Exploring autonomy and identity: what is disability anyway?
According to the UK government, more than 16million UK citizens are disabled. One in four – more of us than ever before – are disabled. Nearly half of all NEETS are classified as disabled – more than double the rate in 2011. The number of working-age people claiming disability benefits is rising faster than the estimated disabled population itself.
What do we mean by the term ‘disability’ in 2026? Rather than the explosion of those labelled disabled reflecting for example a huge increase in cerebral palsy, MS or serious physical impairment, the surge is largely driven by the more subjective end of any definition. The increase largely relates to health conditions without a biological test, such as ADHD and autism. And if, historically, the likelihood of disability increases with age, today the number of 16– to 24-year-olds categorised as disabled has nearly doubled in 10 years. Again, this is largely down to mental health and neurodevelopment conditions.
If in the past, the instinct for many disabled people was to reject the label – keen to be judged on the same, equal terms as everyone else – now that label is a desired commodity. Waiting lists for autism/ADHD assessments have risen 15-fold since 2020 and critics worry that perverse systemic incentives are encouraging the young to embrace disability (and in turn, dependency) as an identity.
The UK already spends more on health and disability benefits than defence by some considerable margin. Meanwhile the disability label removes the expectation that the unemployed should seek work or allows schools to tolerate persistent absence. Yet with disability becoming an ever-expanding subjective label, the actual material needs of disabled people can be drowned out.
Insightful Disability – the UK’s disability-led intelligence infrastructure organisation – wants to change the quality, tone and seriousness of public debate around disability, stating: ‘What disabled people need is greater support to live well, plan for the future, and participate fully in society.’ It’s aim, in contrast to a fashionable dependency culture which encourages many people to organise their life around incapacity, is that ‘disabled people should be able to participate fully — through family, community, creativity, work and democracy’ and rightly asks how the government can make major decisions about public services, employment, care and economic growth without a clear, evidence-based understanding of what needs to change for disabled people.
Changes are needed, ensuring disabled people can participate equally in society based on targeted resource allocation. How can we bolster opportunities for improved healthcare and social care non-clinical support? How best to support employers in their recruitment (and retention) of talented disabled staff into meaningful occupations? How can we strengthen connections with families, friends and partners in order to build systems that better promote these connections holistically? And how do confusions over definitions hinder such important changes?