apaq vol14 · pdf file · 2007-11-12differences between male and female bodies, ......

VIEWPOINT ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 1997,14,8-23 O 1997 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Gender and Disability Sport Participation: Setting a Sociological Research Agenda

Tarja Kolkka and Trevor Williams Loughborough University

The aim of this paper is to introduce a sociological research agenda on gender in the context of disability sport participation. This is done in three parts. In the first part, there is an examination of the differences between the biological and social conceptions of "sexlgender" and "impairmentldisability." In the second part, we offer a critique of the research on gender and disability sport. The point is made that there has been very little consideration of how gender structures the experiences of disability sport participation. There is a need for a more sophisticated theoretical foundation, different theoretical perspectives, and different approaches, and for alternative research designs to increase our knowledge about gender, disability, and sport participation. These are offered, in the third part, in a suggested sociological research agenda focusing on socialization and gender roles, social differentiation and stratification, and life chances.

Gender is an important sociological concept for researchers who wish to contribute to an understanding of disability sport. Very few research studies have focused specifically on the influence of gender in the disability sport context, although it must be said that the importance of the concept has been recognized more in recent years (DePauw, 1994; Shemll, 1993b). In many cases, though, the research is atheoretical and follows a general asociological approach prevalent in much of the social science research in adapted physical activity (cf. Williams, 1994b). However, there is a cer- tain inevitability about this because little theory has been completed with respect to gender and disability per se that can guide research efforts in disability sport. In this paper we attempt to pull together some of the relevant ideas that can be found in the literature on gender, disability, and sport.

The purpose is to examine the concept of gender in the context of disability sport participation so that research can proceed on a more informed theoretical basis. The examination has three parts: in the first part, we discuss briefly the social production of gender and disability; in the second part, we consider illustra- tive research on gender and disability sport; and in the third part, we suggest a

Tarja KolM<a and Trevor Williams are both with the Department of Physical Educa- tion, Sports Science, and Recreation Management at Loughborough University, Loughborough LEI I 3TU UK.

Gender and Disability Sport Participation 9

sociological research agenda with particular emphasis on socialization, role differentiation, stratification, and life chances.

The Social Production of Gender and Disability

The sociological use of gender and disability is based on the recognition that their referents are social. Such recognition begins by differentiating them from the biological terms with which they are often simply confused and by looking at the importance of social context. Let us start, then, by examining the differences between the biological and social conceptions of "sex" and "gender." According to Oakley (1972, p. 16), "sex" is the biological differences between male and female: the visible difference in genitalia, the related difference in productive function. "Gender," however, is a matter of culture: it refers to the social classification into "masculine" and "feminine." In this definition, the genetically determined and universal contents of the biological "male" and "female" terms differ markedly from the culturally determined content of "masculine" and "feminine."

However, while sex and gender have been clearly distinguished in this way since the early 1970s, the distinction has become increasingly problematic in recent years. On the one hand, gender can be seen "as a social dichotomy determined by a natural dichotomy" (Delphy 1993, p. 3), and this raises the question of whether gender is independent of sex. Sex is not only a signifier of physiological differences between male and female bodies, but it also is a sign which is consti- tuted in and through gender. In other words, sex, sexuality, and the body become experienced and comprehensible through social practices and processes (Acker, 1992). The point, then, is not that there is a technical difference between "sex" and "gender," but that they are linked empirically. Therefore, this paper (like most sociological literature) will use the term gender to denote the complex interaction between sex and gender that comprises the empirical link.

Another important problem, and one which gender shares with disability, is the assumption of homogeneity. The use of gender should highlight the differences not only between men and women, but also within women as well as within men (e.g., Acker, 1992; Messner, 1990). Highlighting individual differences should advance considerations of such important social categories as class, ethnicity, age, disability, and so on (Acker 1992). This is important, of course, because the absence of perceived differences is most marked when collections of individuals are cast as an homogenous group and pejorative stereotyping results as an inevitable consequence. Instead of an exclusive and restrictive focus on gender as a dichoto- mous category of male and female, we need to consider the myriad social processes that affect individual differences in the gender relations of people with disabilities.

We can see similar complexities in the biological and social differences between the concepts "impairment" and "disability." Impairment is generally perceived as "any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function" (World Health Organization [WHO], 1980) and this has clear biological meanings. Disability, however, is extremely problematic. Some definitions, such as that of the WHO (1980), focus on "any restriction or lack, resulting from an impairment, of ability to perform an activity within the range considered normal for a human being." Whereas this definition recognizes the cultural relativity of disability, in using the concept "normal," a number of writers

10 Kolkka and Williams

have argued that it fails to shake off notions of medical pathology and a reduction to the functional limitations of individuals (e.g., Abberley, 1992; Oliver, 1990). Other definitions, however, recognize the importance of structural features and social forces within society as well as cultural relativity. We will use this approach to differentiate the sociological characteristics of the term "disability" as:

the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities. (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1976, pp. 3-4)

Clearly, this definition addresses the notion that "disability" is socially constructed. However, the sharp distinction between "impairment" and "disability" is as problematic as that between "sex" and "gender." According to Morris (1993b) and French (1993), for example, the experience of illness, pain, and the frailty of the human body is to experience disability in every day life. Feminists with disabilities are calling for a much more personal approach to the models of disability and a move to a better understanding of the subjective reality of disability. This kind of approach and the discussions it evokes are only now beginning to spark serious evaluations of the contents and empirical relations between impairment, felt experiences, and disability in the literature.

