The social model of disability proposes that people are disabled by systemic barriers, negative attitudes, and social exclusion, rather than by their own physical or mental differences. Emerging from the disability rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, this approach challenges the traditional medical model, which views the body as a machine to be "fixed" to fit a perceived norm. The social model of disability seeks to challenge power imbalances within society between disabled people and seeks to redefine what disability means as a diverse expression of human life. While physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations may result in individual functional differences, these do not necessarily have to lead to disability unless society fails to take account of and include people intentionally with respect to their individual needs.
The social model of disability is based on a distinction between the terms impairment and disability. In this model, the word impairment is used to refer to the actual attributes (or lack of attributes) that affect a person, such as the inability to walk or breathe independently. It seeks to redefine disability to refer to the restrictions caused by society when it does not give equitable social and structural support according to disabled peoples' structural needs. As a simple example, if a person is unable to climb stairs, the medical model focuses on making the individual physically able to climb stairs. The social model tries to make stair-climbing unnecessary, such as by making society adapt to their needs, and assist them by replacing the stairs with a wheelchair-accessible ramp. According to the social model, the person remains disabled with respect to climbing stairs, but the disability is negligible and no longer disabling in that scenario, because the person can get to the same locations without climbing any stairs.
It celebrates a non-conformist approach to the concept of disability and confronts deficit thinking of disability, which is argued to sit alongside the lines of activism and identity of pride for individuals with disabilities.
History
Disability rights movement There is a hint from before the 1970s that the interaction between disability and society was beginning to be considered. British politician and disability rights campaigner Alf Morris wrote in 1969 (emphasis added):The history of the social model of disability begins with the history of the disability rights movement. Around 1970, various groups in North America, including sociologists, disabled people, and disability-focused political groups, began to pull away from the accepted medical lens of viewing disability. Instead, they began to discuss things like oppression, civil rights, and accessibility. This change in discourse resulted in conceptualizations of disability that was rooted in social constructs.
In 1975, the UK organization Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) claimed: "In our view it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society." This became known as the social interpretation, or social definition, of disability.
Mike Oliver Following the UPIAS "social definition of disability", in 1983 the disabled academic Mike Oliver coined the phrase social model of disability in reference to these ideological developments. Oliver focused on the idea of an individual model (of which the medical was a part) versus a social model, derived from the distinction originally made between impairment and disability by the UPIAS. Oliver's seminal 1990 book The Politics of Disablement is widely cited as a major moment in the adoption of this model. The book included just three pages about the social model of disability.
Developments The "social model" was extended and developed by academics and activists in Australia, the UK, the US, and other countries to include all disabled people, including those who have learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, or emotional, mental health or behavioural problems.
Tool for cultural analysis 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 (literature), Leonard Davis (Deaf culture), Jenny Sealey (theatre) and Mary-Pat O'Malley (radio).
Components and usage
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 activists, as with other social activism, is "Nothing About Us Without Us".
The social model of disability focuses on changes required in society. These might be in terms of:
Attitudes, for example a more positive attitude towards certain mental traits or behaviors, or not underestimating the potential quality of life of disabled people, Social support, for example help dealing with barriers; resources, aids, or positive discrimination to provide equal access, for example providing someone to explain work culture for an autistic employee, Information, for example using suitable formats (e.g. braille), 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.
Limitations and criticisms Oliver did not intend the social model of disability to be an all-encompassing theory of disability, but rather a starting point in reframing how society views disability. This model was conceived of as a tool that could be used to improve the lives of disabled people, rather than a complete explanation for every experience and circumstance. An unintended consequence Oliver foresaw of the adoption of the social model of disability in politics was the undermining of the efforts of disabled people seeking social justice. Similarly, Tom Shakespeare has argued that the strong social model fails to correspond to the everyday experience of disabled people, many of whom experience physical and mental difficulties, as well as social barriers and exclusion.
A primary criticism of the social model is its centring of the experiences of individuals with physical impairments, which has resulted in overlooking other forms of disability, such as mental health conditions.
A secondary criticism relates to how the social model underplays impairments' impacts. That is, the focus on how the social environment can cause disablement may ignore the fact that impairments "can be restrictive, painful and unpleasant".
Conversely, some argue against the language of impairment, indicating that some disabilities are purely social and that no impairment exists, such as within the Deaf community. This relates to a critique regarding the belief of a species norm, wherein there is a "normal" human body, and all variations to the norm may be considered "impairments". Some activists and academic argue that this reliance on a species norm still implies that impairments are deficits, meaning this model is still strongly connected to deficit models of disability. That is, to be considered disabled, an individual must state they have an impairment, which implies, to some degree, that they are damaged. To an extent can have impacts on how government can distribute benefits on ground of impairments that may be more significant and those that are not. Thus, some needs are not met on the basis of not having an impairment significant enough to receive aid, which can be a negative application of the social model within government policy. Newer paradigms, such as Mad studies and neurodiversity studies, recognize a broad spectrum of human experience without a focus on a species norm and thus, deviances from that norm that may be considered impairments or deficits.
The social model has also been criticized for not promoting the normal differences between disabled people, who can be any age, gender, race, and sexual orientation, and instead presenting them as a monolithic, insufficiently individuated group of people.
Despite these criticisms, academics whose work involves disability indicate that the social model is still beneficial in helping people begin to rethink disability beyond deficit. As Finkelstein states: "A good model can enable us to see something which we do not understand because in the model it can be seen from different viewpoints [...] that can trigger insights that we might not otherwise develop."
As an identity In the late 20th century and early 21st century, the social model of disability became a dominant feature of identities for disabled people in the UK. Under the social model of disability, a disability identity is created by "the presence of impairment, the experience of disablism and self- identification as a disabled person."
The social model of disability implies that attempts to change, "fix", or "cure" individuals, especially when used against the wishes of the individual, 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. Autistic people may say that their "unusual" behavior, which they say can serve an important purpose to them, should not have to be suppressed to please others. They argue instead for acceptance of neurodiversity and accommodation to different needs and goals. Some people diagnosed with a mental disorder argue that they are just different and do not necessarily conform. The biopsychosocial model of disease/disability is an attempt by practitioners to address this.
The label "neurodiversity" has been used by various mental-disability rights advocates within the context of the social model of disability. The label, originally associated with autism, has been applied to other neurodevelopmental conditions or neurodivergences, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability, and Tourette syndrome, as well as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and some mental health conditions such as schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, dissociative disorders, and obsessive–compulsive disorder. The social model itself implies that neurodivergent people are living behind barriers that inhibit participation in everyday life. Language associated with warfare such as "battling" or "combatting" is thus replaced with language that de-pathologizes neurodivergence. Advocates for a social model of disability argue instead that neurodivergence should be looked at through the lens of societal or relational models of disability.