Identity work: young disabled people, family and sport

Abstract

It has long been recognised that family is an important arena in which sporting tastes and interests are nurtured. Indeed, for many young people the family introduces them to and then provides ongoing support for engaging in sport. Research has also indicated that the family has a significant position in the lives of young disabled people. In this paper we explore the interrelationships between sport, family and disability. Like a number of writers within disability studies we see the benefits of moving beyond a structure/agency dichotomy that currently limits social and medical model understandings of disability. In particular, we draw on the work of Marcel Mauss and Pierre Bourdieu both of whom argued that social life can be better understood by considering the embodiment of individuals through their habitus. We draw on data generated in an interview‐based study with 10 young disabled people to explore the ways in which family contributes to, and mediates, sporting tastes and interests. We consider two key questions: How do young disabled people negotiate relations within the family and in what ways do these relations influence sporting tastes and interests? To what extent are young disabled people able to use sport to generate and convert (valued) capital within the family and other related arenas?

Keywords:

• disability
• habitus
• family
• sport

Introduction

Young people, it has been observed, live busy lives and negotiate complex leisure interests (Hendry et al., 2002). At various times in a young person’s life sport may feature to a greater or lesser extent (Green, Smith, & Roberts, 2005). In this exploratory paper we want specifically to extend understandings of young disabled people’s sporting experiences by focusing on the social arena of the family. ¹ We want to make a connection between young disabled people’s sports experiences and the family, since the family has long been recognised as an important arena in which sporting tastes and interests are nurtured and developed; indeed, for some young people the family introduces them to and then provides ongoing support for engaging in sport. It is, particularly in the early years of sports experience, the primary socialising unit (Côté & Hay, 2002; Harrington, 2006; Zabriskie & McCormick, 2003). It is the intersections of sport, family and disability that this paper seeks to explore and in so doing we adopt a theoretical perspective that recognises disability as a form of social oppression, that should like other forms of inequalities, be recognised and accounted for in leisure and sport. Coupled with this, we are acutely aware of the absence in much research of contributions from young disabled people and we present this research in an ongoing commitment and belief that researchers have a responsibility to include, and listen to, the voices of young disabled people (Fitzgerald, 2009; Fitzgerald & Jobling, 2004).

We draw on the work of Marcel Mauss (1935/1973) and Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1990) both of whom argued that social life can be better understood by considering the embodiment of individuals through their habitus. Mauss suggests the habitus is an emerging outcome of a way of life in which techniques of the body are learned, often informally within the family initially, and in the local community more broadly. These techniques establish ‘norms’ for a plethora of everyday movements such as walking and gesturing, and in the process expressing tastes and values. In seeking to explore how these matters are negotiated by young disabled people growing up in a non‐disabled family we draw on data generated from focus group discussions with 10 young disabled people from the Midlands of England. Moreover, to make sense of the kind of identity work (Shilling, 2003) that learning these techniques of the body involves we consider two key questions: How do young disabled people negotiate relations within the family and in what ways does this influence sporting tastes and interests? To what extent are young disabled people able to use sport to generate and convert (valued) capital within the family and other related fields? Although the paper focuses on the domestic sphere of the family, we keep in view the notion that social life is multifaceted and interrelated, reflecting the complex social world young people occupy and so seek to note throughout the paper the relationships between family and wider communities.

Bringing the family into sport for young disabled people

According to Vangelisti (2004, p. xiii) ‘the concept of “family” can have different meanings and images for different people’. In western states, no longer is discourse of the family solely perceived as the partnership of two parents (female and male) and their children. Indeed, Shaw (2008) suggests that within contemporary society understandings about the family are constantly being negotiated and reconstructed. Scholars have pointed to the growth of dual‐earning parents, changing gender roles in which males are no longer positioned as the ‘breadwinner’, reconstituted families brought about by remarriage, cohabitation and step‐parenting, and families with same sex parents (Scott, Treas, & Richards, 2004). Meanwhile, in the UK, changing ideologies of the family have courted the attention of government who have instigated, among other things, policy agendas relating to flexible working and adapted workplace cultures (Lewis & Campbell, 2008). Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2004) usefully present three interrelated perspectives constituting the family including: structural (focusing on the presence or absence of certain family members), psychosocial (focusing on maintaining a household, socialising children, providing support) and transactional (focusing on family identity, emotional ties and shared history). Within this context Shaw (2008, p. 689) points to a ‘dominant institution of motherhood’ in which ‘intensive mothering’ supports a primary concern with their children’s needs (including leisure) rather than their own. Furthermore, fathering practices reflect an increasing expectation that they will be ‘involved’ parents and in this way may support some, but not all, of Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2004) psychosocial and transactional functions related to childcare and emotional support. It has been argued that sport and leisure can provide a means for developing father–child relationships (Coakley, 2006; Kay, 2006) and also contribute to ‘generative parenting’ (Harrington, 2006). Indeed, Coakley (2006) suggests relationships fathers have with their family in leisure contexts reflect the construction of their own masculine identities.

