Using the information in the tabular arraies provided. what can you state about: a ) bias against handicapped people in the UK?
B ) attitudes towards handicapped people in the UK?
Table 1 displays how much bias people feel there is against handicapped people. by twelvemonth. This step of bias was taken in the old ages 1998. 2000. 2005 and 2009. The responses were categorised as following ; a batch. a small. barely any. none and don’t know. In 1998 25 % of respondents felt there was a batch of bias against handicapped people. In 2000 this per centum increased to 35 % therefore giving a per centum point difference of 10. In 2005 this figure decreased to 25 % and in 2009 it was 26 %. There is an anomalousness in the information for the twelvemonth 2000 because it does non suit the form. It is besides of import to observe that the sample size varied in each twelvemonth. It was 3139 in 1998. 3422 in 2000. 3193 in 2005 and 2282 in 2009. The class with highest per centum was ‘a little’ with an norm of 51. 25 % from 1998 – 2009. Therefore it can be said that there is bias against handicapped people in the UK over clip.
Table 2 expressions at the per centum of people that would be really comfy interacting with people with a scope of damages in different state of affairss in the twelvemonth 2009. The scope of damages consisted of physical disablement. centripetal damage. larning disablement and mental wellness status. The state of affairss that the respondents were asked to bespeak their degree of comfort were ; club/team. move in following door. in class/at school, marry, foreman. Member of Parliament. The information shows that people that have a mental wellness status are the people that respondents felt the least comfy interacting in comparing to the other damages. The state of affairss in which this tendency is most evident is when the person in inquiry is a Member of Parliament. a Boss severally.
Table 3 illustrates the per centum of people who said they would be really comfy if a close household member or friend married a handicapped individual. Respondents are category harmonizing to their age in the undermentioned scopes ; 18-24. 25-34. 35-44. 45-54. 55-59. 60-64 and 65+. The classs of damages are the same as in table 2. In conformity with the consequences displayed in table 2. respondents of all ages indicated the smallest per centum of comfort if a close household or friend married person with a mental wellness status.
Table 4 categorised the respondents into the same age ranges as in table 3 and used the same damages as in table 2 and 3. The rubric of table 4 is the per centum of people stating they would be really comfy if a handicapped individual was appointed their foreman at work. by age. It was found that from the ages of 18-54 mental wellness status was the damage that the least sum of respondents indicated they would be really comfy. Mental wellness status and learning disablement had the lowest per centum of respondents in the age scope 55-59 indicate that they would be really comfy at a degree of 19 % each.
Therefore it can be said looking at tabular arraies 2 – 4 attitudes towards handicapped people in the UK vary in conformity with the type of disablement. it can be said persons with mental wellness conditions where the least figure of respondents were willing to bespeak a high degree of comfort in a scope of state of affairss including. across all ages. ( 543 words )
Using the articles below. and stuff from ‘Connected lives’. depict how relational individualities are frequently characterised by inequality. A societal individuality can be defined as an ‘identity given by connexions to other people and societal state of affairss. ’ ( Taylor. 2009. pg 167 ) There are many different signifiers a societal individuality can take. One illustration is the corporate or group individuality. which is categorical in nature. These classs imply that every person within that group has common features. Possibly even more significantly. there is the premise that these persons are different to persons who are non portion of that group ; so they do non portion the same corporate individuality. For case there is the corporate individuality of persons who have a disablement. They are united in their similarities of holding a disablement. and besides in their shared differences to ‘typical’ persons who do non hold a disablement.
Another of import societal individuality signifier is a relational individuality. This can be described as a reversible relationship between two persons or two corporate individualities ( Taylor 2009. pg167 ). An of import characteristic of relational individualities between groups is that they are normally unequal. where one group has an unmarked individuality that is taken for granted as normal. and the 2nd group has a marked individuality which is negatively valued and this negative rating is ever noticed ( Taylor. 2009. pg 179 ). It is the purpose of this essay to depict how relational individualities are frequently characterised by inequality. utilizing the illustration of people with a disablement as the pronounced group.
It is of import to research the kineticss of corporate individuality because they are of import on a social degree. Corporate individualities can be used a platform to call up persons into taking corporate action ( Taylor. 2009. pg169 ). The Equality homo rights article can be described as an illustration of this because it uses experiences of people with disablements to talk out against disablism and take action to better the quality of life for this group. At this point it is of import to see how these individualities of difference arose in the first topographic point.
