O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

A reflection on PostModernismand the transformation offailure in learning disabilityservices within theindependent public sector atthe beginning of the 21stCentury

Steve Day, Brandon Trust, Olympus House, Britannia Road, Patchway, Bristol BS34 5TA, UK

(E-mail: steveday@brandontrust.org)

Accessible summary Steve Day worked on a project with North Somerset People First for his Masters

degree. It was called Cutting Up Sharks. The title comes from the PostModernist

artist, Damien Hurst, who once gave an exhibition where he preserved cows which

had been cut in half. Mr Hurst did a similar thing with sharks, except they were kept

in one piece. As sharks are far more dangerous than cows, we decided to cut up the

sharks instead. We live in an unsafe world; nevertheless people with learning

disabilities seek inclusion.The Cutting Up Sharks project used people’s own

individual stories as research.We looked at what people mean by the words

success and failure. In today’s world, success can begin to look like failure, yet

sometimes failures often seem successful. In this sense, the right to take risks can

empower individuals, as well as groups of people, to transform their own

circumstances. Yet being equal and being included in a dangerous world means

that if we are truly citizens we are also truly targets.

Summary If ever there was a right time to write about Learning Disability Services in the

context of a transformation, this is it. I am not writing about the subject as a single

entity, divorced from the bigger picture of what is happening to society and the

world about us. Whatever ‘transforming’ is going on for people with learning

disability, it is doing so in the context of a global market place. The concept of

‘Cutting Up Sharks’ identifies danger as a by-product of inclusion. On the world’s

stage the news headlines have the same implications for us all. The change in the

construction and administration of both the National Health Service and Social

Services has, and is, having a profound effect on the lives of people with learning

disabilities. Those changes have come about, in part, due to a recognition of past

failures. I have worked in Learning Disability Services for 19 years, I have seen in

that time British society slowly, often painfully slowly, begin to recognize people

ª 2007 The Author

doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2006.00389.x Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 38–42

with learning disabilities amongst its population. In a PostModernist world

recognition is about visibility, which in turn makes people potential targets. The

‘Inclusion’ championed in ‘Valuing People’ brings with it a right to be recognized

and in so doing people with learning disabilities are included in a ‘general loss of

confidence within Western democratic culture’. (Butler 2002, p. 110) Inclusion

becomes not merely a question of service provision, it is also about bombs on buses,

famine and bird flu, global warming and fragile democracies. There is a creaking

door opening for people with learning disabilities, providing them recognition

within the PostModern construct of fragmented societies. I would contend that

against such a backdrop there is a real chance of the failure to meet the needs of

people with learning disabilities becoming transformed.

PostModernism & Learning Disability

Right now I am reading an extensive amount of Post-

Modernist material not because I believe it offers answers,

on the contrary, it contains a huge amount of ‘limitations

and distortions’ (Best & Kellner 1991, p. 275), yet it is this

very timeless cul-de-sac which reflects the modern world.

Are not limitations and distortions increasingly recogniz-

able everywhere? It is on such an uncomfortable basis that I

write this shark infested article.

So I pose the question, how deep is the ocean of

PostModernity? How far down do we have to go to find

our Sharks? In my view holding our breath would not help;

the descent to the bottom is too far to make a difference. For

Ulrich Beck the current social, and therefore political land-

scape, is awash with risk. There is a depth of danger so

apparently unfathomable that to write off the implications of

the manipulated map of current Western power games

merely because of an antipathy to certain (or uncertain)

academic labels becomes itself a risk. For example, America’s

policy towards people detained at Guantanamo Bay is a kind

of PostModern ‘freedom’. Beck talks about a ‘concept of

‘‘organized irresponsibility‘‘’ which he claims, ‘helps to

explain how and why the institutions of modern society

must unavoidably acknowledge the reality of catastrophe

while simultaneously denying its existence’ (Beck 2000, p.

224). Beck published that statement in 2000, before the 9/11

terrorist attack in Manhattan plunged the world into even

deeper waters. He was able to write so authoritatively

because the terrible ‘catastrophe’ that was 9/11 was actually

part of a much larger catastrophe already starkly apparent

yet nevertheless simultaneously denied. In Perry Anderson’s

(1998) book, The Origins of Postmodernity, there is reference

to ‘the emergence of humiliated minorities’ and the link to

‘power, desire, identity and the body, without whose

inspiration no radical politics is henceforth thinkable’

(Anderson 1998, p. 116). It is as if no one were listening, or

at least people were so far down in the deep murky ocean

that they could not hear or see what was going on.

