Social model of disability

The social model has become a key tool in the analysis of the cultural representation of disability; from literature, to radio, to charity-imagery to cinema. The social model has become the key conceptual analysis in challenging, for examples, stereotypes and archetypes of disabled people by revealing how conventional imagery reinforces the oppression of disabled people. Key theorists include Paul Darke (cinema), Lois Keith[14] (literature), Leonard Davis (Deaf culture), Jenny Sealey[15] (theatre) and Mary-Pat O'Malley[16] (radio).

A fundamental aspect of the social model concerns equality. The struggle for equality is often compared to the struggles of other socially marginalized groups. Equal rights are said to empower people with the "ability" to make decisions and the opportunity to live life to the fullest. A related phrase often used by disability rights campaigners, as with other social activism, is "Nothing About Us Without Us".[17]

The social model of disability focuses on changes required in society. These might be in terms of:

• Attitudes, for example a more positive attitude toward certain mental traits or behaviors, or not underestimating the potential quality of life of those with impairments,
• Social support, for example help dealing with barriers; resources, aids or positive discrimination to overcome them, for example providing someone to explain work culture for an autistic employee,
• Information, for example using suitable formats (e.g. braille) or levels (e.g. simplicity of language) or coverage (e.g. explaining issues others may take for granted),
• Physical structures, for example buildings with sloped access and elevators, or
• Flexible work hours for people with circadian rhythm sleep disorders or, for example, for people who experience anxiety/panic attacks in rush hour traffic.[18]

In the late 20th century and early 21st century, the social model of disability became a dominant identity for disabled people in the UK.[19]

The social model of disability implies that attempts to change, "fix" or "cure" individuals, especially when used against the wishes of the patient, can be discriminatory and prejudiced. This attitude, which may be seen as stemming from a medical model and a subjective value system, can harm the self-esteem and social inclusion of those constantly subjected to it (e.g. being told they are not as good or valuable, in an overall and core sense, as others). Some communities have actively resisted "treatments", while, for example, defending a unique culture or set of abilities. In the Deaf community, sign language is valued even if most people do not know it and some parents argue against cochlear implants for deaf infants who cannot consent to them.[20] People diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum may argue against efforts to help them to minimize the negative consequences of their behavior to themselves and to other people, and the daily struggles they experience in relation to the symptoms. They argue instead for acceptance of neurodiversity and accommodation to different needs and goals.[21] Some people diagnosed with a mental disorder argue that they are just different and don't necessarily conform. The biopsychosocial model of disease/disability is an attempt by practitioners to address this.[22]

The Neurodiversity label has been used by various mental-disability rights advocates within the context of the social model of disability.[23] The label has been applied to other neurodevelopmental conditions apart from autism, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability and Tourette syndrome,[24][25] as well as schizophrenia,[23][26] bipolar disorder,[27] and some mental health conditions such as schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder,[28] dissociative disorders, and obsessive–compulsive disorder.[29]

The social model implies that practices such as eugenics are founded on social values and a prejudiced understanding of the potential and value of those labeled disabled. "Over 200,000 disabled people were some of the earlier victims of the Holocaust, after communists, other political enemies and homosexuals."[30]

A 1986 article stated:[31]

It is important that we do not allow ourselves to be dismissed as if we all come under this one great metaphysical category 'the disabled'. The effect of this is a depersonalization, a sweeping dismissal of our individuality, and a denial of our right to be seen as people with our own uniqueness, rather than as the anonymous constituents of a category or group. These words that lump us all together – 'the disabled', 'spina bifida', 'tetraplegic', 'muscular dystrophy', – are nothing more than terminological rubbish bins into which all the important things about us as people get thrown away.

The social model also relates to economics. It proposes that people can be disabled by a lack of resources to meet their needs.[3] For example, a person with impairments may need some kinds of support services to be able to participate fully in society, and can become disabled if society cuts the funding for those support services, perhaps in the name of government austerity measures.

It addresses issues such as the under-estimation of the potential of people to contribute to society and add economic value to society, if given equal rights and equally suitable facilities and opportunities as others. Economic research on companies that attempt to accommodate disability in their workforce suggest they outperform competitors.[32]

In Autumn 2001, the UK Office for National Statistics identified that approximately one fifth of the working-age population was disabled – 7.1 million disabled people as opposed to 29.8 million able people – and in this analysis also provided insight into some of the reasons why disabled people were unwilling to enter the labour market, such as that the reduction in disability benefits in entering the labour market would not make it worthwhile to enter into employment. A three-pronged approach was suggested: "incentives to work via the tax and benefit system, for example through the Disabled Person’s Tax Credit; helping people back into work, for example via the New Deal for Disabled People; and tackling discrimination in the workplace via anti-discrimination policy. Underpinning this are the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission."[33]