In addition to representing diversity and difference within families, a substantive body of literature has emerged specifically related to families and disability. According to Dodd, Saggers, and Wildy (2009) families with disabled children tend to conform to the traditional orthodoxies around parenthood in which mothers retain the position of primary care‐giving and intensive mothering. Moreover, parenting of disabled children is couched within powerful societal discourses that devalues disability and often constructs minimal expectations of disabled children and parents (McKeever & Miller, 2004). Consequently, normative conceptions of childhood prevail in which dependency (during childhood) is followed through the life course by independence and productive adulthood. Disabled children do not necessarily conform to this dominant view of life course (Priestley, 2003). Indeed, families with disabled children experience a range of inequalities that families with children without disabilities do not encounter (Dowling & Dolan, 2001). For example, Emerson and Hatton (2007) found that families supporting a child at risk of disability or a disabled child were significantly more disadvantaged across a wide range of socio‐economic indicators. Stress and social isolation related to caring for, and supporting, disabled children have also been cited as key sources of anxiety for families (Dodd et al., 2009; Mir, Ahmad, & Jones, 2001). Meanwhile, Ryan and Runswick‐Cole (2008) contend that research often portrays parents of disabled children, particularly mothers, as either ‘allies’ or ‘oppressors’. Allies are depicted as ‘vigilantes’ battling educational and medical institutions on their child’s behalf. In contrast, ‘parents as oppressors’ signals the dominance of a normative paradigm in which parents strive for normality and in this way fail to recognise or celebrate the diversity associated with disability (Blum, 2007).

Although research about family, leisure and sport has developed considerably in recent times, there remains a notable gap in the literature concerned with the interrelationships between sport, family and disability; perhaps a legacy of the lack of ‘inter‐subject field discourses’ (Aitchison, 2003). That is, research within disability studies has explored the lives of disabled children or their families but largely confined sport to the margins of such studies. Similarly, research within leisure and sport has explored disabled people’s experiences of sport but paid scant attention to the role and significance of the family (see Murray, 2002; Simeonsson, Carlson, Huntington, Sturtz McMillen, & Lytle Brent, 2001; Sport England, 2001). Although research in this latter field has explored different family forms in relation to leisure and sport, consideration of families touched by disability is minimal. In addition to stimulating and nurturing leisure and sports interests the family also contributes to the construction of embodied identities and we focus next on identity work within the family.

Identity work, habitus and family

It has been suggested that many spheres of life impact on the ways in which young people construct their embodied identities. For example, in Holroyd’s (2002) study, school, family, peers, media and physical culture were considered key sites in which young people engage in identity work. Moreover, the process of doing this ‘work’ is marked by an (in)completeness of identity in which the body is increasingly seen as a project (Bourdieu, 1984; Giddens, 1999; Shilling, 2003). We believe the work of Bourdieu provides a useful means of understanding social practices and, in particular, processes that constitute a young disabled person’s embodied identity within the family. We suggest his ideas can help to shed light on identity work and possibilities for and limitations to transformation alluded to by Priestley (1999) and Hughes, Russell, and Paterson (2005). Following Edwards and Imrie (2003) we think that Bourdieu’s work on the social construction of the body provides a means of thinking beyond the biological reductionism of the medical model and the structural focus of the social model of disability (Finkelstein, 1980; Hughes, 2007; Oliver, 1990, 1996, 2004). While the limitations of biological reductionism have been well known within disability studies for sometime, more recently commentators have been critical of the social model for not accounting for disabled children (Ali, Qulsom, Bywater, Wallace, & Singh, 2001; Connors & Stalker, 2007) and excluding ‘the body’ from experiences of impairment more broadly (Hughes, 2000; Hughes & Paterson, 1997; Meekosha, 1999; Morris, 1991; Pinder, 1995).

In seeking to recognise young disabled people as important social actors within society and to transcend the dichotomies of the medical and social models we deploy Bourdieu’s ‘thinking tools’, including practice, field, habitus and capital, to help make sense of social experiences of young disabled people within the family. Brown (2005, p. 4) suggests that these ‘tools’ allow ‘us to explore better Bourdieu’s intended relationality, especially his attempt at addressing the issue of agency and structure in terms of articulating the relations of production between the individual, their body and society’.

The origins of Bourdieu’s uses of the habitus lie in the work of French anthropologist Marcel Mauss (1935/1973). Mauss’s notion of ‘techniques of the body’ was deployed explicitly to challenge the idea that activities such as walking, marching, swimming and climbing were merely biological and biomechanical. He argued instead that even though such activities may appear to be ‘natural’, they are in fact learned, and are thus embedded in social processes, processes that are socially sanctioned, purposeful and that have a history. Techniques of the body possess these key features and thus integrate the biological and the social. Over time, the provisional and always emerging outcome of this process of learning techniques of the body is the habitus.

Habitus is, in Bourdieu’s work, a central concept used as ‘a bridge‐building exercise’ (Jenkins, 2002, p. 74) between structure and agency, and to demonstrate the ‘ontological complicity’ that defines the relationship between agents and their social worlds (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). It is when individuals participate in fields (such as the family and sport) that they become ‘endowed with the habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 72). In Bourdieu’s (1998) terms, the family is a key arena in which dispositions of the habitus associated with tastes, interests, behaviour and attitudes are embedded within young people’s sense of self. For young disabled people in particular, how do sporting practices, as explicit and symbolic normative practices of the non‐disabled world, figure in the processes of negotiation of norms and identity work? What strategies do non‐disabled parents and siblings employ to facilitate identity work around techniques of the body and the emerging and always contingent habitus and how successful are they? In beginning to explore these questions we turn now to a study of 10 young disabled people and their conversations about sport, and family life.