First. the discourse used when speaking about persons with a disablement should be considered. Both the Equality Human rights article and the Guardian article refer to these persons as holding the corporate individuality of ‘disabled people’. This discourse exemplifies the usage of linguistic communication to make a negatively valued individuality whereby these persons are being characterised and in bend categorised by their disablement. which so forms their corporate individuality. It is a label given to this group by other people. who that label does non use to ( Taylor. 2009. pg185 ). Due to this label being used in discourse such as the Equality homo rights article and the Guardian article it becomes established and a manner of placing people by this one facet of their being. This happening is a societal procedure known as Othering. It allows for a strong differentiation to be made between groups which perpetuates individualities of difference ( Taylor. 2009. pg 179 ).
Second. an of import mechanism which underlies the procedure of Othering is the usage of a pronounced and unmarked individuality assigned to each corporate individuality in a brace of unequal relational individualities ( Taylor. 2009. pg 179 ).
The marginalised group is marked utilizing the label assigned to them which inside informations their negative properties ( Taylor. 2009. pg 178 ). The Equal homo rights article quotes a handicapped adult male depicting an brush of bias “Then I had a philippic of maltreatment. being called a f****** cripple. Told I should be thankful to acquire on a coach and halt bloody moaning”. In this instance. the adult male in inquiry has been identified by his disablement and consequently been referred to in an violative mode and attributed as being thankless and unappreciative. He has been negatively evaluated and given a lower position about as though he does non hold the equal right to aerate his grudges as person who does non hold a disablement. This is a merchandise of his pronounced individuality and the unequal individuality place he has been given utilizing that by an person who has an unmarked individuality. This illustrates the inequality of this relational individuality. Furthermore. the Equality homo rights article suggests that this prejudiced behavior is really common in Wales. and it is mostly left undisputed. This deficiency of practical effects reinforces this label as being acceptable and so reinforces the unequal relational individuality.
However. mentioning back to the political importance of corporate individualities. it is of import to gain that these unequal relational individualities are non fixed over clip. It is possible to accomplish societal alteration by corporate action. This is the purpose of the Equality homo rights article which outlines cardinal countries for intercession. The first 1 is ‘Partners and leading: A finding to extinguish torment demands to be shown by leaders’. This echoes the purpose for societal alteration on a social degree. It besides illustrates the of import function of power in making. maintaining and perpetuating the marginalization of certain groups ; in the current instance. persons with disablements ( Taylor. 2009. pg 182 ). The Guardian article illustrates this farther as it challenges Members of Parliament ( MPs ) on their negative rhetoric sing a equal with the disablement of intellectual paralysis. MPs have a important function in determining relational individualities through the discourse they engage in with their components and the power they have in determining policies.
Therefore when trying to accomplish societal alteration through corporate action it is necessary to turn to the instability of power which allows the unequal relational individuality to organize. The Guardian article provinces ‘MPs are lawmakers…a place of power and authorization over all members of the populace. The House of Commons is non a school resort area. and I don’t think MPs should be allowed to acquire away with handling it as such. ’ This is an illustration of how an person ( the writer of the article ) has targeted those in powerful places who belong to the unmarked group. and in making so has gathered members of the pronounced handicapped group to dispute the unequal power balance in their relational individuality. therefore organizing persons ready for corporate action.
In decision it can be said that the societal procedure of Othering allows for the development of unequal relational individualities. This procedure is based on the mechanisms of labelling and the usage of marked and unmarked individualities. An of import facet of this is the function of power in keeping these individualities of difference. This is made even more of import because power dealingss can be targeted to implement societal alteration through corporate action. Therefore although relational individualities are frequently characterised by inequality. they can alter over clip.
Taylor. S. ( 2009 ) ‘Who do we believe we are? Identities in mundane life’ in Taylor. S.. Hinchliffe. S.. Clarke. J. and Bromley. S. ( explosive detection systems ) Making Social Lives. Milton Keynes. The Open University
I found this essay truly interesting because it relates so much to the universe around us. I peculiarly liked looking at how societal alteration can be achieved to increase equality across groups. I am pull offing my clip a spot better hence being able to set more attempt into the assignment.