Distancing and discrediting among persons with an acquired spinal cord injury.

This study examines how individuals with acquired spinal cord injury maintain, contest, and dissolve boundaries within their peer community, with a particular focus on the roles of distancing and discrediting others. Carrying out a 26-month ethnography generated data from participant observation, interviews, social media, crowdfunding initiatives, news stories, government policies, reports, and related research. Drawing on theories of symbolic boundaries and stigmas, we theorised how the comparative context influences how individuals can be included or excluded from peer groups. We found that the ways non-disabled relate to people with a spinal cord injury influence the ways symbolic boundaries are negotiated among peers with a spinal cord injury. Wheelchair users are often perceived as helpless and those who can walk are invisible to most common passersby and thereby not recognised as persons with disability. These perceptions influence internal definitions within the group of people with spinal cord injuries. Consequently, they engage in processes of distancing or discrediting to negotiate group membership, what constitutes a "real injury", and in some cases, exclude people from their group. This is a highly sensitive subject; however, denying the presence of such processes could limit opportunities for action when people are excluded.