Conversations about sport and family life

The data represented in this paper forms part of a larger study focusing on the physical education and sporting experiences of young disabled people. In this paper, we focus discussions on data generated specifically in relation to sport and the family. These data were generated from a series of focus group discussions facilitated by the first author with 10 young disabled people from two mainstream schools in the Midlands of England. It should be noted that the research participants were selected because they were experiencing mainstream physical education. In this context, the nature of family membership and family relations were not considered as explicit criteria for participation in this study. In each school, a series of three focus group discussions were completed with five young disabled people. Each of the focus group discussions were approached with a relatively flexible outlook and the participants were guided through a range of themed issues. For example, during the initial focus group broader contextual information about family, school and leisure interests were explored. The second focus group explored physical education experiences and the final meeting discussed leisure and the family. A brief profile of the 10 focus group participants and their families is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Profile of focus group participants and their families.

Research participant	Age (first meeting)	Parent or guardian in household	Sibling in household	Family beyond household
Andy (male) had mixed feelings about PE and sport. He was most happy when talking about school boccia and his contribution to the boccia team. Andy is friends with James and would frequently come to his defence when other members of the focus group disagreed with him. He was confident during the group discussions and always ensured he got his point across. Andy has dyspraxia.	13	Mother: supermarket assistantFather: supermarket supervisor	None	One grandfather and grandmother who do not live in the same town as Andy and are seen mainly during key family occasionally. One aunt was mentioned who sometimes makes Andy’s dinner (his home) and occasionally takes him to the cinema.
Steve (male) also has mixed feelings about PE and sport and indicated he much prefers ICT. Was confident and self assured. Academically a high achiever and was not friends with any of the other focus group members and seemed to be a loaner. Steve has cerebral palsy and an amputated arm.	13	Mother: not in paid employmentFather: shop manager	Colin(14 yrs)	Brother (21 yrs) who visits regularly, mainly to have meals. One grandmother living in care home. Steve visits her occasionally, mainly with his mother and brother.
Dave (male) has a hearing impairment. He seemed popular with other focus group members. Dave tended to listen more than make comments or contribute to the discussions. The other group members openly questioned him and seemed to give him space to respond. Dave has mixed feelings about PE, however cricket seemed to be important to him and his family.	13	Mother: no paid workFather: school teacher	Josh(10 yrs)Simon(15 yrs)	Two grandfathers and grandmothers. All seemed to be visiting frequently. One grandfather and two uncles shared Dave’s interest in cricket. There were occasional ‘sleepovers’ at one set of grandparents.
James (male) enjoys PE at school and was happy to talk about his experiences. He is popular with the group and is considered to be a good boccia player. James has cerebral palsy and uses a walking frame.	13	Mother: shop assistantFather: factory worker	None	One grandmother, uncle (longstanding school friend of father). Grandmother lived within walking distance of James and often ‘sat’ with James when his mother was at work.
Adam (male) uses a wheelchair. He was very reserved in the focus groups. Adam does not like school, PE or sport.	14	Mother: care assistantFather: IT consultant	Neil(15 yrs)Steve(17 yrs)	Adam did not highlight any extended family. His family had moved to the Midlands four years ago from the North‐East of England. He mentioned two uncles from the North‐East but had not seen or spoken to them since his family moved.
Anne (female) uses a wheelchair after acquiring a disability five years ago. Anne was less confident in the focus groups and seemed largely disinterested in the discussions. She dislikes PE and sport and was often challenged by Tom about her views.	13	Mother: receptionist (part‐time)Father: plumber	Maria(21 yrs)Beth(11 yrs)	One grandmother was often mentioned in relation to supporting some care needs of Anne and Beth. She was also talked about in relation to family night outs. An uncle, aunt and two nephews (of similar age to Anne) frequently featured in discussions about activities over weekends.
Tom (male) uses crutches to support his walking because he has a degenerative disease that is causing his muscles to waste over time. He is friends with Robin. Tom has mixed experiences of PE and was confident to talk about these during the focus group discussions. His family all seemed to be involved in his community disability sport interests.	13	Mother: hairdresser (part‐time)Father: engineer	William(15 yrs)	One grandfather and one grandmother were mentioned in relation to supporting Monday meal times. Like Tom, his grandfather shared an interest in football. An uncle, aunt and one (younger) niece featured in discussions about activities over weekends.
Robin (male) has always used a wheelchair, he enjoys PE lessons. He is friendly with Tom and they talk a lot about football. Like Tom, his family take an interest in his community disability sport interests. During the focus groups he was less vocal than other participants.	13	Mother: no paid workFather: shop manager	Jack(10 yrs)	One aunt, a niece and nephew were talked about in relation to regular visits to their house, a short drive away. No other family members were mentioned.
Ruth (female) experiences a moderate learning disability and came to the school at the age of 13 from a special school. She indicated she was Jane’s friend but Jane did not reciprocate this feeling. Ruth indicated that she does not like PE or sport. She seemed to enjoy the experience of the focus group.	14	Mother: catering assistantStepfather: not in paid employment	Jess(15 yrs)	Ruth mentioned one grandmother who she saw once or twice a year. She also talked about her father and tended to focus on school holidays as times when she saw him. Her father did not seem to feature at any other points during the school week and weekends.
Jane (female) is visually impaired and disliked PE. Jane prefers ICT and maths. She openly shared her views about PE and sport during the focus groups. Jane is not friends with any of the other focus group members and seemed to take every opportunity to distance herself from other focus group members.	13	Mother: receptionistFather: telesales	Jill(15 yrs)	Jane mentioned four aunts and three uncles, one grandfather, and a half‐brother (22 yrs). Her aunts and uncles featured most in discussions about family. She seemed to infrequently see her half‐brother and grandfather.

