{"id":354,"date":"2021-12-07T16:38:02","date_gmt":"2021-12-07T21:38:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/digitaldisabilitystudies\/?post_type=chapter&p=354"},"modified":"2022-02-28T16:32:57","modified_gmt":"2022-02-28T21:32:57","slug":"models-of-disability","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/digitaldisabilitystudies\/chapter\/models-of-disability\/","title":{"raw":"1.3 Models of Disability","rendered":"1.3 Models of Disability"},"content":{"raw":"
\u201cIt wasn\u2019t until I was in my early 20s, about 20 or 21, that I became aware of disability as a political issue. And that happened largely through discovering the social model of disability.\u201d<\/span>\r\nTaylor (4:20)<\/span><\/div>\r\n

\"Background<\/h1>\r\nIn the video, Sunaura Taylor goes on to introduce the \u2018social model\u2019 of disability and summarize one of its key interventions\u2014the distinction it makes between \u2018disability\u2019 and \u2018impairment\u2019. Before exploring the social model and unpacking these terms, it is important to provide a brief overview of the way that \u2018models\u2019 help to structure and organize the knowledge generated by disability studies. We will then introduce some of the key models used within the field and describe a few of their essential elements.\r\n

Where Are We and How Did We Get Here?<\/span><\/h1>\r\nIdeas about disability existed long before \u2018disability studies\u2019 emerged as an academic discipline. Much of the work of disability studies involves looking at the history and present way that those outside of the discipline construct their own understandings of disability, and revealing the influence these concepts have had on how disability is experienced. Analyzing the history and present life of commonly held ideas about disability helps clear a path for new ways of thinking.\r\n
\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
Models provide the discipline with a way of organizing these different understandings of disability. The origin of these models differ, as do the ways that they are claimed, contested, and rejected by those who engage with them.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nHere are five models of disability that you should be familiar with. This list is by no means exhaustive!\r\n

The Medical Model<\/h2>\r\nThe medical model of disability conceives of disability as a personal malady in need of cure.<\/strong> It relies on medical expertise; examiners, practitioners, and researchers are the keepers of knowledge about both disability and its cures. The person experiencing disability does not possess authoritative knowledge about disability by virtue of their experience. (Withers, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2002)\r\n

The Rehabilitation Model<\/h2>\r\nThe rehabilitation model is similar to the medical model, but views disability as something that should be diminished, rather than cured<\/strong>. The medical model envisions a world of \u2018cured\u2019 people\u2014i.e., a world without disability. The rehabilitation model imagines a world of scarcely noticeable disability. The rehabilitation model seeks to \u2018rehabilitate\u2019 disability through alterations to the human mind and body as well as to the environment; however, unlike the social model below, and much like the medical model, it is led by an authoritative class of rehabilitation-experts, whose goal is to minimize the presence of disability in society. (Withers, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2002)\r\n

The Charity Model<\/h2>\r\nThe charity model is a further extension of the medical model, and is based on the same dichotomies of \u201cfit\u201d and \u201cunfit\u201d. Like the medical and rehabilitation models, the charity model often portrays disability as a personal tragedy. In a charity model, disabled people are often constructed into a class of \u2018deserving\u2019 citizens, who are owed a greater volume of social or philanthropic support than the rest of the population; housing, for instance, will be viewed as something to be beneficently allotted to a select few, rather than as a universal right. Disability is managed through the bureaucracies and ideologies of charitable institutions, and \u2018care\u2019 follows a rigid, top-down structure. (Withers, 2012)\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n

Key Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

The 3 models above can be characterized as \u2018individualistic\u2019 models in that disability in all 3 is found in the body and\/or mind of the disabled person. They can also be categorized as \u2018deficit models\u2019, as they are grounded in the underlying assumption that disability is a form of lack.<\/div>\r\n
The next two models are more closely aligned with the principles, paradigms, and perspectives of disability studies.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