The great writer and educator, the late Edward Said,

wrote in 2003 a new preface to his classic treatise, ‘Orien-

talism. Said was no advocate of PostModernism; he has

described himself as both a humanist and a historian, and is

essentially a rationalist, however in his post-9/11 preface

Edward Said stated that ‘modernity, enlightenment and

democracy are by no means simple and agreed-upon

concepts? (Said 2003, p. xiv). In such a context he went on

to make the following statement: ‘Reflection, debate,

rational argument, moral principle based on a secular

notion that human beings must create their own history,

have been replaced by abstract ideas that celebrate Ameri-

can or Western exceptionalism, denigrate the relevance of

context, and regard other cultures with derisive contempt’

(Said 2003, p. xx). It is a stunning single Said sentence.

I do not pretend for one moment that Edward Said, in the

face of global fragmentation caused by Western failings,

abandoned optimistic humanism for Perry Anderson’s

‘ideological ambivalence of the postmodern’ (Anderson

1998, p. 116), however, I do consider it illustrates the depth

of deferred despair currently experienced by so many people

across the East and West. If anyone ever wrote for humanity

as a whole it was Said and, just prior to his own death, it was

the ‘derisive contempt’ of Western leaders that he saw as

dehumanizing. At such a time, at such a place, people with

learning disabilities demand to enter the world stage.

The word ‘dehumanizing’ has terrible implications, Said

states, ‘the language of (the) war is dehumanizing in the

extreme’ (Said 2003, p. xx). That is indeed part of our deep

ocean, but for people with learning disabilities, ‘dehuman-

izing’ is a known phenomenon which needs no war to bring

about its usage. This is an ugly thing lying at the bottom of

the ocean. Imbeciles, idiots, mentally retarded, spastics,

stupid, nutters, gonzoids, and brain dead; the list of twisted

denigration which makes up the pass-words of dehuman-

izing people with a cognitive impairment is much longer

than the few examples presented here. The meaning behind

such language is itself testament to the failure of services

and society to connect in relation to disability.

Cutting Up Sharks 39

ª 2007 The Author

Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 38–42

Failure

Marian Corker and Tom Shakespeare (Kings College Lon-

don and the University of Newcastle respectively) who

edited the book, ‘Disability/Postmodernity’ are very speci-

fic about the context in which they place the PostModernist

debate: ‘Globalization, new communication technologies,

the collapse of Communism, the techno-industrialization of

war, the privatization of public resources, the advent of

universal consumerism, these are only a few of the

profound institutional transformations which have taken

place at all levels of the economic, social and political

system’ (Corker & Shakespeare 2002, p. 1). The italics are my

own, and although the sub-title of this article was conceived

prior to reading Corker and Shakespeare, there is none-

theless an obvious resonance between the two. The

transformation of the privatization of public resources (in

the case of Cutting Up Sharks, for people with learning

disabilities) is part of a bigger, ambiguous, global, social,

cultural and political transition. It is the deep ocean of

PostModernity.

The second implication concerning disability and Post-

Modernism is to do with grappling with the central core

concern of current disability theory, that of the social model

of disability (precis: people are ‘disabled’ by society not by

their impairment) and how this relates to an understanding

of PostModernity. ‘Disability and impairment have been

largely excluded from mainstream postmodern analysis and

this analysis has so far failed to impact significantly on how

we perceive, think about…impairment in the twenty-first

century. In British disability studies, ‘‘postmodernism’’ has

become a dumping ground for anything and everything that

appears to challenge the orthodoxy of neo-Marxism, histor-

ical materialism and the social model. The assumption…is

that this failure to engage with…postmodernist thought is

to the detriment of disability studies’ (Corker & Shakespeare

2002, p. 13). In this overview of PostModernism it is easy for

the inherent ambiguity of the concept to simply become ‘a

dumping ground’ for doubt, danger and disagreement. The

irony is that such a definition is one that PostModernist

writers might find quite acceptable, as Bauman puts it, part

of ‘the character of modern culture (is that) the cul-

ture…feels truly at home only in its homelessness (Bauman

1998, p. 29). Such a scenario results in a tempting arena for

learning disability advocates to equate the disenfranchise-

ment of people with learning disabilities and the stark

‘homelessness’ of PostModernity as common ground. There

is a relationship for sure, but there is no neat fit and they are

not one and same thing. A couple of years ago I wrote a

short article for the Polish Saxophonist, Frank Gratkowski:

‘The desire to be modern and the desire to be free are a

fascinating phenomenon. These are ideas about the self

and individuality, about the difference between perception

and reality, about spontaneity and premeditation, about

acknowledging the crowded place and a wish to speak with

an independent voice, at the same time realising that the

mass has no real voice’ (Day 2004, p. 2). Those words were

written about music, but they resonate for anyone disen-

franchised by our tabloid-too-full society.