Two aspects of the social bases of both gender and disability are important to recognize. First, there is a differentiation by sex in the nature of impairment that appears to vary across and within societies. For example, more women have impairments than men in the United Kingdom and this is due, in part, to the greater longevity of women and, in part, because the prevalence rate of impairment in- creases with age (Londsdale, 1990; Morris, 1993b). As a result of these epidemio- logical differences, one would expect that the concrete experiences of impairment varies by gender in significant ways (Londsdale, 1990).

Second, the meanings which attach to gender and disability are culturally relative (i.e., they differ from one social context to another depending on material and social conditions). The meanings placed on masculini(ty)ies and femininit(y)ies as well as those placed to various impairments, both together and separately, are specific to the culture (or subculture) and society (or subsociety) in which the individual is located. In summary, gender and disability are ideologically constructed within varying social contexts.

Critiques of Gender and Disability Sport Research

Two general approaches usually guide the study of gender in the varying contexts of disability sport. The first, and by far the most common, has been to include gender as a variable in empirical studies of disability sport participation and socialization into disability sport. These have included, for example, studies by Brasile, Kleiber, and Hamisch (1991); Stewart, Robinson, and McCarthy (1991); Grimes and French (1987); Sherrill and Rainbolt (1986); Dickinson and Perkins (1985); Hopper (1982); Sherrill, Pope, and Arnhold (1986); and Watkinson and Calzonetti (1989). These studies and others show quite clearly that while people with disabilities participate considerably less in sports compared to nondisabled individuals of the same sex, social class, age group, and so on (Williams, 1994b), differences


are evident in the participation of males and females. In the United States, for example, there are noticeably more male than female members in different disability sport organizations (Grimes & French, 1987, p. 26), and women are vastly underrepresented in the samples of most studies of disability sport participation (e.g., Brasile, Kleiber, & Hamisch, 1991; Sherrill & Rainbolt, 1986; Stewart, Robinson, & McCarthy, 1991). Moreover, it is not uncommon elsewhere to cancel some women's events in the Paralympic Games because of a lack of participants (Sherrill, 1993b).

On the other hand, very few significant differences have been found when sex has been as a demographic variable in studies of disability sport socialization (Williams, 1994a). For example, Dickinson and Perkins (1985) reported that the mother is more important in the initial participation of women athletes than that of men, who cited other athletes as the primary introductory sport socialization agents. Sherrill, Pope, and Amhold (1986) noted in their study of athletes with visual impairments that females tended to be younger than 20 years, had congenital blindness, and had been educated in residential schools, whereas males tended to be older than 20 years, and had been educated in public schools. Moreover, the proportion of males with congenital and acquired visual impairments was fairly equal.

In most studies that include gender references, however, gender has not been examined directly. Typically, gender has been correlated with participation. Cross section research designs and data collected by questionnaires are used to identify the ways that participation by females is similar to and different from that of males. Sex differences are highlighted, but the results are generalized to women. Many authors then account for these differentiations by pointing to a lack of appropriate programs, equipment, and facilities; a lack of involvement and training in sports as children; inadequate coaching; and a lack of role models in sports for women (e.g., Dickinson & Perkins, 1985; Floyd, 1987; Grimes & French, 1987; Thierfeld & Gibbons, 1986). These explanations are made in the absence of data in the same studies on programs, equipment, etc., but they are persuasive only because of an unstated claim to a causal relation. The assumption is that because women do not participate as much as men, then they must have been, and are, disadvantaged as a consequence of being women. There is no mention, though, of what it means to be a women or a man with a disability and exactly how that structures sport participation or socialization. Links are usually not made to gender.

The second approach has been to ignore men and to focus entirely on women and their participation in sport and other forms of exercise. The starting point of this approach is the a priori recognition of differential sport participation and a motivation to account for the evident underrepresentation of women in that context. Research projects that use this approach are relatively few, but they are much closer to using gender and disability as sociological concepts than studies using the other approach. For example, with this approach Watkinson and Calzonetti (1989) found that participation in physical activities among Canadian women with disabilities tends to take place in settings that are not competitive or orga- nized. They point to an experience that leads to the construction of a markedly different identity for many women with disabilities. This is a set of experiences that has been reported in other research conducted-for example, by Bramley, Van Kraayenoord, and Elkins (1990) in Australia; and Morris (1989) in the UK- in which the identity of women with disabilities does not appear to include sport


participation. Only a few of the young women in Bramley et al.'s (1990) study saw sport as an important area of theirlives; and very few, therefore, participated in sports activities outside school. Women undergoing rehabilitation in spinal in- jury units in Moms' (1989) study, moreover, rejected sport outright because they said it cultivated competitive attitudes. The analysis of women's biographies in this context is recent, but very important because it helps to shed light on how disability sport may be influenced by gender. The introduction of feminist theory into disability sport warrants consideration.

