Rosemary Noelke

By Rosemary Noelke

Introduction

Colonialism has undeniably shaped the African continent, impacting its social, political, and economic fabric. Imperial missions established new social identities and hierarchies, eradicating traditional African cultures and replacing them with European capitalist ideals. Dominant colonial powers established a notion of ‘normalcy,’ which labelled certain social groups as human or subhuman (Ndlovu, 2021). A measurement of ‘ability’ emerged from this social categorization, establishing a new conception of disability within the African continent. This model of ability has profound implications for the population’s economic and social well-being. As seen in the examples of South Africa and Botswana, the social impacts of colonialism have contributed to a harmful perception of disability in Africa and perpetuated ableism in public and private life (Grech, 2015). These social implications reveal that colonial history cannot be separated from the cultural history of ableism (Baskin, 2022). 

The Construction of Disability as an Identity

The notion of disability is complex and evolving. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, disability encompassed a wide range of factors, from physical impairments to aesthetic differences (Baskin, 2022). While many mainstream definitions utilize a biological model of disability, the histories of colonialism reveal otherwise. As Ndlovu explains, “Disability is an identity label, a social construct used to define and describe those who do not meet the criteria of body and mind that are used to construct a ‘normal’ human being.” (Ndlovu, 2021, p. 65). This social measurement has resulted in the dehumanization and othering of individuals based on specific physical and mental characteristics (Ndlovu, 2021). As the understanding of disability has evolved, international bodies and scholars have developed a social model of disability (Ubisi, 2020). The model defines disability as an interaction between individuals with impairments and the environmental barriers that hinder their full participation in society (Ubisi, 2020). This social model reveals that the notion of disability has been formed through human interaction (Ubisi, 2020). Colonialism is a crucial interaction shaping this definition in Africa and the Global South as a whole.

Colonial Missionaries and the Perception of Disability

The introduction of Christianity during colonial times played a significant role in reshaping perceptions of disability. Missionaries utilized disabling language to label non-Christians and further dehumanize colonized peoples (Baskin, 2022). Disability became a Christian metaphor, conflating ideas of wholeness and health with goodness and righteousness (Baskin, 2022). This missionary language perpetuated voyeurism, furthering the narrative of ‘helplessness’ to justify colonialism (Baskin, 2022). This interaction further reveals the dialectical relationship between colonialism and ableism.

Colonialism and Ableism

The impact of colonialism extends beyond religious influences, disrupting gender roles, intensifying patriarchy, and eradicating indigenous cultures (Greech, 2015). As Greech explains, a critical component of colonial rule was ‘othering,’ introduced through colonial ‘civilizing’ missions (2015). This practice assigned negative connotations to particular groups as a means to establish political and economic domination. Othering contributed to the construction of ableism, a form of discrimination leading to the assignment of disabled persons of a lower social status (Ubisi, 2020). This form of oppression has subjected disabled Africans to victimization and led to their exclusion from cultural, social, and economic life (Ubisi, 2020). 

European Capitalism and Disability

The Industrial Revolution in the West marked a shift in the perception of disabled individuals as economically unproductive (Ndlovu, 2021). Colonialism introduced a comprehensive power structure of entangled global hierarchies, including ableism, which became integral to colonial encounters and capitalist accumulation (Grech, 2015). The colonial economization of the body created a new dynamic of oppressive power in which people were stratified based on their abilities to comply with the physical demands of being a capitalist worker (Berlant, 2007; Grech, 2015). This construction of disability, intertwined with race and racism, was also used to justify slavery through the racialization of disability (Baskin, 2022; Grech, 2015). 

Ableism and Slavery

Disability became an additional mark of difference during the era of slavery, influencing the creation of the ‘ideal’ colonized body based on economic value (Grech, 2015). Slave traders prioritized physical aspects like strength, colour, height, size, and facial features, while individuals with disabilities were deemed less productive and, consequently, less valuable (Grech, 2015). These interactions are critical to understanding the intersection between the commodification of the labouring body and disability (Baskin, 2022). Slavery as an institution is disabling (Baskin, 2022). Through the use of bodies and physical attributes as a medium, slavery permanently inscribed and displayed racial and other categorizations (Baskin, 2022). In a postcolonial era, these perceptions continue to impact disabled individuals’ abilities and opportunities for societal participation. 

