Social Model Debate

This is the gist of the Social model debate that is currently going on in a disability research list:

 

THREAD 1------------------------

From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of LILITH Finkler
Sent: September-25-11 9:52 AM
To: DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

Dear friends and colleagues. In reviewing research data, I noted key informants discuss issues re: chronic pain and the lack of what I refer to as "corporeal integrity". In other words, folks have indicated that their difficulties reside not only within their society but within their bodies as well. Initially, being a social model adherent, I found this challenging to reconcile. I have read some of Carol Thomas' work and wonder if any of you can suggest articles
that address this issue, critiquing the social model but from within the social model perspective. Work specific to chronic pain would be great but other recommended works would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much,

Lilith

-----------------------------

From: Gregor Wolbring<mailto:gwolbrin@UCALGARY.CA>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:49 PM
To: DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

I still believe that the whole confusion is because we use the term disability for two very different discourses a) body ability judgement and b) social experience of the person.

 

If we would not use the term disability for both (I tried to differentiate here)
http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/glossaryweb.htm

 

I think the discourse would become much clearer.

 

Because there are combinations possible between the two and  people exist that  identify for each of the possible combinations.

 

Given the combination one can feel limited by ones body and by the societal environment

 

Or only by body
Or only by environment
Or by none

 

Cheers
Gregor

---------------------------------------

From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Vin
Sent: September-25-11 4:49 PM
To: DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

I’m afraid I don’t understand the question: any explanation of the Social Model in the UK begins by stating that the terms ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ are held to be distinct and non-interchangeable terms.

 

The Social Model does not deny the existence or personal impact of impairment – in fact without impairment there can be no disability because it is the impact of society’s failure to take account of people’s impairments that leads to and sustains disability. Disability and barriers are the terms that are most closely interchangeable – not disability and impairment. Similarly, ‘vulnerable’ is often applied to disabled people and other groups but few people are intrinsically vulnerable; it is society’s failures to respond humanely to need that creates vulnerability. Surprisingly [and gratifyingly] this was recognised by the British Standards Institute within the consultation on Inclusive Service Provision.

 

Clearly United States activists, campaigners and thinkers took another tack and decided that it was more important to ‘put the person first’ than to shift the responsibility linguistically. I do wish that British contributors to the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities [sic] had prevailed on other nations to adopt the UK paradigm but I guess the  fact that discussions took place in New York determined that outcome, but within the UK I see no reason for confusion.
Regards,
Vin

 

Vin West
Secretary, Arfon Access Group
Glyn Dwr
Llandwrog Uchaf
Caernarfon
LL54 7RA
01286 880761
vin.west99@btinternet.com
vin@axessgroup.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:02:59 -0600
From:    Gregor Wolbring <gwolbrin@UCALGARY.CA>
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

Vin,
A few comments

 

1)Sorry but I do not buy this

 

“in fact without impairment there can be no disability because it is the impact of society’s failure to take account of people’s impairments that leads to and sustains disability”

 

Without the non-acceptance of peoples ability differences, or behaviour differences there can be no disablement that is based on ability judgments

 

Impairment is already a judgment as something missing

 

2) how often do we read physical disability or learning disability…..   these are prime examples of  language confusion
3) we say disability pride another language confusion as we are not proud to be soclally or ability discriminated but proud to be ability different.
4) I see the person first as a red herring. For me its more important that I can define myself and do not have to accept labels by others

 

For myself I do not by the impairment/deficiency label.

 

Its for me equally bad whether I am seen as a defective person or a person with a defect. The defect I do not buy for myself.

 

Cheers
Gregor

----------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:10:30 +0100
From:    Vin <vin.west99@BTINTERNET.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

Gregor,
I agree with you almost entirely. The second word that I see as interchangeable with impairment is diversity and I agree it is exactly society’s failure to welcome and celebrate [one might almost say revell  ] in people’s diversity that creates barriers that disable people.