Canada and the United States have operated under the premise that social assistance benefits should not exceed the amount of money earned through labour in order to give citizens an incentive to search for and maintain employment. This has led to widespread poverty amongst disabled citizens. In the 1950s, disability pensions were established and included various forms of direct economic assistance; however, compensation was incredibly low. Since the 1970s, both governments have viewed unemployed, disabled citizens as excess labour due to continuous high unemployment rates and have made minimal attempts to increase employment, keeping disabled people at poverty-level incomes due to the ‘incentive’ principle. Poverty is the most debilitating circumstance disabled people face, resulting in the inability to afford proper medical, technological and other assistance necessary to participate in society.[34]

In the United Kingdom, the Disability Discrimination Act defines disability using the medical model - disabled people are defined as people with certain conditions, or certain limitations on their ability to carry out "normal day-to-day activities." But the requirement of employers and service providers to make "reasonable adjustments" to their policies or practices, or physical aspects of their premises, follows the social model.[35] By making adjustments, employers and service providers are removing the barriers that disable - according to the social model, they are effectively removing the person's disability. In 2006, amendments to the act called for local authorities and others to actively promote disability equality. This enforcement came in the shape of the Disability Equality Duty in December 2006.[36] In 2010, The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) was amalgamated into the Equality Act 2010 along with other pertinent discrimination legislation. It extends the law on discrimination to indirect discrimination. For example, if a carer of a person with a disability is discriminated against, this is now also unlawful.[37] Since October 2010, when it came into effect, employers may not legally ask questions about illness or disability at interview for a job or for a referee to comment on such in a reference, except where there is a need to make reasonable adjustments for an interview to proceed. Following an offer of a job, an employer can lawfully ask such questions.[38]

In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), revision of 2008 effective in January 2009, is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability.[39] It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. It requires that mass transportation, commercial buildings and public accommodations be accessible to disabled people Certain specific conditions are excluded, such as alcoholism.

In 2007, the European Court of Justice in the Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA court case, defined disability narrowly according to a medical definition that excluded temporary illness, when considering the Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Council Directive 2000/78/EC). The directive did not provide for any definition of disability, despite discourse in policy documents previously in the EU about endorsing the social model of disability. This allowed the Court of Justice to take a narrow medical definition.

Over the last several decades, technology has transformed networks, services, and communication by promoting the rise of telecommunications, computer use, etc. This Digital Revolution has changed how people work, learn, and interact: moving these basic human activities to technological platforms. However, many people who use such technology experience a form of disability. Even if it is not physically visible, those with, for example cognitive impairments, hand tremors or vision impairments, have some form of disability that prohibit them from fully accessing technology in the way that those without a "technological disability" do.

In "Disability and New Media," Katie Ellis and Mike Kent state that "technology is often presented as a source of liberation; however, developments associated with Web 2.0 show that this is not always the case."[40] They go on to state that the technological advancement of Web 2.0 is tethered to social ideology and stigma which "routinely disables people with disability."[40]

In "Digital Disability: The Social Construction of Disability in New Media," Gregg Goggin and Christopher Newell call for an innovative understanding of new media and disability issues.[41] They trace developments ranging from telecommunications to assistive technologies, to offer a technoscience of disability which offers a global perspective on how people with disabilities are represented as users, consumers, viewers, or listeners of new media, by policymakers, corporations, programmers, and the disabled themselves.

The social construction of disability comes from a paradigm of ideas that suggest that society's beliefs about a particular community, group or population are grounded in the power structures inherent in a society at any given time. These are often steeped in historical representations of the issue and social expectations surrounding concepts such as disability, thereby enabling a social construct around what society deems disabled and healthy.

Ideas surrounding disability stem from societal attitudes, often connected to who is deserving or undeserving, and deemed productive to society at any given time. For example, in the medieval period, a person's moral behavior established disability. Disability was a divine punishment or side effect of a moral failing; being physically or biologically different was not enough to be considered disabled. Only during the European Enlightenment did society change its definition of disability to be more related to biology. However, what most Western Europeans considered to be healthy determined the new biological definition of health.[42]

Applying the social model of disability can change goals and care plans. For example, with the medical model of disability, the goal may be to help a child acquire typical abilities and to reduce impairment. With the social model, the goal may be to have a child be included in the normal life of the community, such as attending birthday parties and other social events, regardless of the level of function.[44]

• Medicalization
• Social constructionism
• Ableism
• Capability approach
• Models of deafness
• Equality Act
• Inclusion (disability rights)
• Inspiration porn
• Survivorship bias

• Oliver, Michael, 1945-2019. (2012). The new politics of disablement. Barnes, Colin, 1946-, Oliver, Michael, 1945-2019. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230392441. OCLC 963741473.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• UK Disability Rights Commission: The Social Model of Disability. Accessed 2009-10-15.
• Article on Disability Perspectives and Data Sources from Government of Canada.
• Chapireau F, Colvez A; Colvez (July 1998). "Social disadvantage in the international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicap". Soc Sci Med. 47 (1): 59–66. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00033-1. PMID 9683379.
• Kearney, PM; Pryor, J (April 2004). "The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and nursing". J Adv Nurs. 46 (2): 162–70. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02976.x. PMID 15056329.