The principles of grounded theory were used as a means of ‘providing, a map and a compass to navigate the open terrain of qualitative inquiry’ (Thomas & James, 2006, p. 791). We took a position similar to that of Charmaz (2005) and acknowledged prior knowledge and understandings within the data generation process. Furthermore, with Miles (1983, p. 119), we recognised that theory is not developed in isolation from other aspects of social life but rather informed by a ‘rough working framework’ of ideas, values and pre‐conceptions. In this study, the framework includes Bourdieu’s conceptual tools and the alternative understandings of disability these offer compared to medical and social models. That said, it is important to note that we used these conceptual tools to guide our thinking rather than to direct theorising. Guided by our foreshadowed problems, it was the data and the process of data generation that primarily informed the theory building, since we are committed to listening attentively to the voices of the young people in this study. Three key themes were generated from these data and provided insights into the ways in which the 10 young disabled people in this study construct and constitute their sporting habitus within and through the family as a socialising unit. The first theme is concerned with the construction and disruption of sporting tastes and other interests, the second with the generation and conversion of capital through sport, and the third with the active engagement of these young disabled people in the processes constructing the habitus.

Constructing and disrupting sporting tastes and interests

Bourdieu claims that early family experiences construct and constitute the habitus and ‘become in turn the basis of perception and appreciation of all subsequent experience’ (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 78). And as Harrington (2006) found, sometimes a specific sporting interest is a focal point for a family. For two participants in this study, family tastes and interests associated with specific sports seemed to have a strong influence on the construction and constitution of their habitus. Tom’s non‐disabled family, particularly his father and brother, were keen football players and spectators. Tom also had this interest in football, which formed a significant touchstone in his relations with his father and brother.

Tom: I don’t know what it is, I’ve always liked football, I watch [on the TV] with me dad and brother, watch me brother and we all play. We’ve always done it. We watch England.

HF: Sounds like you’re all into football. Why do you think it’s football you all like?

Tom: Well, my dad’s into it so me and my brother are, it’s always been like that. I guess it comes from dad. We’re all into football. There’s nothing else, it’s football.

As the conversation progressed, Tom was not able to rationalise the reasons for his interest in football; it had just ‘always been like that’. Similarly, Dave and his family were interested in cricket and this seemed to be a key activity for bringing the whole family together. As Dave put it: ‘Cricket is a big family thing’ and ‘It’s only natural I like cricket, like it’s always been round me’. Dave emphasised how cricket‐related leisure time was ‘constructed’ around other family activities (Shaw, 2008). He said that often ‘cricket comes first’ and indicated that day‐to‐day activities, such as food shopping, are structured around cricket‐related activities.

For Tom and Dave and their non‐disabled families, specific sports were important psychosocial and transactional features of collective family life, which both boys embraced enthusiastically (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004). So deeply were these sports part of their own tastes and preferences that neither could imagine not being interested, even if their family members were not. As such, as we will see, football and cricket, respectively, formed an important frame of reference for the identity work of Tom and Dave, and for their relationships with other, non‐disabled, family members.

For a few other participants, including Ruth, Anne and Andy, sport did not feature significantly within their families’ ways of life. As Anne put it: ‘If sport’s on the telly me mum and Beth turn it over, they don’t like football’. Similarly, Andy positioned his family as ‘non‐sporty’.

Me mum plays netball but apart from that we don’t do sport. We’re not into it. It’s not what we’re into at all. If there’s nothing else on the telly, dad’ll watch football but he’s not bothered. He’s into computers, that’s what me and dad do. (Andy)

In this extract from our conversations, Andy affirms the influence of his family by often referring to ‘we’ and in so doing positions himself, and his family, as non‐sporty. In his case, it was his father’s interests that defined the family’s leisure interests for Andy, despite the fact that his mother was an active recreational sportswoman. Like Shaw (2008), we will see further evidence later of what appears to be relatively traditional notions of family and family relations among this group of young people.

For some of the participants in this study, family tastes and interests seemed to be disrupted, if only temporarily, by their medical‐related needs and circumstances. Steve suggested that a regular family sporting evening out was affected by his need to have physiotherapy, in his mother’s company. On this occasion, and similar to other recent research, it seems Steve’s mother supports this care‐giving need rather than his father (Dodd et al., 2009; Shaw, 2008).

Mum does a lot for me, like she drives me round. We used to go to the dogs Friday. I can’t, from home me and Mum go physio. Dad and Colin [brother] still go. Mum’s not bothered, she doesn’t like it but I’d like to. The worst thing is we end going food shopping, it’s a pain. (Steve)

As Steve indicates, these arrangements directly affect him and his mother and to his regret (though according to Steve, not hers) they are consequently ‘missing out’ on what is a regular sports‐related family evening out. In contrast, in Anne’s account it is a sibling that is most affected by her stays in hospital.