The importance of feminist theory to the study of gender in disability sport has been brought to the attention of researchers by DePauw (1994) and Sherrill (1993a, 1993b). DePauw (1994) noted the omission of a women's perspective in disability sport research and offered a very persuasive argument for the use of feminism-first, as a theoretical approach to the study of gender in disability sport and, second, as an approach that challenges all forms of oppression (DePauw, 1994). Such an argument appeals to the practical experience of many people with disabilities, but we should note that the application of feminism, both in the general disability context and in the context of disability sport research, is fraught with considerable difficulties. As Begum (1992), Morris (1993a), and Shenill(1993b) have pointed out, the practice of feminist research at the present time is oppressive for women with disabilities because the feminist paradigms and theories on which it is based have omitted any consideration of women with disabilities and they offer research tools that are inappropriate in this context.

Grounding theory in the everyday experiences of men and women is of ut- most importance, but writers in both the feminist and disability studies literature have been very selective in those themes they highlight and those they keep hidden. Feminist writing, for example, has ignored the importance of disability to many women. According to Morris (1993a), the literature is based on general cultural definitions of disability that ignore completely the lived experiences of men and women with disabilities. She goes on to point out that writings in "disability studies," on the other hand, have consistently failed to incorporate gender throughout its recent development. The price of selectivity, of course, is that the concep- tual apparatuses of both literatures rest to some extent on homogeneity; the assumption, for example, of an homogenous group of individuals with disabilities that is dominated by the experiences of males (Deegan & Brooks, 1985). It might be correct, of course, to emphasize the hegemony of masculinity (cf. Brittan & Maynard, 1984) in trying to explain the ways that patriarchy limits the personal responses of both men and women with disabilities, but one has to be sensitive to how women's experiences differ.

This criticism does not negate the many heuristic advantages of either feminism or disability studies and a great deal may be gained from the introduction of either or both in the study of disability sport. They offer concepts, statements of relationships, and a set of fundamental research questions that could provide the beginnings of a theoretical foundation. This would offset the atheoretical use of sex as a substitute for gender, inject a much-needed sociological approach to the study of disability sport participation, and give an impetus to more research. On the other hand, disability sport offers a context in which research on gender can make a valuable contribution to the development of both disability studies and feminist theory by providing comparisons and interpretations of the experiences

sabi


A Sociological Research Agenda

Research on gender and disability sport must proceed from the observation that disability sport offers many contexts in which both gender and disability are socially constructed. Important themes to consider are (a) socialization and gender roles, (b) social differentiation, (c) stratification, and (d) life chances. In relation to each theme, we should consider the varied forms of sport participation among men and women with disabilities and direct attention to developing policy, planning strategies, and targeting resources in the promotion of disability sport participation (Williams, 1994a).

Some researchers concentrate on "the common denominators of disability" that are peculiar to men and women with disabilities and to their relations with each other. One of the consequences of this selection, as we saw above, is that other important social categories (e.g., class, ethnicity, age, etc.) are underemphasized or ignored in order to define the object of the main theme-disability-more clearly. These social categories are only now beginning to be mentioned in the disability literature (e.g., Sherrill, 1993~1, b; Stuart, 1993; Zarb, 1993). There is a danger that in concen- trating only on gender and disability, we oversimplify the complexity of how men and women with disabilities live their sporting lives and the parts played by these other social factors.

Socialization and Gender Roles Socialization is a dynamic process in which individuals are actively involved and, at the same time, influenced by the different factors that are particular to the social milieu in which they are located 1994a). Through socialization, individuals acquire the ways of thinking and acting essential to their gender roles. The intemaliz- ing of socially constructed rules and expectations about gender roles is to adopt and to accommodate the ideological beliefs and expectations that determine what males are, do, and should be, and what females are, do, and should be (Greendorfer, 1993). Social expectations engender beliefs of what it is to be male and female, but they also enhance the differences between them (e.g., the subordination of women and their domination by men). Gender differences persist not only in the salience of the con- ventional internalized gender roles but also in the structural obstacles and forms of social control in a society (Bilton, Bonnet, Jones, Stanworth, Sheard, & Webster, 1991). However, the power relations of gender include a fluid relationship between women and men that is complex and in continuous change depending on the cultural, political, and economical changes in a society (Hargreaves, 1986).