African Sociocultural Construction of Disability

Prior to colonialism, many African societies defined disability through religious and cultural beliefs (Ndlovu, 2021). In some cases, disability was viewed as a curse or punishment. In others, it was seen in a more positive light (Ndlovu, 2021). However, indigenous perspectives on disability are diverse, and many communities do not categorize disability as a distinct identity (Ned, 2022). A Basotho indigenous view of disability highlights the term’s positive and negative connotations (Ned, 2022). While the language may indicate a negative perception, Basotho culture encourages the treatment of disabled people with care and respect and with the placement of their needs before the rest of the community (Ned, 2022). Indigenous culture in Botswana further reveals that African traditional beliefs of disability have never been limited to negative narratives (Ned, 2022). In these communities, disability is not acknowledged as a category (Ned, 2022). Instead,  an emphasis is placed on communal responsibility and the integration of individuals with impairments into daily life (Ned, 2022). This focus on communal responsibility is also present in the African concept of Ubuntu philosophy, where everyone is seen as responsible for each other’s growth, fostering a social ethic of common humanity (Ned, 2022). As a result, many indigenous African cultures do not identify with the notion of disability (Ned, 2022). Instead, these communities focus on strength and ability in community responsibility (Ned, 2022). These Indigenous histories reveal that mistreatment and problematic understandings of disability in Africa are apparent symptoms of colonial encounters (Ned, 2022).

Ableism in South Africa

The colonial construction of ableism is present in postcolonial Africa. In South Africa, there are high rates of HIV infections, inadequate infrastructure, and a history of discriminatory laws towards persons with disabilities (Ubisi, 2020). Under apartheid laws, the 1957 reformation of the Immorality Act of 1927 criminalized sexual relations with persons with mental disabilities (Ubisi, 2020).  Such discriminatory policies reveal how negative social attitudes can be reinforced by legislative measures (Ubisi, 2020).

The physical infrastructure in South Africa further exacerbates the challenges faced by persons with disabilities (Ndlovu, 2021). Public transit, designed for a ‘normal’ being, is inaccessible, hindering the ability of disabled individuals to commute and limiting their access to employment opportunities (Ndlovu, 2021). This barrier contributes to job loss and strips away independence, reinforcing the economic disparities faced by the disabled population (Ndlovu, 2021).

Stigma remains a systemic issue in South Africa, impeding the development of laws and policies related to mental health (Mahomed & Stein, 2017). While the government has committed to addressing stigma, effective implementation remains lacking, highlighting the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach (Mahomed & Stein, 2017). As seen in South Africa’s compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), efforts have been made to reduce stigma (Mahomed & Stein, 2017). However, historic colonial narratives have led to a lack of political will, coordination, and resources to combat ableism (Mahomed & Stein, 2017). Moreover, the under-prioritization of mental health in South Africa is evident, with a lack of reliable data  (Mahomed & Stein, 2017). These experiences reveal that stigma and discrimination have significant consequences, violating human rights and representing a failure to develop equitable and inclusive societies (Mahomed & Stein, 2017).

Ableism in Botswana

Despite its financial backing, Botswana faces similar challenges in implementing inclusive policies for persons with disabilities, particularly in education (Mrstik et al., 2020). The lack of resources, limited teacher education programs, and culturally conflicting values contribute to discrimination against people with disabilities (Mukhopadhyay & Moswela, 2020). The lack of disability-specific legislation and the absence of ratification of the CRPD further contribute to the barriers faced by individuals with disabilities in accessing education and livelihood opportunities (Mukhopadhyay & Moswela, 2020; van Pletzen, Kabaso, & Lorenzo, 2021). Currently, Botswana utilizes two definitions of disability, one adapted from the World Health Organization and another from Oliver and Barnes, with terms like ‘impairment’ and ‘disability’ used interchangeably in census data (Mrstik et al., 2020).