This then is the deep ocean which provides the context for

Cutting Up Sharks. An uneasy and remote world, both ‘a

dumping ground’ yet a landscape so ambiguous it allows

for the possibilities of renewal provided the participants are

prepared to contemplate and live with risk. From the

comfort of my own circumstances I read and listen to the

daily news; take in the tragedy of the global village. Just

when we feel we might have found a place to call home it is

taken from us. I for one wish that it were different, but since

when did wishing have anything to do with it?

Transformation

The transformation of failure does not necessarily have to

involve success. Transformation is a continuum; there are

many points along the line. It does not have to be one or the

other, in reality success is not always waiting at the end of

the line. Transformation indicates change not necessarily

change into the opposite.

There is a Western optimism about thinking that if you

travel far enough you will eventually get to where you want

to go. It is a Western illusion. Nevertheless, the very act of

travelling confirms there will be a transforming element to

the activity. When a colleague made a comment to me about

a story he had told me, not being a ‘transformation’ but

merely a ‘cultural adjustment’, he was actually talking about

a person’s behaviour having changed as a result of moving

from a long stay hospital into the community. Initially at

least, the change did not appear to be ‘successful’ however,

it was still change. In this particular story, my colleague

described a number of positive outcomes (drawing, walk-

ing, travelling to Ireland). A failure was transformed into

something different and perhaps the best way of describing

that difference is the Valuing People concept of ‘inclusion’.

The crux of modernity’s failure in the lives of people with

learning disabilities is that they were not included, the

PostModern transformation is that they are included in the

ambiguity of meaning. John Hassard states, ‘In postmodern

thought…energies are released that demand reunification

yet assert its impossibility’ (Hassard 1999, p. 2). In my

colleague’s story, biro pens were used to produce drawings,

yet they were also continually dismantled by the artist. Any

success in the situation was bound up in the fact that this

person’s support workers eventually realized that it was just

as valid for a person to dismantle pens as it was to draw

with them.

One of the key features of Valuing People, is the

promotion of Person Centred Planning. It is not only a

systemic approach to enabling people with learning

40 S. Day

ª 2007 The Author

Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 38–42

disabilities to be central to their own life choices it also

represents a strong value base. Read any of John O’Brien’s

writing (a man who seems to have become transformed into a

virtual learning disabilities saint!) and the sense of his

sensibilities is palpable: ‘Seeing people first rather than

relating to diagnostic labels. Using ordinary language and

images rather than professional jargon. Actively searching

for a person’s gifts and capacities in the context of

community life’ (O’Brien & O’Brien 2002, p. 29). These are

‘good’ statements yet, I am uneasy, not with O’Brien’s

central ‘centred’ message, but with the undercurrent. When

O’Brien refers to, ‘gifts and capacities in the context of

community life’ I am immediately referencing Ulrich Beck’s

book, Risk Society (1992) and Zygmunt Bauman’s Discon-

tents (1997) and Noam Chomsky’s increasing loud criticism

of American social and foreign policy (1995). O’Brien argues

for fairness in a community, in a world, that is unfair – we

will ‘build communities of practice able to create knowledge

and skills relevant to today’s opportunities’ (O’Brien &

O’Brien 2002, p. 27). It is a context in which ‘community life’

itself requires radical transformation; it asks no less than the

sharks be cut up rather than left to inherit the oceans. I

would say to John O’Brien, it is going to be a messy

business.

The concept of Cutting Up Sharks began with an idea

about the transformation of learning disabilities services; the

independent sector substituting for the past failures of the

statutory agencies. This was where I started, in a PostMod-

ernist sea of sharks hungry to recognize and devour

disability alongside the myriad other inhabitants of the

ocean. However, as I began to listen to the stories given to

me by individuals from North Somerset People First, as well

as stories from my peers, I found myself much more

engaged by the Independent Individuals rather than the

Independent Sector. And not one independent individual,

but a mass of independent people with learning disabilities.

And this independence does not result from the right to be

independent (Amnesty International exists precisely be-

cause such a ‘right’ is constantly and systematically being

abused across continents) but from the individualism that is

PostModernism. A crowded place populated by people who

carry something or other, different labels, agendas and

descriptions, yet who are all essentially competing for their

independence and a place they can call home. Maybe the

independent sector mirrors the independent individual

within an indeterminate long term PostModern future.