Socialization into gender roles among people with disabilities has its own character. Useful role models for people with disabilities may be inhibited because the dominant publicly available images of disability (e.g., television and film por- trayals of incompetent, dependent individuals) do not correspond to the actual experiences of it. Individuals with disabilities are often depicted as "less than or more than human" (Oliver, 1990, p. 62). Moreover, the powerful involvement of medical personnel, paramedical personnel, health-care workers, personnel from different institutions, organizations, etc. in the lives of people with disabilities has an influence on the creation of role models. According to Londsdale (1990) and Lloyd (1992), these socialization agents tend to treat conditions rather than people and this has the effect of devaluing and casting men and women, but more especially women, with disabilities into passive roles. In short, the cultural representa- tions of disability are strongly defined by the nondisabled world (Norris, 1991).


Differential access to social roles for men and women with disabilities is a dominant theme in the disability literature. The absence of positive role models for women with disabilities or the presence of two devalued roles (i.e., being disabled and a woman) are the features usually mentioned (Hannaford, 1985; Morris, 1993). Fine and Asch (1981), for example, have noted:

Disabled women in today's society fare worse than nondisabled women and disabled men. Fewer socially sanctioned roles are viewed as appropriate for her, and relevant disabled role models are virtually invisible. . . . disabled men, too, have to fight the stigmatized view of disabled people . . . They [disabled men] are nonetheless relatively advantaged in that they can observe and may aspire to the advantage place of males in today's society. (p. 233)

Men with disabilities, then, may have a chance to escape from the disadvantageous disability role by using the advantageous "male" role often associated with sporting participation. This may be difficult for women with disabilities because of insufficient appropriate gender role models, a feature that has been advanced by several researchers as a factor to account for why women do not take part in sport activities (e.g., Dickinson & Perkins, 1985; Grimes, 1988; Shemll, 1993a; Thierfeld & Gibbons, 1986). However, as more coverage is given to women in the disability- sport print media (e.g., Sports 'n Spokes; Palaestra), one would expect more female role models to emerge.

In contrast, the number of male disability sport role models has increased and continues to grow as a result of greater numbers of athletes participating in sports (Grimes, 1988, p. 69). As this occurs, though, women with disabilities have to contend with an exacerbation of differences in available role models. Not only are there relatively fewer female models, but the cultural material transmitted in the socialization process becomes shaped increasingly by men. When women participate in disability sport, they tend to do so in ways defined by men because most coaches and sports administrators are men and because their influential sporting peers are male (Williams & Taylor, 1994).

The lack of gender role models has quite serious consequences for women with disabilities. It can limit their career and personal options, it can hinder their personal development, and it can obstruct their freedom of choice in many relevant social contexts (Fine & Asch, 1981). Structurally, they are marginalized and iso- lated on a number of social levels (Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991), but the barriers to social participation, and especially in sport contexts, are partly created by the people with disabilities themselves. As Morris (1989, p. 106) has noted: "There can often be barriers to forming new friendships, mainly stemming from people's ignorance and fear of disability, but also from our own feelings and lack of confidence." Indeed, for Thierfeld and Gibbons (1986), the attitudes of other people and the woman with a disability herself toward participation in sports may sometimes be more limiting than, for example, such things as inaccessible facilities.

The lack of gender role models for women with disabilities, however, may lead to a kind of liberation to assume new roles that are not bound to the general expectations of gender. This may free women to pursue individual goals and ex- pand choices to either traditional or nontraditional feminine roles (Begum, 1992; Bonwich, 1985). Both roles, of course, are possible but advocates-women with disabilities and researchers-should recognize that if nonparticipation in sport activities is considered a consequence of disability, then the real obstacles to par-


ticipation will remain obscured. As countless athletes have shown by their participation in disability sports at all competitive levels, the material conditions of an impairment are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for nonparticipation in sport.

The importance of the socialization process to participation in disability sport cannot be overemphasized. Although female and male children with disabilities are predominantly defined on the basis of their impairments, gender does influence the ways in which they are taught to behave throughout their childhood (Sherrill, 1993a). Even when an impairment is acquired, ThierfeId and Gibbons (1986) believe that because women are encouraged less than men to be active in sport in their childhood, women rarely take part in sport during their adult lives following their disablement. Sherrill (1993a) agrees with this idea and notes that individuals who were athletes before the onset of disability might well resume sport again because they have already acquired the necessary attitudes, beliefs, and skills associated with active participation in sport and fitness. Olenik, Matthews, and Steadward (1995) found that women with disabilities who were elite athletes had a lack of sports opportunities in their childhood. They became involved in elite disability sport in later life after attempts at involvement in able-bodied sport or when they were encouraged to take part in disability sport by a significant other. These assumptions, and the rather small number of research studies on gender and disability sport participation, show that there is an urgent need to generate fundamental knowledge of the interactions between gender and the processes of disability sport socialization.

