Radio, Disability, Gender and Beauty: A New History

The gift of a friend's old iPod has helped me to continue my adventure into the amazing world of learning-by-radio. There are so many fantastic programs out there to listen to, from the jazz sessions on Fip Radio, to the great stories of The Moth and, of course, the wealth of material provided by the BBC. Local radio too can provide stimulating topics for discussion as well as a broad range of new music to listen to, both of which can be found, for example, on Southampton's Unity 101 radio station. And the portability the newly acquired iPod (or 'iThing' as I like to think of it when I get confused between all the myriad iProducts available) has, of course, made such joys all the more accessible.

Being somewhat of a 'Maven' as Malcolm Gladwell uses the term in The Tipping Point there will no doubt appear on this blog a page devoted to radio programs that I have discovered and that I think everyone should listen to, their being either particularly edifying or entertaining. However, there is one series in particular that has taught me so much in its ten short episodes (little more than an hour and a half of total listening time) that I think it deserves a complete discussion of its own.

Disability: A New History may not at first seem an obvious choice for a blog whose theme is that of celebrating the successes of under-publicised women throughout history. Although there are many similarities and cross-overs between the marginalisation of groups based on any feature including gender or disability or even ethnicity, sexuality, age or wealth, I do not wish to 'lump together' all such issues; to reduce each case to a single, interchangeable concept would be to vastly underestimate the complexity of discrimination in society today. However, not only has this fantastic radio show introduced me to several inspiring women (particularly Adele Husson and Hippolyte van Lendegem in episode 10), about whom I shall hopefully start reading soon, but it has also provided much food for thought on many topics, not only those such as disability identity but also gender identity, the concepts of 'beauty' and 'body image' and, in particular, the progress of society.

My realisations about the last point in particular have been particularly relevant; and positive. By examining first-hand accounts of people from the 18th century onwards (sometimes earlier) a picture of the progress of society and its attitude is painted - and it's not as straight forward as we may imagine. It is easy to assume (as, indeed, I have done) that the majority of cultures throughout the world, though by no means all of them, tended towards the dominance of a particular social group; that, in the past, that dominance, synonymous with the marginalisation of all other social groups, was almost impossible to go against; and that we have been making slow but constant progress ever since towards a more equal, a more 'politically correct', society. Peter White, presenter of Disability: A New History, shows us that this is not, in fact, the case - and I draw hope from this, as I will discuss in my closing comments. But first, here is some of the eye-opening History that A New History has taught me.

In the middle ages roughly 60-65% of the population were thought to have some form of 'disability'. (I admit to using this as a vague an open-ended blanket term throughout this article.) So although certain religions, in particular Christianity, taught notions such as that a disabled child was the result of the sin of the parents and that the disability could be cured by touching a sacred relic, the majority of people were getting on with their lives and taking little or no notice of such ideas (as discussed in episode 2). 'Freak shows' and entrepreneurs who used their disability to their advantage were originally seen not as demeaning but as an exploration and an appreciation of the variety found in nature through which the performers were adults in full control of their lives, earning a substantial living - though this, inevitably, did not continue to be the case. (See episode 3.) 

It was not until the late 18th and early 19th centuries that a wide-spread attitude of pity and of out-casting anyone not of the 'norm' truly took form. Interestingly, this 'norm' was, for some reason, taken to be that of a healthy, young male and so even by being a women you were, at the end of the day, considered to be 'disabled' and therefore an imperfect human.

Much of the (relatively speaking) open-mindedness and healthy, tolerant approach to society seen in the 18th century, and in particular in the UK, may be connected to the secularism of that period, as discussed in another thought-provoking radio documentary, BBC Radio 3's Free Thinking. As is also discussed in this particular episode, the 19th century saw a great return to religion and superstition at their most intolerant infiltrating every corner of people's lives. Rationality was not immune to this and, unusually, it was the developments in science, which we are so used to associating with sociological as much as technological progress, that drove this change. It was then the current scientific reasoning (published in many peer-reviewed journals) that the appearance of the body outside reflected the state of the body inside, both medically and morally. And, in this new environment, the well-being of a person's 'immortal soul' was given as much consideration as their physical health.

It is from this that our obsession with 'beauty', as now defined so narrowly by society, was also derived. Until then, beauty was obviously appreciated, but society was not so restrictive in what it accepted as 'beautiful', nor were the consequences of being considered 'unbeautiful' so great. The beginnings of the fashion industry are well known to have taken form in this era but it was on listening to this documentary (which addresses the subjects of beauty an deformity in episode 4) that it dawned on me that the importance of showing utter obedience to it begun here too. Given the undisputedly wide-ranging impact this has had on the marginalisation of many groups in society, but particularly on women, this is another example of how the progress discussed earlier does not - and has not - taken a direct route but rather wriggles back and forth. 

And I maintain that this is indeed a hopeful message to draw for everyone who has suffered any form of marginalisation or negative discrimination. It is often easier to think, when bombarded from all sides by arguments often from otherwise logically-minded and forward-thinking people and organisations, that, in terms of equality, this is as good as it gets; that we have crawled from the middle ages into an enlightened society which doesn't deny the capability of, for example, women to be great scientists, non-white-middle class people to lead nations as politicians and people over 30 to pioneer the computing industry - but it doesn't especially expect these things to happen either, would only support them at a push and wouldn't be that bothered if they didn't. It is easy to slip into the mentality that the lack of representation of minority groups is no longer due to centuries of discrimination - because, in the UK at least, such discrimination is now illegal an therefore 'does not exist' - but is rather due to the lack of enthusiasm or natural tendency towards various endeavours of those that fall into such categories. It is so easy to accept society as it stands rather than ruffle feathers and challenge it to change, assuming that all the progress that will ever be made has been made already.

But the lessons I have learnt from Disability: A New History suggest otherwise. Progress towards equality is not direct but, for want of a better word, wiggly. We moved naturally forward several steps in the 18th century but then many steps backwards a hundred years later. So this is not 'it'; we can do better. There are still many steps to take but with the increased accessibility of educational material - on the radio or otherwise - it must surely drive the majority of them forwards rather than backwards.