Semi-Structured One-to-One Interviews: Language and the term ‘Special’

The interviewees had a mixed and varied response to this finding. Two agreed with the sentiments as expressed by focus group participants that the use of language and labels such as the term ‘special’ has negative connotations for PWID and does not support their inclusion into society:

‘I too absolutely hate that term and feel very strongly about it. It is exclusionary and emphasises differences...why do they have to be “special”? It promotes that

149

pity and charity thing, like playing on disability to get sympathy from the general public’ (INT 3) and ‘The language the SO use with regard to the term “special”

can impact on inclusion for PWID as it puts forward two types of people , that is

“us” and “them”. With the use of such language and practices that promote segregation. Would people who are not involved in the SO or people without disabilities aspire to participate in such games?’ (INT 4).

Storey (2009) has claimed that SO are segregated event and one can only participate if they have a disability which stands in stark contrast with any efforts made to integrate PWID into ordinary everyday recreational settings. In turn this sets them apart from the general public. Similarly, Macionis & Plummner (2008, p.437) have also claimed that labels when used in the public domain ‘construct ideas of some people being ‘‘the other’’. Whatever they are, they are not you...they are radically different from ‘‘us’’ and not ‘‘normal’’, thus, reinforcing the points made by INT 3 and INT 4.

This very point about ‘the other’ was raised by a number of focus group participants after viewing the images of the athletes in action:

‘Being honest, young people would not aspire to be in the SO.... they would want to be like elite athletes’ (M3-B-18-U), ‘You wouldn’t see a professional athlete like that...if they were professional athletes you wouldn’t see that type of vulnerability’ (M1-A-18-L), ‘Maybe there is no interest...you may watch the Olympics to see the prowess, but you wouldn’t see that in the SO’ (F3-B-38-L) and ‘But we don’t equate to it and don’t look to the SO for sport idols...we look to the mainstream’ (M1-B-18-M).

Thus, while many participants were quite positive about the SO, they also spoke about them in terms of being ‘different’ and ‘special’, and they wouldn’t necessarily aspire to be in them and would not view the athletes as their sporting ‘idols’. In this instance,

‘abled bodied’ people did not appear to value the SO in the way in which they would the

‘normal’ Olympic Games.

150

Shakespeare (2013) claimed that labels such as ‘special’ has played a significant role in

‘devaluing’ PWID and societies and communities as a whole fail to see their abilities and strengths and ultimately, fail to include them. With labels, the overriding focus is on the medical model of disability and on the condition a person is labelled with, as opposed to the person. In turn, the label almost becomes the person as the person is described and defined by it.

One interviewee reported that they understood why some of the focus groups were critical of labelling people as ‘special’. However, when further probed on this the interviewee pointed out that the SO were such a well-known brand it would be very difficult to change it:

‘I think the SO have done some great work and have definitely improved the quality of life for PWID. I get the issue about the term “special” but that is a brand, a logo and a very well-known one too. I don’t know how they might change it but if Inclusion Ireland successfully achieved a change of name then why not the SO?’ (INT 2).

Inclusion Ireland, an advocacy agency for people with disabilities was known as the

‘National Association for the Mentally Handicapped in Ireland’ (NAMHI) up until 2006.

The reason for changing their name was simple and twofold. Firstly, the people they represent (PWID) asked them to do so and secondly the name NAMHI is an acronym for an out-of-date and negative concept. Labels such as ‘mental handicap’ are no longer used, they are underpinned by the medical model of disability and are offensive to very many people, particularly PWID (Frontline 2006). Thus, as the focus on the term

‘special’ intensifies and its influence on how PWID experience meaningful inclusion, the SO might consider the impacts such labelling has on public perceptions towards PWID.

Two interviews were somewhat indifferent to this particular finding on the use of language and the term ‘special’:

151

‘It’s only a name, I wouldn’t get hung up on it. If they knew how much joy the SO brings to the everyday lives of PWID and how much they get out of it. As long as people are enjoying themselves that’s what counts’ (INT 1) and ‘Nobody seems to gets caught up with the Paralympics like they do the SO, that’s also a label isn’t it, why not comment on that? Why can’t people just focus on the games and how much the athletes enjoy them – it’s like as if the glass is always half empty’ (INT 5).

It is interesting to note that participants were asked in all focus groups could they name a SO athlete medal winner. Only one participant across all groups could identify a SO athlete, yet many could easily identify Paralympic athletes. Indeed, the Paralympics have somewhat ‘distanced’ themselves from the SO and focus group participants did not comment on labels in any way when the discussion turned to the Paralympic Games. It seems possible therefore, that in the public domain the SO are viewed and understood differently to that of the Paralympics. Brittain (2010) claimed that the usual philosophy of sport is applied to the Paralympic Games, which is competitiveness and competition and the gamers are considered more athletic and competitiveness to that of the SO.

Two of interviewees were interested in the fact that the younger age groups were more critical than the older groups regarding the use of language and labels used to describe PWID:

‘That age group are probably more accepting of diversity, they grew up with it...they don’t label people as much as the older generation might. Younger people are much more open to difference, sure you only have to look at the recent same-sex marriage referendum. Younger people have no issues at all with that kind of thing’ (INT 1), and ‘They are probably more educated and probably more exposed to PWID. They learn about these things at school nowadays and are ok with differences. They may know about disability and see it as a rights kind-of-thing’ (INT 2).

152

It is a fair assumption that younger focus group participants would have been more exposed to the social model of disability and may have a more positive attitude towards equality based issues and less accepting of social inequalities such as the stereotyping and marginalisation of minority groups. Indeed some of the younger age participants made explicit reference to equality issues and appeared not only accepting of diversity but respectful of it:

‘I think at the moment, especially after your man coming out in Cork, xxx...he is probably the first hurler that stood up and said he was gay and there is actually equality there towards him and people respected him for that. So he is promoting or making it easier for other people to say that they are different, which is a great thing‘(F5-A-18-M).

However, definitions of disability have rarely been positive and are usually underpinned by the medical model of disability. Language and labels can be powerful as they can shape the way in which we think about people and how we see them. Labels can be either positive or negative. Labelling a person with a disability as ‘special’ can impact on that person throughout their lifetime. Society’s expectation of that person may be lower to that of their peers and they may experience exclusion and marginalisation because of the label. In this instance, it appeared that while the older age group were aware of labels and could recall memories of special and segregated services as children, the younger age group saw labelling as more of a ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ based issue and were more critical of their application to people.