~ i s a b i l i t ~ sport socialization is a complex process that varies with respect to a number of factors in different social contexts. The process itself is influenced by different elements of culture such as values, descriptive beliefs, normative beliefs, norms, and standards of behavior and ideologies (Williams, 1994~). These elements create the meanings attached to gender and disability. Socialization agents, singly and in combinations, have a crucial role in the socialization process as they pass these meanings on to individuals with disabilities throughout their disability career in different social contexts and especially disability sport contexts. Indi- viduals with disabilities themselves are, of course, active participators in that process and in the production of their disability sport careers (Williams, 1994~). When we bring gender into the analysis of disability sport socialization, we should consider the cultural elements and structures that give meanings to gender and to disability and how they are related to sports; how these meanings are passed on through different socialization agents; and how an individual with a disability acquires or learns these meanings.

In further studies of socialization into sport roles, attention could be given to the following research questions:

The ways in which gender influences role expectations and the development of disability sport identities; Whether there are specific gender role characteristics in particular disability sports; How gender roles vary between different disability sport contexts; And the ways that sport has been and continues to be a forum which contrib- utes to the prevailing cultural determination of gender and disability.

Disability sport is a social context in which the cultural values, norms, beliefs, etc. that constitute gender and disability, and that might otherwise be hidden in other contexts, can be reinforced, legitimated or, indeed, challenged.


Social Differentiation

Social differentiation by gender takes place in various aspects in the life of an individual. Most societies prescribe different tasks for men and for women that are perceived as "natural" to gender roles but which, at the same time, are socially constructed and socially controlled (Bilton et al., 1991). In the able-bodied world, people with disabilities are often assumed to be incapable of fulfilling "traditional gender roles" and, therefore, also incapable of performing the tasks that are seen as "masculine" or "feminine." For example, in Kutner and Kutner's (1979) study of men and women with physical disabilities, the most frequently mentioned loss attributed to disability was the inability to perform tasks both in the occupational sphere or inside the home. Men with disabilities tended to be concerned about external situational factors, whereas women with disabilities worried about personal relationships and responsibilities (Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991 ; Kutner & Kutner 1979). The results of these studies may be linked to the gender and disability role expectations that reflect the values and norms of the social and cultural milieu in which an individual lives.

Because society itself is based on rather complex elements that are intri- cately interrelated with each other, forms of social differentiation vary between individuals and change over time with shifts in traditions and values. No simple categories of "masculinity," "femininity" or "disability" are appropriate because the lived experience of gender and disability varies by numerous societal factors such as ethnic cultures, class, patterns of production, consumption, and so on (Hargreaves, 1986). Social differentiation in disability sport has, therefore, different forms for different people with disabilities at different times in different societies. This is manifested as different social statuses, roles, strata, and groups of individuals with disabilities.

The social differentiation of gender in disability sport can be recognized by the fact that women with disabilities participate considerably less in sports than men with disabilities. This is similar to the case of nondisabled women and one can argue persuasively that it, also, results from the complexity of the societal and cultural forces that have an influence on gender in sport contexts by providing, in general, more supporting sporting models for males than females (Grimes, 1988; Thierfeld & Gibbons, 1986). We should ask, then,

Whether disability sport reinforces andlor reproduces the prevailing disability gender identities in which women are seen to be more passive in physical activities and sports than men? How are the values, norms, and sanctions found in disability sports linked to gender? What have been the courses of social development of sports for men and women with disabilities? How are gender differences in disability sport socially produced, reproduced, and transformed?

There is a desperate need to gather much more basic information on why patterns of physical activity and sport participation are different among both men and women with disabilities.

Gender and Disability Sport Participation f 7

Social Stratification

People with disabilities have become more aware of themselves as victims of different restrictions and discrimination which have an influence both on their private and public lives. The experiences of social inequalities (i.e., stratification) vary by individuals, although people with disabilities, on the whole, are thought to be members of a minority club (cf. Deegan, 198 1; Sherrill, 1993a). Although people with disabilities tend to be subject to unequal treatment that might be severely limiting in any aspect of one's life, there are social factors such as gender that have an influence on the way an individual experiences social inequalities and minority status. An inequality in one sphere might have an influence on other spheres as well and other inequalities might follow as a result of one inequality (Bilton et al., 1991).

The literature of gender and disability suggests that gender determines the power hierarchies of people with disabilities in a number of significant ways. Women with disabilities more than men with disabilities are rendered invisible, ignored, and devalued by an able-bodied majority that denies them access to skills, knowledge, and other resources (Londsdale, 1990). Women with disabilities are often considered as members of a "multiple minority group" (Deegan, 1981), being women and disabled, whereas men with disabilities are members of a "single minority group." Members of the multiple minority group tend to be objects of unequal treatment that is more severely limiting than the unequal treatment of members of a single minority group.

Minority group status is associated with variations in role congruity. For women with disabilities, there is a partial congruity in the roles to which they have access because being a woman and disabled are both associated with weakness, passivity, and dependency (Fine & Asch, 1981). As a result, women's powerless- ness is confirmed by their disability (Morris, 1993). In contrast, men with disabilities have incongruous roles. On the one hand, "man" signifies strength, assertiveness, and independence, whereas "disability" connotes weakness, passivity, and dependence. One would have to ask, therefore, whether women with disabilities are merely confirming their multiple minority group status by rejecting participation in sport? Moreover, are men with disabilities using sport as a site both to assert their masculinity and to resist the connotations which attach to them as persons with disabilities?