When I’m in hospital mum and dad visit as much as they can. I know for a fact Beth hates it when I’m in. If Marie’s [older sister] not around she can’t go to Guides. I know it’s not fair but I need to see mum and dad. Sometimes gran comes but can’t drive so’s no good. (Anne)

Although this was only a temporary arrangement put in place when Anne is in hospital, it appears that Anne is particularly aware of how her parents’ visits affect the free‐time experiences of her sisters. Anne’s experience illustrates the broader impact that a disabled child can have on the lives of their siblings (Meyer, 1997; Rogers & Hogan, 2003). For Anne and Steve these episodes, in hospital or at the physio, are seen as disruptions to normal, everyday life, and they serve to reinforce identity work by which they ‘become known’ (Priestley, 1999) through a relatively narrow and medically defined understanding of disability and self (Barnes & Mercer, 2003).

Tom’s and Robin’s interest in disability sport seemed to have been a catalyst for nurturing new sporting interests within the family, in a form of ‘reverse socialisation’. We have already described how Tom and his family had a strong interest in football. In Shaw’s (2008) terms, Tom’s father had become an ‘involved father’ through his extended interest and participation in disability football.

My dad does the refereeing, we didn’t have one so Geoff [coach] asked. My dad takes me to training and games so he’s there, so like he said yeah. He’s like into football anyway so he knows what he’s doing. He had to do a course or, he got a certificate, a proper one from the FA. I mean he’s well into it and I mean like is serious. He’s not bad at it; I’m going to do it one day. (Tom)

Tom’s father had become much more than a ‘non‐attending’ or a passive ‘spectating’ parent, or even a parent who merely dropped and collected Tom (Kirk & MacPhail, 2003). Tom is clearly impressed that his father was actively involved in his disability football. From further discussions with Tom, it was evident that his playing experiences and father’s refereeing often featured in broader football‐related conversations within the family. In this family context, then, it would seem that sporting practices were not only those associated with a non‐disabled norm but also included disability sport. Moreover, by engaging himself in disability football, Tom’s father showed to Tom that there is transfer value between non‐disabled and disability sport, in contrast to a more common normative view that these are separate spheres.

Similarly, Robin’s family had embraced his interest in wheelchair basketball. He said, ‘it’s a big thing with my family’. In his case, his mother had taken a wheelchair basketball coaching qualification, helped during some coaching sessions and was the treasurer of the leisure club he attended. Robin’s father often took him to the leisure club and other competitions and tournaments. In addition, Robin’s younger non‐disabled brother, Jack, seemed to be a keen spectator, particularly during competitions. Robin described Jack as ‘mad about it’ and even suggested Jack had aspirations to become a wheelchair basketball player himself although, as this account illustrates, Robin considered Jack to have some way to go yet before he would be good enough to play competitively.

Jack thinks wheelchair basketball is a tough game, he’s tried to play but hasn’t got the chair control. The game moves too fast and he gets left behind. I think he’d like to play in the competitions but he’s not good enough yet. (Robin)

Here, Robin positions Jack as less able than him and his team‐mates, an interesting inversion of the common experience for young disabled people in sport (Fitzgerald, 2005). In so doing, it might be argued that Robin is constructing his own embodied identity through wheelchair basketball as both positive and desirable. Robin went on to say in this conversation that those using a wheelchair to ‘get round’ had well‐developed wheelchair skills and that Jack would take sometime to catch up to these standards. Indeed, for Jack the techniques of the body learned within the family and specifically associated with what are regarded as ‘basic’ mobility skills such as walking have little transfer value for wheelchair basketball. In contrast, for Robin in this specific sporting setting, and unlike many other situations he encountered (such as physical education), using a wheelchair regularly carries with it distinct physical capital that Robin rather than Jack possesses. These examples of Tom’s and Robin’s experiences show how sporting practices contribute to and mediate the accumulation of capital within the family, and how this capital could have some exchange value, which is the theme we focus on next.

Generating and converting valued capital through sport

According to Bourdieu (1998), the family is key arena in which various forms of capital can be accumulated and converted. Given the significant position that the family seems to have for young disabled people in particular (Anderson, Clarke, & Spain, 1982; Jobling, Moni, & Noian, 2000), it is perhaps not surprising that the study participants focused on the importance of their families as a mediating sphere in which various forms of capital were recognised and sometimes converted within the family. For a number of the participants, sports‐related capital seemed to hold little value, status or convertibility within their families and this was reflected through the ways in which they went about their identity work. Instead, importance was placed on other areas of achievement. Many of these accomplishments related to experiences from school, including sustained success (measured by high grades) in school subjects, selection for school productions, and publication in school magazines. Here, Jane discusses her high ICT results and the financial reward she gained in recognition of this success.

My marks for ICT are really good mum and dad think I’m doing very well. On my report last year I got A, I got £10. When I do well they give me money. I’m saving for a new computer, I’ve got to save £200 and then they’ll put the rest in. My next report, I’m going to get A for maths and science. (Jane)

Ruth also recalled a similar reward system in place for herself and sister when they were in the Brownies and indicated that earning money for the number of badges gained was particularly motivating. In both these cases, it is clear that the accumulation of economic capital was based on key family members who recognised educational achievement and the accumulation of the social capital this afforded, and then converted this social into economic capital. These practices did set expectations, though, that were not always fulfilled, and for Ruth this seems to be the cause of much disappointment: ‘I don’t get money for nothing no more’. Within Ruth’s family, there seemed to be limited disposable income to distribute around family members and this was a commodity that Ruth could not always rely on, regardless of her achievements. Her example shows that families are differently able to recognise and convert accumulated social capital through educational achievements, for example, into economic capital.