The Social Model<\/h2>\r\nThe social model was formulated by the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation, a British network of advocates who fought for opportunities for people with impairments to live productively and independently in society. The term \u2018impairments\u2019 became crucial to their conceptual framework. Impairments referred to the individual and often embodied state of an individual which may impact their ability to participate in society. Disability, in the social model, refers to the social or cultural idea imposed upon an individual by their society. For instance, if an individual does not have motor control of their right hand, they are impaired in that hand; however, that same individual is only disabled to the extent that their society requires them to have full motor control of their right hand. Addressing disability in the social model thus involves a confrontation with society\u2014the onus is on the social collective to create circumstances in which the individual can reach their full potential, regardless of any impairments they may possess. (Shakespeare, 2021)\r\n

The Radical Model<\/h2>\r\nThe radical model builds upon the social model of disability by conceptualizing disability as a by-product of a capitalist society that requires a certain degree of productivity from its citizens. The radical model strives to eradicate the oppression of disabled peoples by emancipating them from the demands of capitalist economy. It considers \u2018impairments\u2019 and \u2018disability\u2019 as equally socially constructed, as both are assigned their respective values due to the demand for productivity, and the conflict that demand creates with certain bodies or personalities. Like the social model, the radical model strives for \u2018access\u2019, but access here refers to more than physical access to pre-existing institutions: it also means access to non-oppressive spaces and communities. The radical model explicitly draws attention to interlocking forms of oppression, such as anti-black racism and colonial violence, and acknowledges that power functions in the overlap of oppressing ideologies. (Withers, 2012)\r\n
\r\n

<\/a>Bodyminds<\/h1>\r\nIn disability studies, and within this Pressbook, we may use the term [pb_glossary id=\"1006\"]bodymind[\/pb_glossary] and it is worthwhile to go over what this term means.\u00a0 Bodymind is a materialist feminist term first initially explored by mad studies scholar Margaret Price (2015) and disability studies theorist Alison Kafer (2013). Bodyminds refers to the ways in which bodies and minds are connected and overlapping - which is to say, our bodies and minds are impossible to separate or to fully comprehend in distinction from one another.\r\n\r\nThe concept of bodyminds helps us understand how what happens to us \u2018mentally\u2019 always also impacts us physically and vice versa. At some level that seems intuitive; if we are injured when bitten by a dog, for instance, we feel betrayed, scared, regretful, surprised, or any other emotion that flows out of that context. Similarly, if we are feeling anxious about a public presentation we may feel sweaty, shaky, and notice that our breath rate has increased. Despite how common these connections are for all of us, in Western\/ized societies we tend to think of the body and mind as distinct, prioritizing the mind\u2019s capacity to control or overcome corporeal limitations and fragility. Increasingly, we turn to the government of the body through exercise, diet, and other forms of self-care as a means to secure mental wellness. While these efforts speak to how bodies and minds are connected, Price argues that they still keep body and mind \u201crhetorically distinct\u201d (2015, page i).\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\"\"<\/h1>\r\nTest your knowledge of these models of disability with the Model Match activity below.\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"9\"]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nOR\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"4\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nYou can continue watching, reading or listening to the video here (the video and transcript start from 4:08 - the quote above)<\/span>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
[h5p id=\"5\"]<\/span><\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
Click here to continue reading the Examined Life video transcript<\/a><\/div>","rendered":"
\u201cIt wasn\u2019t until I was in my early 20s, about 20 or 21, that I became aware of disability as a political issue. And that happened largely through discovering the social model of disability.\u201d<\/span>
\nTaylor (4:20)<\/span><\/div>\n

\"Background<\/h1>\n

In the video, Sunaura Taylor goes on to introduce the \u2018social model\u2019 of disability and summarize one of its key interventions\u2014the distinction it makes between \u2018disability\u2019 and \u2018impairment\u2019. Before exploring the social model and unpacking these terms, it is important to provide a brief overview of the way that \u2018models\u2019 help to structure and organize the knowledge generated by disability studies. We will then introduce some of the key models used within the field and describe a few of their essential elements.<\/p>\n