The consideration of stratification and power relations allows us to ask questions about whose interests are being served and whose values are dominant in disability sport contexts. The literature points out that women with disabilities are clearly underrepresented at almost every level of disability sport, both in activities and organizations (DePauw, 1994; Grimes & French 1986; Thierfeld & Gibbons, 1986). This may be an indication of subordination (that they share with able-bodied women) and so their interests might well be better served in more informal physical activity settings (Watkinson & Calzonetti, 1989; Henderson & Bedini, 1995). This raises questions, of course, about gender and the "gatekeepers" who promote or limit access to physical activities or disability sport participation and about whether disability sport subcultures contain elements that reinforce the ex- isting power hierarchies, the domination by men, and the subordination of women. For example, Bryson (1989) examined the dominant definitions of sport that support masculine values and men's power over women and over men with disabili-

18 Kalkka and Williams

ties. No consideration is given to whether women with disabilities also have to struggle against the dominant masculine values of sport.

Status hierarchies determine social stratification by placing people into different ranks. The intangible quality of status becomes tangible in disability sport, as in other social contexts, through the use of artifacts, signs, and conferring be- haviors. This use reflects the criteria of difference employed in the evaluation and ranking of individuals and groups. Closer examination is needed, however, of the forms of status hierarchies of women and men in disability sport. In particular, it is important to consider:

How are status hierarchies structured and experienced? How status hierarchies find expression?

* How status hierarchies influence disability sport participation? How are status hierarchies influenced by the onset, type, and severity of impairment, ethnicity, age, and disability sport context?

Different configurations of these factors with gender may well determine the experiences of status hierarchies of men and women with disabilities.

Life Chances

The life chances of individuals with disabilities vary according to countless factors within a society. Factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, social class, onset and severity of impairment, and so on have a marked influence on an individual throughout his or her life and it is here that the inequalities between people and groups in a society find expression as hierarchies of privilege (Vander Zanden 1979). Life chances create opportunities for individuals to take an active part in the different spheres of social life but, on the other hand, they can create obstacles to participation or the development of an individual. Poverty, for example, might exclude people with disabilities from fun participation in the public world through a lack of transport, a lack of information, and, indeed, a lack of confidence to attend meetings or exercise their political rights (Walmsley 1993). Privilege, however, does not have an influence only on the access to goods and services, but also on the external conditions of life and subjective satis- faction or frustration (Vander Zanden 1979).

In Western societies, the inequalities of material life chances (i.e., inequalities in the material rewards, conditions of work, patterns of poverty, and the distribution of benefits) are based on the market capacity of an individual. In this area, people with disabilities are at a distinct disadvantage. The label "disability" has an influence both on the distribution of material rewards and on other areas of the life of individuals (e.g., in conditions at work, health, housing, education, justice, lei- sure, etc.) (Bilton et al., 1991). According to Abberley (1993), the inequality between the able-bodied and disabled world in the Western societies results from the failure of societies to meet the "normal" needs of people with disabilities (e.g., inappropriate physical access and transportation). Although men and women with disabilities have common struggles in the experience of inequalities of life chances, several studies indicate that women might face these problems to a greater extent than men. For example, women with disabilities experience more economic disadvantages in the labor market (Kutner, 1987; Pfeiffer, 1991; Vash, 1982) and in the distribution of State benefits or other financial support (Kutza, 1981; Londsdale,


1990; Mudric, 1988) than men with disabilities. This has been explained by the structures of power that are more supportive for males than females (Londsdale, 1990; Pfeiffer, 1991; Vash, 1982).

The material, often economic, disadvantages endured by people with disabilities have direct effects on disability sport participation that may turn up, for example, as a lack of transport, lack of information, inadequate equipment, poor or no facilities, or as an incapability to afford the expenses of appropriate programs. The lack of material resources has been strongly cited in the literature of gender and disability sport as a notable barrier for women with disabilities and their participation in sports (e.g., Grimes, 1988; Grimes & French, 1987; Henderson & Bedini, 1995; Olenik, Matthews, & Steadward, 1995; Thierfeld & Gibbons, 1986), but no detailed consideration is given to how gender as a social construct offers meaning to the experiences of material life chances for men and women with disabilities and how this influences their sport participation.

More attention should be paid, therefore, to the ways that life chances determine:

Access to information, goods, and services in disability sport; The forms of disability sport; Maintaining interest in sports among men and women with disabilities; And active and sedentary lifestyles and their effects on the holistic well- being of both men and women with disabilities.

We need, also, more information about the social significance and meanings of physical activity and sport participation in the lives of men and women with disabilities. Attention should be given to the influence of disability sport. On the one hand, it functions to increase fitness, functional capacity, and ability to work; to decrease health risks; and to give meaning to the life of people with disabilities (Koivumaki, Rantanen, & Rintala, 1993). On the other hand, disability sport also can contribute to the awareness of people with disabilities in the abled-bodied world and it can be used to challenge the inequities of social structures that create barriers for people with disabilities at every level in their lives.

