Defining disability: metaphysical not political

Abstract

Recent discussions surrounding the conceptualising of disability has resulted in a stalemate between British sociologists and philosophers. The stagnation of theorizing that has occurred threatens not only academic pursuits and the advancement of theoretical interpretations within the Disability Studies community, but also how we educate and advocate politically, legally, and socially. More pointedly, many activists and theorists in the UK appear to believe the British social model is the only effective means of understanding and advocating on behalf of people with disabilities. This model, largely reliant upon materialist research traditions, contends that disability is a form of social oppression and hence, is a phenomenon that should be conceptualised in social terms. Individual properties such as impairments are disregarded as they are viewed to be unimportant in the analysis of the social causes of disability. Concurrently, many bioethicists and philosophers have embraced what Tom Shakespeare has classified as an 'Interactional Approach' to disability--that "the experience of a disabled person results from the relationship between factors intrinsic to the individual, and the extrinsic factors arising from the wider context in which she finds herself". I intend to demonstrate that the benefits of the British social model are now outweighed by its burdens. I suggest, as Jerome Bickenbach has, that while it may be somewhat churlish to critique the social model in light of its political success, taken literally, it implies that people with disabilities require no additional health resources by virtue of their impairments. Despite the eloquent arguments that have preceded me by interactional theorists, none have been accepted as evidence of fallacious reasoning by British social model theorists. This article is an attempt to clarify why it is that the types of arguments British social model theorists have been offering are misguided. I suggest that the British social model, unlike an interactional approach, is unable to provide a realistic account of the experience of disability, and subsequently, unable to be properly utilized to ensure justice for people with disabilities.

Disability of non-academic employees in public universities: an exploration of daily work experiences

“…After 2000, the interactional model of disability, in which disability is perceived as the complex interaction between one's impairment and the readiness of his or her environment to include, adapt to and subsequently ensure him or her full access to action resources (e.g. health, education, labor market) has been seen as proper by many countries, particularly developed Western countries (Boucher, 2017; Riddle, 2013). This comes in line with the study by Scullion (2010), in which disability has been referred to as a physical abnormality in body structure diagnosed through socially constructed realities, thoughts, awareness and behavior.…”

Considering Diversity in (Special) Education: Disability, Being Someone and Existential Education

“…Instead, they interpreted disability as a cultural and social phenomenon caused by social, structural and cultural mechanisms rather than the mere personal effects of impairments (Thomas 2004(Thomas , 2007. Since then, the debate has evolved around the distinction's social, natural and ontological status (Reindal 2010;Riddle 2013;Terzi 2004;Vehmas and Mäkelä 2009). In the wake of conceptual and theoretical controversies in the field of Disability Studies, the theme disability was increasingly framed in educational discussions, under the heading of diversity, and the term diversity became an important fulcrum in the language of inclusive education (Arnesen et al 2007) which was also intended to refer not only to disabled children (Kiuppis 2014), but to all school-age children.…”

The Great Reveal: The Experiences of a Registered Music Therapist with a disability: an arts-based research project

“…Critical disability studies and studies in ableism have long detached from the medical model, and instead conceptualise disability as a social construct. The social model views disability as a consequence of societal oppression, implicating environmental, social, and attitudinal barriers as the disabling factors, rather than one's body or mind (Fitzpatrick & River, 2018;Gross, 2018;Haegele & Hodge, 2016;Riddle, 2013). The social model helps to illuminate the way that the medical model positions people with disabilities as problems to be fixed.…”