The writer Simon Duffy has produced a useful manual

calling for people with learning disabilities to become person

centred citizens. If he had written such a book even 10 years

ago it would have been regarded as dreams from a dreamer.

Today there is transformation, but not without an undercur-

rent. I quote two passages from Duffy’s book. ‘I am not a

stereotype. If you want to give me advice about how I should

live you need to know who I am for real, not just in terms of

your stereotype about me. What is more, you need to make

sure that you don’t deprive me of the chance to make my own

decisions’ (Duffy 2003, p. 1). ‘Citizenship not only dies when

individuals are subjected to oppression and abuse; citizen-

ship also dies when nobody has anything to offer each other

and no need for each other’ (Duffy 2003, p. 153). For example,

Direct Payments initially appear like a more inclusive method

of procuring services; however some people might argue that

they look increasingly like the bait on the end of a fishing line.

And we all know what happens to fish that take to the hook.

Simon Duffy’s book is essentially about the practical steps

required by people with learning disabilities and their

supporters to move from oppression to full citizenship, yet

for all the positive, pragmatic applications of citizenship

Duffy cannot help but hint at the reality of the fragmented

society.

In my view the PostModernist transformation rests on

what Duffy refers to as the ‘need for each other’. At the

beginning of 2004, when I began writing in the shadow of

the Madrid bombings, I was haunted by the notion that the

bombers needed casualties and they did not bother to ask

who the casualties were – any old citizen would do. Simon

Duffy exerts his right to be treated as an individual not a

stereotype. He is correct to do so, but the irony is that as a

person becomes independent he or she also joins the crowd.

People with learning disabilities now have the opportunity

to be seen as equal citizens, illustrated by the kinds of

transformation depicted in Duffy’s book and the stories I

recorded within the Cutting Up Sharks project with North

Somerset People First. Equality of citizenship means they

too have now become hostages to fortune.

‘There are those who say that ‘understanding’ is merely

the sum total of our misunderstandings, and while I do find

this view interesting in its own way, I am afraid that we

have no time to spare on pleasant digressions’ (Murakami

2003, p. 85). So speaks Frog in Haruki Murakami’s short

story Super-Frog Saves Tokyo. It imperfectly sums up my

understanding of the concepts discussed in this article; an

inexact, dangerous ambiguous science which not only

draws its (mis)understanding from Social Science research,

but also from Arts, literature, politics and common parlance.

This is not a ‘pleasant digression’, rather a serious study of

people with learning disabilities and the services that

surround them. Yet such a subject is often seen as digres-

sion, a cul-de-sac off the mainstream of voices clamouring to

be heard. Wait no more. Cut.

References

Anderson P. (1998) The Origins of Postmodernity. Verso, 78–137.

Bauman Z. (1997) Postmodernity and its discontents. Polity Press: 17–34.

Bauman Z. (1998) Parvenu and Pariah. In: Good J., Velody I.,

editors. The politics of postmodernity. Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press: 23–35.

Cutting Up Sharks 41

ª 2007 The Author

Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 38–42

Beck U. (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. London, Sage.

Beck U. (2000) Risk society revisited. In: Adam B., Beck U., Loon J.,

editors. The risk society and beyond, London, Sage: 211–29.

Best S. & Kellner D. (1991) Postmodern theory: critical interrogations.

Basingstoke, MacMillan, p. 275.

Butler C. (2002) Postmodernism: a very short introduction. Oxford,

Oxford University Press: 1–127.

Chomsky N. (1995) Rationality/science, Z Papers Special Issue.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1995, 1–8.

Corker M. & Shakespeare T. (2002) Mapping the terrain, from

disability/postmodernity. London, Continuum, 17.

Day S. (2004) For Facio, frank gratkowski quartet. Facio, Leo Records:

1–2.

Duffy S. (2003) Keys to citizenship, a guide to getting good support

services for people with learning difficulties. Birkenhead, Paradigm:

1–153.

Hassard J. (1999) Postmodernism and Organisational Analysis. In:

Hassard J., Parker M., editors. Postmodernism and organizations.

London, Sage: 1–23.

Murakami H. (2003) Super-frog saves Tokyo. Vintage, After The

Quake: 82–102.

O’Brien J., & O’Brien C.L. (2002) Implementing person-centred plan-

ning – voices of experience. Toronto, Inclusion Press: 25–53.

Said E. (2003) Preface from (1978). Routledge & Kegan Paul,

Orientalism: xi–xxiii.

42 S. Day

ª 2007 The Author

Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 38–42