Conclusion

We have argued, forcefully we hope, that research should focus on the ways that gender structures the experiences of disability sport participation. To help in that endeavor, we have suggested a research agenda that focuses on:

Differential patterns of socialization into disability sport for males and females; The construction of identities and gender roles in different disability sports; The legitimation and reproduction, in disability sports, of prevailing gender relations; The relationship between disability sport, gender, and status hierarchies; And the ways in which life chances are influenced by gender and disability sports.

Participation in disability sport is, itself, just the tip of an iceberg that is made up of multiple diversities and forms of social structures in the lives of individuals with


disabilities. We think it is time to confront the little-known structures of gender and disability and create new ways of thinking and understanding.

References

Abberley, P. (1992). Counting us out: Adiscussion of the OPCS disability surveys. Disabil- ity, Handicap, and Society, 7(2), 139- 155.

Abberley, P. (1993). Disabled people and "normality." In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers-Enabling environments (pp. 107- 11 5). Lon- don: Sage.

Acker, J. (1992). Gendered institutions. From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contempo- rary Sociology, 21(5), 565-569.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Allport, G.W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley. Begum, N. (1992). Disabled women and feminist agenda. Feminist Review, 40,7044. Bilton, T., Bonnet, K., Jones, O., Stanworth, M., Sheard, K., & Webster, A. (1991). Intro-

ductory sociology. London: Macmillan Education. Bonwich, E. (1985). Sex role attitude and role reorganization in spinal cord injured woman.

In M.S.A. Deegan (Ed.), Women and disability: The double handicap (pp. 56-67). New Bmnswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Borsay, A. (1986). Personal trouble or public issue?Towards a model of policy for people with physical and mental disabilities. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 1(2), 179-195.

Bramley, J., Van Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J. (1990). Understanding young women with disabilities. St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia: Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, University of Queensland.

Brasile EM., Kleiber, D.A., & Hamisch, D. (1991). Analysis of participation incentives among athletes with and without disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 25(1), 18-33.

Brittan, A., &Maynard, M. (1984). Sexism, racism, and oppression. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bryson, L. (1989). Sport: A feminist perspective. In K.F. Dyer (Ed.), Sportswomen towards

2000: A celebration. Proceedings of a conference held during Women's Week, March 1988, Adelaide, Australia (pp. 21-24). Richmond, South Australia: Hyde Park Press.

Deegan, M.J. (1981). Multiple minority groups: Acase study of physically disabled women. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8(2), 274-297.

Deegan, M.J., & Brooks, N.A. (Eds.) (1985). Women and disability: The double handicap. New Bmnswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Delphy, C. (1993). Rethinking sex and gender. Women S Studies International Forum, 16(1), 19.

DePauw, K. (1994). A feminist perspective on sports and sports organizations for persons with disabilities. In R.D. Steadward, E.R. Nelson, & G.D. Wheeler (Eds.), Vista '93- The outlook (pp. 467-477). Edmonton, AB: Rick Hansen Centre.

Dickinson, J., & Perkins, D. (1985). Socialization into physical activity for the disabled populations. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 51(8), 4-12.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1981). Disabled women: Sexism without a pedestal. Journal of Soci- ology and Social Welfare, 8(2), 233-248.

Finkelstein, V. (1993). The commonality of disability. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers-Enabling environments (pp. 9-16). London: Sage.


Floyd, J.M. (1987). Physical activity and impacts of visual impairment. In M.J. Adrian (Ed.), Sports women (pp. 40-53). Basle, Switzerland: Karger.

French, S. (1 993). Disability, impairment or something in between? In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers-Enabling environments (pp. 17-25). London: Sage.

Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative appmach to education policy and disability. London: Falmer Press.

Greendorfer, S.L.(1993). Gender role stereotypes and early childhood socialization. In G.L. Cohen (Ed.), Women in sport. Issues and controversies (pp. 3-14). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Grimes, P.S., & French, L. (1987). Barriers to disabled women's participation in sports. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 58(3), 24-27.

Grimes, P.S. (1988). Disabled women and girls in sport/competitive opportunities for disabled youth. Seventeenth National Conference: "Bridges of Progress" (pp. 68-70). Oakland, CA.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London: Pen- guin Books.

Hanna, W.J., & Rogovsky, B. (1991). Women with disabilities: Two handicap plus. Disabil- ity, Handicap, and Society, 6(1), 49-63.

Hannaford, S. (1985). Living outside inside, A disabled woman's experiences. Toward a social and political perspective. Berkeley, CA: Canterbury Press.

Hargreaves, J.A. (1986). Where's the virtue? Where's the grace? A discussion of the social production of gender relations in and through sport. Theory, Culture, and Society, 3(1), 109-121.