Disability and poverty are interconnected, with barriers to education, employment, and support systems perpetuating a cycle of economic hardship for youth with disabilities in both South Africa and Botswana (van Pletzen, Kabaso, & Lorenzo, 2021). Despite efforts such as inclusive livelihood programs and existing policies, challenges persist due to environmental barriers and a lack of disability-specific legislation and international agreements (van Pletzen, Kabaso, & Lorenzo, 2021). These barriers are a direct consequence of the ability-based stigma constructed in colonial times. There is a need for comprehensive policies and strategies to address inequality and promote the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities in society (van Pletzen, Kabaso, & Lorenzo, 2021). 

Conclusion

As seen in the prevalence of ableism in South Africa and Botswana, colonialism has established a complex web of categorization, stigma, and socio-economic exclusion. As Africa continues to grapple with the legacies of colonialism, a deeper understanding of these dynamics is vital for addressing contemporary challenges and fostering inclusive development. In the present day, neocolonialism continues to impact the perception of disabilities in Africa. Medical intervention is justified and supported by images and concepts of disability, and inequitable societal barriers remain unaddressed (Baskin, 2022). Colonialism is a crucial shared experience in the Global South, shaping identities, politics, and social systems (Grech, 2015). Disability was shaped within this colonial context, influencing the current disability landscape (Grech, 2015). Understanding disability narratives in the Global South involves recognizing them as part of a broader historical narrative, which includes imperialism (Grech, 2015). In order to combat ableism, interventions, policies, and laws must recognize the specific context in which they operate (Mahomed & Stein, 2017). It is through this decolonial approach that the structurally implemented social stigma of ableism can be addressed.  

References

Baskin, C. (2022). Creating the Cultural “Other”: Ableism, Racism, and Imperialism in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Pandion UNF, (5). https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=pandion_unf

 Berlant, L. (2007). Slow Death (Sovereignty, Obesity, Lateral Agency). Critical Inquiry, 33(4), 754–780. https://doi.org/10.1086/521568 

 Grech, S. (2015). Decolonising Eurocentric disability studies: why colonialism matters in the disability and global South debate. Social Identities, 21(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2014.995347 

 Mahomed, F., & Stein, M. A. (2021). DE-STIGMATISING PSYCHOSOCIAL DISABILITY IN SOUTH AFRICA. African Disability Rights Yearbook, 5. https://doi.org/10.29053/2413-7138/2017/v5n1a4 

 Mrstik, S. L., Dieker, L. A., & Abosi, C. O. (2020). An Examination of Inclusive Practices for Students with Learning Disabilities in Botswana: A Literature Review. Exceptionality Education International, 30(3), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v30i3.13510 

 Mukhopadhyay, S., & Moswela, E. (2020). Disability Rights in Botswana: Perspectives of Individuals With Disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319871745 

 Ned, L. Y. (2022). African Renaissance as a Premise for Reimagined Disability Studies in Africa. Journal of Black Studies, 53(5), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347221074391 

NDLOVU, S. (2021). HUMANNESS AND ABLEISM: CONSTRUCTION AND DECONSTRUCTION OF DISABILITY. In M. STEYN & W. MPOFU (Eds.), Decolonising the Human: Reflections from Africa on difference and oppression (pp. 65–85). Wits University Press. https://doi.org/10.18772/22021036512.7

Ubisi, L. (2020). DE/Coloniality, disabled sexualities, and anti-oppressive education: A review of Southern African literature. South African Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246320956419 

van Pletzen, E., Kabaso, B., & Lorenzo, T. (2021). Community-based workers’ capacity to develop inclusive livelihoods for youth with disabilities in Botswana. African Journal of Disability, 10, e1–e12. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v10i0.851