For a long time, the discourse on diversity encouraged " minorities " to adopt the codes of the majority norm in order to be accepted, to be " assimilated ". Then, the approach evolved towards a valuation of differences, considered as a factor of performance... But by moving from the " loss of value " of non-conformity to its " added value ", do we really succeed in inclusion ?

The concept of " ableism ", coined to think about the condition and perception by society of people with disabilities, sheds light on the ambiguities of the relationship between the norm and the " non-conforming ".

Ableism : a notion stemming from disability thinking

Ableism, ableism, handicapism and discrimination based on ability are all proposals for equivalence to the concept of " ableism ". A concept derived from disability studies, an academic trend that broke with the rehabilitation sciences that had prevailed until then. The latter medicalize disability and postulate that it is up to the individual to " repair " himself to adapt to his or her social environment, while disability studies focus their research on the socio-cultural barriers that limit the inclusion of individuals.

The semantic shift from the term " disabled " to that of " person with a disability " in the 1980s is a good illustration of this approach: disability is no longer the sole constitutive fact of a person, but the consequence of the individual's interactions with his or her environment.

However, the environment, stereotypical, normative and self-legitimized by the majority fact, tends to treat " minorities " as satellites, whose position in the ecosystem is of lesser value. Thus, the Collective Struggle and Disabilities for Equality and Emancipation (CLHEE) sets out the following definition in its manifesto : " Ableism is characterized by the conviction on the part of able-bodied people that their absence of disability and/or their good health gives them a more enviable and even superior position than that of disabled people".

A morality of " difference "

Ableism is based on the principle that people with disabilities (whether visible or invisible, but also by extension those who do not have the " right " physical strength, the " good " appearance, the " right " diplomas, the " right " age, the " right " sexual orientation, or even the " right " gender...) must be " fixed ", " re-educated ", in short, " transformed " to better correspond to the norm, or at least must they make efforts not to disturb the order with their markers of " differences ".

Ableist action is sometimes directly hostile, associating " difference " with idiocy, ugliness, a lack of courage, victimhood whining... But he's not always malicious and can even come forward with excellent intentions (you know, the ones whose hell is paved !), ranging from condescending compassion to overvaluing the " exception ", this resilient and resourceful handicapped person, this person who has overcome trauma to become a fighter, this child born in misery who has given himself the means to become a self-made-(wo)man in the a resounding success!

Active exclusion and internalized self-hatred, two sides of the same coin

Let us refer to the work of sociologist  Norbert Elias to understand how the mechanisms of exclusion are exercised, and especially their acceptance, including by excluded people. Elias distinguishes :

• A process of active exclusion with a monopolization of key social positions by established groups. The sociological reality is in fact in line with this value system that relegates non-conforming people to the periphery, with objectively precarious effects: less access to employment, housing, mobility, public space, etc.

• A process of passive exclusion in which excluded people will internalize the image that established groups send back to them. By developing a feeling of social inferiority caused by the shame caused by the depreciating values attributed to them, the excluded will conform to the socially expected behaviour, showing a form of deference and recognition when the " lucky " populations are interested in their fate, to the point of locking themselves into the stereotype of a miserabilist condition... Or, on the contrary, strive to " prove " that they deserve their place, that they are among those extraordinary exceptions capable of outperforming the norm.

Stigmatized people thus have no choice but to develop adaptive behavioral strategies: either by agreeing with the morality of " where there is a will, there is a way " or by agreeing with those who believe them to be incapable and rejoice in a CQFD when " integration " is a failure (it is this dynamic that can be found, for example, in the queen bee syndrome or in the mechanisms of the " glass cliff").

Achieving inclusion : that everyone can be themselves and contribute to the collective

The only viable solution is therefore to engage in in-depth work on mentalities which consists, in the logic of disability studies, in changing the way we look at the norm and its periphery. It is a question of discolouring the associations of ideas according to which the norm is enviable and its periphery miserable. No longer strive to make disabled people able-bodied or pseudo-able-bodied, people from immigrant backgrounds " good " nationals totally uprooted from their culture(s), no longer strive to train women for the masculine-centric codes of a professional world or more generally of a social environment that has erected " virility " as an ideal (whereas as the philosopher Olivia Gazalé reminds us, the ideology of virility does no good to anyone, neither women nor men !).

So, how can we bring about this change in mentality ?

• Recognize the privilege of its " validity ", without making it a superiority 

We must constantly remember that society does not welcome everyone in the same way. So, yes, we most often have a better social position when we are not disabled, not a woman, not a racialized person, but this is not only due to individual merits, it is also the fact of systemic discrimination that has excluded some from the competition and/or has sown pitfalls in their path.

• Fighting " limiting benevolence"

It's nice to take the arm of the visually impaired person to help them cross, but maybe they're more independent than you think. And incidentally, she doesn't necessarily want to be touched without being asked for her opinion. It's thoughtful to imagine that a young mother's " priorities " have changed and that this is not the time to offer her a professional challenge. But maybe she's old enough to know what she wants. Opening a dialogue with the other person to offer to express a possible need, yes ! Imposing an external view of his situation on him, no !

• Curing oneself from the fascination with exceptionality 

Certainly, the person who starts life with a disability and overcomes it or even makes it a real strength arouses legitimate admiration. But to treat it as a formidable " exception " is on the one hand to put it in the position of a " superb monster", not so easy to assume in the long term, and on the other hand to send back those who do not manage to " get by " as well to their failings. Yes, those discriminated against also have the right to complain, to lose heart, to be sometimes unpleasant and even to be incompetent. Because all this also happens, not so rarely, to those who meet the criteria of the standard.

• Reconciling with " political correctness "

It is tempting to disqualify all the rhetoric of the fight against discrimination by referring it to " political correctness ", this alleged scourge undermining freedom of expression... However, an American study from 2014 shows that, far from curbing the creative spirit, being careful not to be discriminatory when producing messages stimulates the emergence of new ideas!