Real lives on the wall: disabled people use public murals to convey the reality of their lives in the UK

In 2008 Rebecca Yeo, a researcher for the UK Disability People’s Council, and artist Andrew Bolton set out to conduct an action research project in which disabled people would imaginatively engage with the personalisation agenda using a community art approach. Findings would be collated and disseminated through a series of public murals. Yeo and Bolton proposed that using community art as a research tool would allow people to think ‘beyond their own experiences and immediate ideas, promoting deeper consideration of individual and group priorities’ (79). In turn, this would allow those taking part to meet the challenge of the changes personalisation would bring to their lives and make the most of the increased choice and control it promised. Further, the dissemination of their messages through murals would allow participants to ‘claim a public space in which to communicate’ (back cover), fostering dialogue with their communities.

However, during the research, changes in government spending were to significantly compromise the realisation of personalisation in social care. These material effects were also accompanied by an increase in negative media portrayals of disabled people (Briant, Watson, and Philo 2011) and a significant increase in disability hate crime figures (The Guardian 2012). The project was thus adapted to collect and share disabled people’s lived experiences ‘in the context of personalisation and cuts’ (15). In an increasingly hostile culture of representation around disability and welfare, the murals were positioned to represent the ‘reality’ of disabled people’s lives as a way of addressing media and government myth.

Real Lives on the Wall is a timely contribution to our understanding of the impact of current government cuts to public spending in the lives of British disabled people. The research findings robustly state that personalisation is unrealisable in the context of cuts to public spending. Increase in choice of services is central to the ethos of personalisation and yet many services have closed down due to a lack of funds. Furthermore, participants reported that their ability to choose is seriously compromised by inaccessible housing, regular dispersal, inaccessible transport (or lack thereof), financial destitution, social isolation and living in constant fear. The report provides in-depth discussion of these factors through the words of participants. These show that many disabled people are experiencing a grim reality in the context of the cuts. The report offers a nuanced account of how particular policies, services and identities/situations work in complex ways to make life increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for disabled people. Some participants were keen to convey this message in positive terms: ‘the world is my oyster as long as I get the right services’ (61). However, overall it is clear that the majority of participants are still not able to access the ‘right services’ to open up that world of possibilities.

Of particular note are the findings concerning the distinct experiences of disabled asylum seekers. As Yeo and Bolton point out, disabled asylum seekers do not have the same rights as British disabled people due to ‘a reservation excluding immigration functions’ (71) added to the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled people by the British government when ratified in 2009. This means that they are not entitled to extra financial support for living with impairment, nor are they allowed to access services for support. The limited offering of local-authority Community Care is rarely made accessible and information is often withheld or wrong. Lack of understanding about refugees and disability extended to one member of a social services team claiming that there were no disabled asylum seekers in the United Kingdom because ‘the journey would be too hard’ (74). Yeo and Bolton argue that this lack of understanding arises from deeply entrenched social segregation that means disabled asylum seekers are invisible in public life. It is not only state and social services that reproduce this segregation, but also disabled people’s organisations. In their recommendations, Yeo and Bolton advocate for action that reflects the diversity of disabled people. In particular, they argue that this would strengthen the possibility of addressing issues such as the bedroom tax, which was first implemented for asylum seekers, before being rolled out across the wider population.

The strength of this study is that it was designed to provide space for the diversity of disabled peoples’ experiences to be expressed, whilst also highlighting commonalities. In his discussion of community art, Grant H. Kester asks: ‘How do we form collective or community identities without scapegoating those who are excluded from them? Is it possible to develop a cross-cultural dialogue without sacrificing the unique identities of individual speakers?’ (2004, 8). This research practically explores the possibilities of cross-cultural dialogue that still respects the individuality of participants. This intersectional approach has gathered important information about the situation of disabled asylum seekers and ex-servicemen who face particular hardships and lack of support. The design of the murals is a particularly strong example of how to disseminate the diversity of experiences and messages to be conveyed from a research project. I highly recommend Real Lives on the Wall for policy-makers, disability and refugee organisations, community artists, and scholars working in disability studies, migrancy and citizenship studies, and the social sciences in general. Those interested in viewing the murals should visit the project’s website.¹ You can also watch video interviews with participants and partner organisations through this website.

Brigit McWade
Lancaster University, UK
[email protected]
© 2014, Brigit McWade
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.919173

Notes

1. See www.disabilitymurals.org.uk.