For a number of other participants in this study, the generation of physical and social capital through sport was valued within the family. However, even where this was the case, it did not always mean that recognition of interest in and knowledge of sport was acknowledged and rewarded equally. For instance Adam, like his father and brothers, has an interest in football. However, his enthusiasm for watching football and becoming a knowledgeable supporter seemed to him to be valued less than his brothers’ successes at playing for the school team. As Adam says, the playing success of his brothers seems to have secured the conversion of physical capital into economic rewards that he cannot access.

My brothers get loads of sports kit off mum and dad not just at Christmas. At the start of the season they go down to Sports Soccer and get loads of stuff. I’m allowed to have a [replica] shirt, that’s it. Mum and dad say I don’t need all the kit cause I don’t play. And I know I don’t need like the pads and boots but it’s what I feel and I want to feel like my brothers and it would be nice to wear sporty stuff like them. (Adam)

Being like his brothers by wearing the same clothes as them seemed to be something that was important in Adam’s identity work. Indeed, this example serves to illustrate how Adam seeks to negotiate his (disabled) identity growing up in a non‐disabled family in which sports participation is the norm. However, Adam’s habitus was not compatible with that of other family members and, in part, resulted in his parents’ reluctance to buy him the same sports kit as his brothers. In this respect, Adam’s parents did not afford him the same financial resources and rewards as they did their other sons. Adam’s parents perceive the footballing kit as essential clothing required to play football and apparently do not recognise or accept the value he places on having the kit so that he can construct and constitute an identity similar to those of his brothers and the family’s interest in football more broadly (McKendrick, Bradford, & Fielder, 2000). Indeed, it has been increasingly recognised that the possession and wearing of valued clothing, along with other forms of cultural meaning, provide a means through which capital can be accumulated (Frost, 2001; Hughes et al., 2005). This is clearly the case for Adam, who wants to negotiate and construct an identity similar to, if not exactly the same as, his brothers; dressing like his brothers seems to reflect a closer affiliation towards them.

It would seem that in Adam’s case, and notwithstanding his family’s acknowledgement of his enthusiasm and knowledge, he himself is applying a non‐disabled norm embodied by his brothers as the standard for judging himself. Adam said he felt he was letting his family, particularly his father, down by not gaining a place in the school football team.

I hate [school] reports, if I could change one thing about school it’d be reports. It’s not like I’m bad at school, I’m okay, my report is okay. I’d say my attendance is one of the best. It’s just dad looks at PE first and my brothers, they’re good at it so get As and I know I’ll get C I know before I look, I always get C. (Adam)

Adam seemed to have a strong sense that the physical capital his father valued was not evident through his school report, and this lack of achievement seemed to be exacerbated when comparisons were made with his bothers, who Adam perceived as attaining valued capital within his family. It might be argued that in this case, the habitus constructed by the family through sport was experienced both positively and negatively by Adam.

In contrast to Adam’s experiences, the capital that some focus group participants, including James, Tom, Robin and Dave, had accumulated within a sporting context did seem to be recognised by their families, which resulted in the accumulation of sports‐related clothing and other merchandise. In addition, their sporting achievements seemed to be recognised in equal measure to their siblings’ achievements, as in Tom’s case.

When we’re talking about football, dad’ll treat us both the same. Like, will talk about my game and Wills’, he’s fair like that and you can see he’s interested in both of us and I’m not missing out. When he starts talking to his mates he doesn’t stop, God he goes on and on and I like it ‘cause he’s telling his mates about my football. (Tom)

Like Tom, James, Robin and Dave also mentioned their fathers discussing their sporting achievements with friends. These conversations were clearly important indicators for these focus group participants that their sporting endeavours were recognised and valued by their fathers. It could be that these discussions represent an intentional strategy on behalf of the parents to facilitate their children’s identity work that was not limited by a non‐disabled norm. Moreover, it was important for these four boys that it was primarily their fathers who were providing the confirmation and legitimation of their sporting successes. Indeed, this study would support the view that relations and discourses between fathers and sons serve to reinforce dominant notions of masculinities within both non‐disabled and disability sport contexts (Coakley, 2006; Hickey, 2000) and in so doing support traditional forms of the family (Shaw, 2008).

Robin highlighted another way in which his sporting achievements had been embraced by his family and in this way symbolically contributed to his identity work. Robin explained that the various medals and trophies he had won are displayed in his family’s lounge. He considered this to be an indication of the value placed on his sporting achievements by his parents.

Robin: My trophies are in the lounge, there’s a shelf with them. Dad says he’ll have to put a new one [shelf] up soon ‘cause we’re running out of space. Some of my dad’s are up there but I’ve got more, he says he’s proud of each one. When Jack’s older he wants his to go with mine, he says he’s going to get more than me. I know it sounds silly but my mum gets me to say what each are for she says she doesn’t want to forget if someone’s around and they ask. Most of them say but she still makes me do it. I don’t mind or sometimes she gets me to tell people, some of their friends can’t believe the trophies I’ve won.