Henderson, K.A., & Bedini, L.A. (1995). "I have a soul that dances like Tina Turner, but my body can't": Physical activity and women with mobility impairments. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(2), 15 1-1 61.

Hopper, C.A. (1982). Socialization of wheelchair athletes in sport. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Koivumaki, K., Rantanen, T., & Rintala, P. (1993). The special significance of physical activity to special groups (in Finnish). Helsinki, Finland: LIKES Research Institute, Ministry of Education.

Kutner, N.G. (1987). Social ties, social support, and perceived health status among chroni- cally disabled people. Social Science and Medicine, 25(1), 29-34.

Kutner, N.G., & Kutner, M.H. (1979). Race and sex as variables affecting reactions to disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 60,62-66.

Lloyd, M. (1992). Does she boil eggs? Toward a feminist model of disability. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 7(2), 207-221.

Londsdale, S. (1990). Women with disabilities. The science of physical disability among women. London: Macmillan Education.

Messner, M.A. (1990). Men studying masculinity: Some epistemological issues in sport sociology. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 136-153.

Morris, J. (1989). Able lives. A women S experience ofparalysis. London: The Women's Press. Morris, J. (1 991). Pride against prejudice. Transfomzing attitudes to disability. London: .

Women's Press. Morris, J. (1993a). Feminism and disability. Feminist Review, 43,57-70. Morris, J . (1993b). Gender and disability. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M.

Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers-Enabling envirorzments (pp. 85-92). London: Sage.


Mudrick, N. (1988). Disabled women and public policies for income support. In A. Asch, & M. Fine (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, andpolitics (pp. 245-268). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gendel; and society. London: Temple Smith. Olenik, L.M., Matthews, J.M., & Steadward, R.D. (1995). Women, disability, and sport-

unheard voices. Canadian Women Studies, 15(4), 54-57. Oliver, M. (1986). Social policy and disability: Some theoretical issues. Disability, Handi-

cap, and Society, 1(1), 5-17. Oliver, M. (1 990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education. Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handi-

cap, and Society, 7(2), 101-1 14. Pfeiffer, D. (1991). The influence of the socioeconomic characteristics of disabled people on

their employment status and income. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 6(2), 103-1 14. Sherrill, C. (1993a). Women with disabilities. In G.L. Cohen (Ed.), Women in sport. Issues

and controversies (pp. 3-14). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Shemll, C. (1993b). Women with disability, Paralympics, and reasoned action contact theory.

Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 2(2), 51 -60. Sherrill, C., Pope, C., & Arnhold, R. (1986). Sport socialization of blind athletes: An ex-

ploratory study. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 80(5), 740-744. Sherrill, C., & Rainbolt, W.J. (1986). Sociological perspectives of cerebral palsy sports.

Palaestra, 2(4), 20-23; 25-26. Stewart, D., Robinson, J.A., & McCarthy, D. (1991). Participation in deaf sport: Character-

istics of elite deaf athletes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8(2), 136-145. Stuart, 0 . (1993). Double oppression: An appropriate starting point? In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein,

S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers-Enabling environments (pp. 93- 100). London: Sage.

Thierfeld, J., & Gibbons, G. (1986). From access to equality: Opening doors for women athletes. Sports 'n Spokes, 12(1), 21-23.

Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.

Vash, C.L. (1982). Employment issues for women with disabilities. Rehabilitation Litera- ture, 43(7/8), 198-207.

Vander Zanden, J.W. (1979). Sociology. Toronto, ON: John Wiley & Sons. Walmsley, J. (1993). "Talking to top people": Some issues relating to the citizenship of

people with learning difficulties. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers- Enabling environments (pp. 257-266). London: Sage.

Watkinson, E.J., & Calzonetti, K. (1989). Physical activity patterns of physically disabled women in Canada. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Rec- reation Journal, 55(6), 21-26.

Williams, T. (1994a). Disability sport socialization and identity construction. Adapted Physi- cal Activity Quarterly, 11, 14-3 1 .

Williams, T. (1994b). Sociological aspects of sport and disability: Current and future perspectives. In J. Mester (Ed.), Sport sciences in Europe 1993-Current andfuture perspectives (pp. 443-459) Koln, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Verlag.

Williams, T. (1994~). The social influences on the moral behavior of athletes with disabilities. In R.D. Steadward, E.R. Nelson, & G.D. Wheeler (Eds.), Vista '93-The outlook (pp. 412-422). Edmonton, AB: Rick Hansen Centre.

Williams, T., & Taylor, D. (1994) Socialization, subculture, and wheelchair sports: The influence of peers in wheelchair racing. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11(4), 416-428.


World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impaimzents, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization

Zarb, G. (1993). The dual experience of aging with a disability. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers-Enabling environments (pp. 186- 195). London: Sage.

Authors' Note

The authors would like to thank the editors of this journal and the reviewers of the article for their time and patience.

apaq vol14 · pdf file · 2007-11-12differences between male and female bodies, ......

Documents