 

I don’t deny that there is confusion in the use of language and I have a long-standing argument with Learning Disability Wales [sic] that their choice of name is Medical Model, perpetuated by older parents of people with learning difficulties who are anxious to express the severity of barriers that their sons and daughters face, many of these offspring being in their fifties or more. However, it is exactly this language and terminology confusion that I feel demands clear and consistent language use from campaigners in order to set the example.

 

I understand this parental desire to hang on to a term that gives some comfort but I can find no justification for ever using ‘physical disability’.

 

I believe that ‘ability differences’ is a term that will lead people into confusion because it appears to balance ‘ability’ against ‘disability’ – again I feel the word diversity leaping to my linguistic aid.

 

Self-definition is absolutely at the core of the Social Model as I see it, but this leads to the bit of the puzzle that must remain multi-coloured because individuals must retain the freedom to refer to themselves in any way they wish while society at large must be aware that it is assertive for a wheelchair user to refer to her or his-self as a crip but rude and offensive for anyone else to do so.

 

So if I can leap into my time machine and insert ‘slash diversity’ after impairment in my original post perhaps we are closer in meaning?
Best regards,
Vin

 

Vin West
Secretary, Arfon Access Group
Glyn Dwr
Llandwrog Uchaf
Caernarfon
LL54 7RA
01286 880761
vin.west99@btinternet.com
vin@axessgroup.org

THREAD 2----------------------

Date:    Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:35:34 +0100
From:    Larry Arnold <lba657@BHAM.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

I seem to spend half my time these days explaining the false reification of
the social model into some kind of scientific model of the world as it is.
What it is, is a powerful tool for liberation, for obtaining better
services, accommodations and equality. It never was a model. You have made
the fundamental error in step one of your argument of equating disability
and impairment. Pain is part of impairment, what you can and can't do with
it is largely socially determined beyond that. I would recommend an old book
now which demonstrates how even pain is socially constructed, it is a
learned thing, really, my trouble has been for instance not being able to
express it well enough in the socially conventional way.

 

Here you go: -  Morris, D. (1998) Illness and Culture in the Post Modern Age
University of California Press. Berkeley CA

 

And don't say I am not good for something. As someone who does experience
chronic pain, I can build philosophies around it because that is what I do,
what you start out with you can't change that much, but all of the rest that
surrounds it is as much social model as anything else IMO, one of these days
I'll write a paper on pain, because in some cultures it is a valuable
commodity, the ability to endure and publicly display pain is considered
highly desirable, as in tattooing rituals, the Lakota Sundance, Phillipino
crucifixions etc etc etc ................... Even in our culture in terms of
sports and athletics "no pain no gain"

 

Larry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:08:20 +0100
From:    Robert Williams-Findlay <bob.wf2@SKY.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

The fact we are still having this debate 30 years on, in my opinion,
suggests there are fundamental differences in terms of the significance of
"bodily appraisals" and the experience of disablement.

 

My body was affected by CP at birth, as a result, I am subjected to various
"views" - abnormal, functional loss, impairment, 'biologically damaged, etc
- which impact upon how I am both seen and treated. The social model has a
focus upon SOCIAL restrictions that are imposed on top of our experiences of
having non-conforming bodies. I disagree with UPIAS, disablement is not
simply 'not being taken into account' - a valid element of social
oppression, but it's also 'the WAYS in which we ARE taken into account, that contributes to social restrictions. I would also add that people have 'played down' the relationship between disablement at the macro level - structures, cultures, economics, policies, etc - and how individuals are subjected to 'differential and unequal treatment' at a micro level.

 

I reject the view that the social model ignores 'personal restrictions' - experience of pain, etc - it however doesn't focus on the experience of personal restrictions but rather the social contexts in which various societies seek to address them. I would suggest too that the social model is a critique of how disabled people have been marginalised and excluded from particular societies - disability is in fact, historically specific.