HF: So what do you think about having the trophies in the lounge like that?

Jane: I think they should go in your bedroom.

Robin: No I like them in the lounge, I’m proud of them and they’re on show.

Tom: Yeah, that’s really cool.

Jane: Yeah, I think it’s good but if it was me I’d think well they’re mine so I’d have them in my bedroom.

Robin: Yeah, but I like it when people see them and they [visitors] won’t in my [bed]room.

During this exchange, it is the relatively public display of these trophies that is of significance, and the fact that Robin shares the shelf space with his father and brother. For him, this is a tangible statement of parity of esteem, of the legitimacy of his sporting achievements alongside his non‐disabled family members. It is moreover, an expression of masculine solidarity in which Robin’s mother is complicit. The other boys’ approval and Jane’s insistence that the trophies should be displayed but in a more private space may hint at different gendered perspectives on how a robust embodied identity might be expressed and legitimated.

Calculation, acceptance and active participation in the construction of the habitus

Even though the young people in this study were subject to considerable regulation and control of their lives consistent with the experiences of young disabled people elsewhere (Kelly, 2005; Priestley, 1999), this should not mislead us into assuming that the construction of the habitus within the context of family life and through the medium of sport was something that simply happened to the young people participating in this study. Indeed, a recurrent theme throughout the focus group discussions concerned our participants’ ability to question, negotiate and resist, to differing degrees, some of the situations they encountered. At times, while individuals expressed frustration or unhappiness with a situation, they seemed to accept there was little that could be done to resolve it. In Ruth’s case, she was unhappy that her sister seemed to get more consideration in relation to the transport arrangements organised by their parents.

I’d like go Guides but can’t. I don’t get taken nowhere. Jess gets it all, it’s like she’s more, more important. I don’t ask cos I know what the answer’ll be. (Ruth)

For Ruth, it seems that the power relations within her family are not working in her favour and she did not feel in a position to directly challenge this situation (Preistley, 1999). Having said this, it is clear that Ruth did, at times, mobilise some resistance in relation to other issues (particularly, as she recounted, when her stepfather was ‘picking on her’), although this seemed to exacerbate the tensions between Ruth and her stepfather. Consequently, Ruth felt there was little she could do to persuade her family that she should be given more support to go to free‐time activities such as the Guides.

Other focus group participants also demonstrated a good sense of the issues that might be worth pursuing and those that should be left unchallenged. Some focus group participants seemed to almost calculate costs relative to the potential distress they would have to endure and the likelihood of gaining the desired benefits from their actions. These calculations were expressed by various comments: ‘Is the grief worth it?’ (Steve), ‘Will I upset him?’ (Adam) and ‘Am I going to get into trouble?’ (Tom). In these contexts, the focus group participants demonstrated that they could be astute social agents, able to judge situations and evaluate the merits of their actions. In this sense they actively engaged in processes of calculation, questioning and negotiation around matters of the habitus, lifestyle and their own ability to make choices.

Some of the study participants showed that they were able to find ways of negotiating outcomes that they desired without causing upset to others. For example, James told us that his father’s shifts had changed at work and so:

Dad said I had to stop going [disability leisure club]. He couldn’t pick me up no more. Then [I] was really fed up cause I didn’t want to stop like I’d been going two years. He said I’d got to. I had a word with Sam and he had a word with his mum and she said she’d drop me off. She drops me off now. (James)

In this circumstance, James was able to renegotiate, in a positive way, the situation resulting from his father’s change in shift patterns. Rather than merely expressing his disappointment at his father’s announcement, James actively sought a remedy to the situation in a way that would enable him to continue to attend the leisure club.

The strength of the embodied identities constructed by some of the boys in the study and the transfer value of their physical capital to situations beyond the family was evident in their recollection of their experience of what they saw as exclusionary practices during their physical education lessons. Some of the boys were excluded from football during physical education and this evoked considerable resentment. As Steve put it: ‘When I couldn’t do football I was really mad’, and Dave said: ‘It wasn’t fair, it wasn’t right’. During this period of exclusion, the boys sought to compensate for their lack of footballing opportunities in physical education by playing at other times during the school day. James suggested: ‘we play at break times, we still do’.

While finding alternative ways to play football might be viewed as an act of negotiation by Steve, Dave and their friends, Adam and James took more direct action and approached Mr. Smith, the physical education teacher, and expressed their concern that football was not offered to them within physical education. They also prompted their parents to speak out on their behalf.

We kept telling Mr. Smith we wanted to do football. We all told him we wanted to. On parents’ night, my dad even had a word with Mrs. Day [form tutor]. (Adam)

I was really unhappy and told Mr. Smith. … I know for a fact my mum said something [on parents’ evening]. (James)

On this occasion, these boys’ resistance to their exclusion from football in physical education paid off and, with the assistance of other family members as ‘vigilantes’ (Blum, 2007), they were able to generate sufficient support, subsequently leading to the reintroduction of footballing opportunities. This incident illustrates, as Davis and Watson (2002) and Priestley (1999) found, that young disabled people are able to sometimes ‘speak out’ and respond to what they perceive as preclusive discourses. The fact that their parents raised this issue at parents’ evening was not an unplanned coincidence but a well thought‐out tactic engineered by the disgruntled footballing boys. Here, we suggest, is evidence of the transfer value of the physical capital developed within the family around a footballing habitus to a more public situation in school physical education where both pupils and parents could argue persuasively and with conviction that they should play football in school physical education.

