatically looks at accessibility,
and interdependence,
and ways of talking about meeting people's needs,
and ensuring that people can get in the door,
and can have meaningful participation in an organization.
Um, but also ensuring that people have...
that organizations put forward demands that are inclusive of disability issues,
and are not tokenistic,
but are, come from disabled people and from disabled communities
around what we actually need and are fighting for.
Like as a member of Common Cause
with mostly just one other person in Common Cause,
like, I started looking at some of this stuff,
and tried to bring it to other people in the organization
who maybe werent as familiar with it,
or hadnt realyl had much interest in it.
i think... sometimes theres a lack...
i think people maybe had certain preconceptions
about what radical disability politics were about.
one of them maybe being that they're for certain people,
that it's for disabled people.
And i think what a lot of people maybe realize
because we've seen some more interest in it,
is that if affects...
the things we're talking about in terms of, um,
being either disabled by society, by work, by school,
are things that a lot of people have experienced,
but if youre not experiencing that,
what youre experiencing is almost like a process of beig "abled"
You're experiencing the other side of that,
and that can also bring a lot of tensions, right?
Like there can be...
you can kind of feel like...
even if youre having a really hard time
like physically or emotionally,
you dont want to let people know at your work
because you're going to sort of fall into this other category or person.
So I think what is important for anarchists to realize,
& I think whats come out of some of the discussions I've had with other Common Cause members
is that these questions of like um who is excluded and included in different spaces
and sort of like how we support each other
and how we place value on different activities
I think is something that affects all people,
and these politics are essential for understanding how we analyze the world
and the kind of changes that we would want.
Having an analysis that we don't want to be reformist,
that like this movement shouldn't be a reformist movement,
this should be a revolutionary movement,
so although we wanna try to make people's life better on the day to day,
like for example the Raise The Rates campaign
on increasing the Ontario Works and ODSP
so increasing the support programs, the money for programs up to 40%,
will make their lives better,
so we wanna fight for those things too,
but we wanna have an analysis of like a revolutionary,
like the end of capitalism and the state,
not just trying to reform what the state is doing right now.
So theres a lot of different things that, um, anarchist organizations can do,
and there's really practical things,
and there's kind of often times messier and harder, um, institutional things that can happen.
So there's like an infinite number of issues that cross over
and like I said before, I'm an anarchist and do radical disability work,
and for me there's not a cross over,
they're completely integrated,
but, um, even for people that there's not this like basic issues
around poverty and segregation, and like the forced encarceration
of many many people who are labeled as disabled,
um, the way that capitalism plays out in disabled people's lives.
The different components that make up capitalism
it's not just about how can anarchists engage in mass movements
particularly structured around disability theory
or mass struggles of disabled people,
although that is stuff that has to be fought out,
like in our cities, in our workplaces,
issues of accessibility, um, uh, casualization of employment,
or just like chronic unemployment.
It's not just about how can anarchists participate in mass movements structured around disability,
but how can a more thorough understanding of
the importance of disability being incorporated within all the mass struggles that we have.
Um, I think another thing that we can do
is that, so then, when we start to get these ideas,
even if it's just very like basic, new ideas,
to start to bring that to some of our mass work,
is trying to sort of link up different issues.
Like a very basic example was, um,
in like a mass organization that a number of us in Common Cause are part of,
there was a campaign that was posed for free transit.
And one of our members made an amendment to that
to make it a campaign to make it free and accessible transit.
So just this like, and this isnt someone who had any particular knowledge of disability,
who would consider themselves disabled or anything like that,
um, but from that it's become a part of the campaign
where different disability groups are involved in that,
and it's something that, there have been actions around accessibility
and this isn't something Common Cause has done,
but its something that we we're able to sort of introduce that,
I think, um, too, even if we're not focusing on struggles that are specific to disability
to try to see how we can bring that in,
so if members are involved in anti-prison struggle,
how can we bring an analysis around other institutions
that exist that are disability focused?
What's the relationship between psychiatric institutions and prisons?
I think trying to sort of make those links,
and to connect those struggles is a role that we can have
because we tend to have members involved in a lot of different groups.
Um, theres a bunch of different ways that people
can work with different organizations,
like neighbourhood communities, unions, and student groups.
One of the ways is articulating disability politics
in a way that makes sense to those organizations.
So sometimes the way the conversation that you have with different groups
is going to be slightly different.
But around union organizing, talking about injured workers,
and talking about capitalism and oppression,
and, uh, the exclusion of disabled people
and the impact that has on workers across the board.
With respect to neighbourhood organizations,
there's uh, every neighbourhood has disabled people in it,
and that are a really vibrant, important part of every community,
and so, working to help people understand that
and recognize the places (?) where that is,
and, uh, working with people to help build bridges,
and incorporate disabled people and disability issues into that community.
I don't think its utopic to, uh, to propose an abolition of social stratification,
and in that disability is predominantly ...
there's a difference between the conditions under which a human body finds itself,
or is put in,
and whether or not they're conceived of as disabled or able bodied.
Um, like that, like you were saying , that is a social construction.
And it's not utopic to um work towards the abolition of that social construction.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that like
many, if, like thinking about the future,
and about like how a lot of the current social processes of disablement
would be unnecessary
and in a lot of ways unhelpful, right?
Like the need to create the separation between deserving and undeserving poor,
and to legitimize things in that way,
like without that, the need to sort of label people as disabled,
how that is helpful kind of goes away.
And I would never think that in the future, if we lived without capitalism
that like, what I have that could be described as mental illness would go away,
but I would like to live in a world where I wouldn't have to worry about like
seeking, like if i needed help, seeking it because of an employer finding out
because of a box you check on a form when you apply for jobs or soemthing like that.
Like that aspect of it that just makes things harder,
like I don't think it's utopic to talk about that going away.