 

Bob Williams-Findlay

--------------------------

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:33:55 +0100
From:    Colin REvell <colrev@HOTMAIL.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: challenges to social model from within disability studies

 

what about the socio-legal perspective too - the social model has been accepted legally, as it not? also there are also the hierarchal structures of impairments and 'neurotypicalism' -'normalisation' models too to consider here? it's both objective and subjective.

 

Colin Revell

Reading from Deconstructing Mental Illness

renu37-40.pdf

Reading for This Week

Tanmoy_EPW.pdf

The reading for this week is my article that was published in EPW in 2010; please download it from here and read it before the next class.

ADA Part (A)

The focus here is on the individual, s/he must have actual impairment that limits one or more MLA (Major Life Activities); the person must establish:

(i) that s/he has a physical or mental impairment

(ii) that substantially limits

(iii) one or more major life activities

The person claiming to be an individual with a disability as defined by the first part of the definition must have an actual impairment. If the person does not have an impairment, (s)he does not meet the requirements of the first part of the definition of disability.

A physical or mental impairment means

(1) [a]ny physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or

(2) [a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

This regulatory definition does not set forth an exclusive list of specific impairments covered by the ADA. Instead, the definition describes the type of condition that constitutes an impairment.

ADA Para (C)

The focus under the second (part B) and third parts (Part C) is on the reactions of other persons to a history of an impairment or to a perceived impairment. 'History' (Part B) and 'Perception' (Part C) are a disability (and not impairment). This aspect recognises that stereotyped assumptions about what constitutes a disability and unfounded concerns about the limitations of individuals with disabilities form major discriminatory barriers, for persons at present, or previously misclassified or mistakenly percieved as disabled.

It includes:

(i) persons who have impairments that do not substantially limit major life activities but are treated by covered entities as constituting substantially limiting impairments

(ii) persons whose impairments are substantially limiting only as the result of the attitudes of others toward the impairment

(iii) persons who have no impairments but nonetheless are treated as having substantially limiting impairments.

By Part (C), it is acknowledged that society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. This aspect of the definition of the term "disability," therefore, is designed to protect against myths, fears, stereotypes, and other attitudinal barriers about disability. Common attitudinal barriers include, but are not limited to, "concerns about productivity, safety, insurance, liability, attendance, cost of accommodation and accessibility, and acceptance by co-workers and customer,." (House Judiciary Report at 30). Unlike Parts (A) and (B), this is directed at the employer rather than at the individual alleging discrimination, that is why, it's not important whether s/he has an actual disability/ impariment or not.

Eexample: if someone is rejected from a job because a back x-ray reveals some anomaly, even though the person has no symptoms of a back impairment, the reason for the rejection is the fear of injury, as well as increased insurance or worker's compensation costs; and therefore, the person is perceived to be disabled under (iii) above. It also applies to individuals who are subjected to discrimination on the basis of genetic information relating to illness, disease, or other disorders.

ADA Part (B)

This part covers persons who have a history of, or have been classified or misclassified as having, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. It includes persons who had a disabling impairment in the past but have recovered in whole or in part and are not now substantially limited.

It is intended to prevent discrimination against individuals (a) who have been classified or labelled, correctly or incorrectly, as having a disability and (b) persons who have recovered, in whole or in part, from a disability but are subjected to discrimination because of their history of a substantially limiting impairment.

Sometimes school or other institutional (e.g., hospitals) documents labelling or classifying an individual as having a substantially limiting impairment would establish a "record" of a disability.In this context, labelling at schools is an important issue and should be done judiciously and responsibly.

Class Cancelled

The class for Wed 7th Sept stands cancelled as the meeting at the Dept of Telecommunications ministry will not get over in time to take the class. BTW, I will be presenting a paper on "ICT for PwDs: With special reference to Indian Sing Language" at the meeting.
See you on Fri at 3:30

Assignment #2

The following assigment is due on 10th Sept., 2011:

Find out if there are ANY disability-related acts or laws in India that has the following requirements of a definition of disability as in the The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1987 of the USA:

• Situation


• Occupation


• Certification


• Length