Conclusions: the variable terrain of disability, family and sport

This paper has sought to explore the ways in which 10 young disabled people engaged in the construction and constitution of embodied identity while growing up in a non‐disabled family, and the opportunities sport afforded them to do this as a medium that is explicitly embodied. Our sample, while small, provides evidence of a range of uses of sport and other activities in the construction and constitution of legitimate and valued techniques of the body. In some cases, specific sports were a shared interest among some or all family members, and for the young people concerned provided resources to construct deeply felt embodied values. Here we found diversity of sporting capabilities and knowledge enjoying parity of esteem with non‐disabled body norms, and evidence of the reverse socialisation of parents into their child’s disability sport. In others, though the sporting interests were shared and valued, the young disabled person nevertheless judged himself and felt himself to be judged by a non‐disabled norm, frustrating his desire for close identification with other male family members. For some young people, the symbolic power of non‐disabled sporting norms formed a significant disincentive to invest an interest in sport, and in some cases other interests shaped the habitus, such as computing and clubs including Guides.

Although the focus group participants had different family experiences it is clear that for these participants the family is an important arena in which techniques of the body are learned, these techniques establish norms and this forms the basis of their habitus. Indeed, parents and siblings contributed to the emerging habitus and through this the ongoing and complex identity work of the focus group participants. At times, the family served to explicitly regulate and control the interests of the focus group participants in ways that seemed to be contrary to broader practices within the family. For example, Ruth’s stepfather did not agree to her attending Guides and Adam did not receive sports equipment like his brothers. On other occasions, the family served as a catalyst to reproduce sporting interests. However, for a number of the focus group participants they were not able to work towards a comparable sporting habitus. This appeared to reinforce negative constructions of self in which the participants viewed themselves as not conforming to the sporting norms of their family (e.g. Adam failing to get into the school football team). In part, the social practices within these families may be an expression of non‐disabled norms within the family and were reflected through normative attitudes and responses of parents. In these contexts, and indeed, those related to participation in sport the focus group participants were continually negotiating relations and engaging in identity work from the position of a non‐disabled norm.

We found that all of the young people in this study actively engaged in the construction of their embodied identities through negotiation and the calculation of the risks of resistance. In other words, and notwithstanding the overt and explicit control many families exert over young disabled people, the social construction of the habitus was not a passively accepted process. Indeed, the young people in their focus group conversations displayed keen awareness and astute judgement about their own and their families’ lifestyles and the prospects for choice and self‐determination in specific situations. Some had accumulated physical and social capital that had transfer value outside the family, in sites such as school physical education, where the strength of embodied identity as, for example, a footballer was decisive in contesting what some of the boys saw as their unjust exclusion from a valued activity.

While the small sample provided a range of examples of the ways in which sport is or is not used by families in the construction of the habitus of young disabled people, we saw very little diversity in the constitution of the family groups themselves. Consistent with the literature, most seemed to conform to traditional generational and gender relations (Shaw, 2008). The boys in sporting families in particular identifying strongly with other male family members sought to legitimise their own position by expressing an interest, knowledge or achievement through active engagement in sport. Some fathers were ‘involved’ fathers (Tom’s and Robins’) and actively supported sporting interests. Similarly, some mothers performed caring and nurturing roles (Steve’s and Sam’s) in order to support leisure opportunities for their children.

There are those who suggest the family is no longer a significant arena in the lives of young people and instead other spheres such as peers are seen as more influential social spaces (Bromnick & Swallow, 1999; Postman, 1994). In contrast, it is argued that the family remains a significant arena, profoundly influencing the construction and constitution of embodied identities (Güneri, Sümer, & Yildirim, 1999; Simmons & Wade, 1987). Given that young disabled people spend much of their time in the company of family members (Anderson et al., 1982; Jobling et al., 2000) we believe this sphere of life must be explored if we are to make sense of the identity work of these young people within non‐disabled families. The study reported in this paper has begun to explore some intersections of disability, the family and sport and in doing so we have placed importance on the views and insights of 10 young disabled people. We believe this work illustrates the kinds of in‐depth insights that can be gained if young people are given opportunities to express their views within a research context.

Notes on contributor

Hayley Fitzgerald is a senior lecturer within the Carnegie Faculty of Sport and Education at Leeds Metropolitan University. She has worked in disability sport, and researches and teaches in this area.

David Kirk is the Alexander Chair in Physical Education and Sport within the School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences at the University of Bedfordshire. He has published widely on physical education and curriculum change and on youth sport.

Notes

1. We acknowledge that the international audience of the journal will have different expectations regarding the way in which we understand disability and disabled people. Given that this paper has been influenced by literature from British Disability Studies we believe it is important that we adopt the understanding of disability found within this field. This includes referring to ‘disabled people’ rather than ‘people with disabilities’. See for example, Barnes, Mercer, and Shakespeare (1999, p. 7). ‘We will avoid the phrase ‘people with disabilities’ because it implies that the impairment defines the identity of the individual, blurs the crucial conceptual distinction between impairment and disability and avoids the question of causality’. This understanding of disability is also accepted and used by the British Council for Disabled People (BCDP) and the Disabled Peoples International (DPI).