Where Are We and How Did We Get Here?<\/span><\/h1>\n

Ideas about disability existed long before \u2018disability studies\u2019 emerged as an academic discipline. Much of the work of disability studies involves looking at the history and present way that those outside of the discipline construct their own understandings of disability, and revealing the influence these concepts have had on how disability is experienced. Analyzing the history and present life of commonly held ideas about disability helps clear a path for new ways of thinking.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
Models provide the discipline with a way of organizing these different understandings of disability. The origin of these models differ, as do the ways that they are claimed, contested, and rejected by those who engage with them.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Here are five models of disability that you should be familiar with. This list is by no means exhaustive!<\/p>\n

The Medical Model<\/h2>\n

The medical model of disability conceives of disability as a personal malady in need of cure.<\/strong> It relies on medical expertise; examiners, practitioners, and researchers are the keepers of knowledge about both disability and its cures. The person experiencing disability does not possess authoritative knowledge about disability by virtue of their experience. (Withers, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2002)<\/p>\n

The Rehabilitation Model<\/h2>\n

The rehabilitation model is similar to the medical model, but views disability as something that should be diminished, rather than cured<\/strong>. The medical model envisions a world of \u2018cured\u2019 people\u2014i.e., a world without disability. The rehabilitation model imagines a world of scarcely noticeable disability. The rehabilitation model seeks to \u2018rehabilitate\u2019 disability through alterations to the human mind and body as well as to the environment; however, unlike the social model below, and much like the medical model, it is led by an authoritative class of rehabilitation-experts, whose goal is to minimize the presence of disability in society. (Withers, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2002)<\/p>\n

The Charity Model<\/h2>\n

The charity model is a further extension of the medical model, and is based on the same dichotomies of \u201cfit\u201d and \u201cunfit\u201d. Like the medical and rehabilitation models, the charity model often portrays disability as a personal tragedy. In a charity model, disabled people are often constructed into a class of \u2018deserving\u2019 citizens, who are owed a greater volume of social or philanthropic support than the rest of the population; housing, for instance, will be viewed as something to be beneficently allotted to a select few, rather than as a universal right. Disability is managed through the bureaucracies and ideologies of charitable institutions, and \u2018care\u2019 follows a rigid, top-down structure. (Withers, 2012)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Key Takeaways<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

The 3 models above can be characterized as \u2018individualistic\u2019 models in that disability in all 3 is found in the body and\/or mind of the disabled person. They can also be categorized as \u2018deficit models\u2019, as they are grounded in the underlying assumption that disability is a form of lack.<\/div>\n
The next two models are more closely aligned with the principles, paradigms, and perspectives of disability studies.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The Social Model<\/h2>\n

The social model was formulated by the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation, a British network of advocates who fought for opportunities for people with impairments to live productively and independently in society. The term \u2018impairments\u2019 became crucial to their conceptual framework. Impairments referred to the individual and often embodied state of an individual which may impact their ability to participate in society. Disability, in the social model, refers to the social or cultural idea imposed upon an individual by their society. For instance, if an individual does not have motor control of their right hand, they are impaired in that hand; however, that same individual is only disabled to the extent that their society requires them to have full motor control of their right hand. Addressing disability in the social model thus involves a confrontation with society\u2014the onus is on the social collective to create circumstances in which the individual can reach their full potential, regardless of any impairments they may possess. (Shakespeare, 2021)<\/p>\n

The Radical Model<\/h2>\n

The radical model builds upon the social model of disability by conceptualizing disability as a by-product of a capitalist society that requires a certain degree of productivity from its citizens. The radical model strives to eradicate the oppression of disabled peoples by emancipating them from the demands of capitalist economy. It considers \u2018impairments\u2019 and \u2018disability\u2019 as equally socially constructed, as both are assigned their respective values due to the demand for productivity, and the conflict that demand creates with certain bodies or personalities. Like the social model, the radical model strives for \u2018access\u2019, but access here refers to more than physical access to pre-existing institutions: it also means access to non-oppressive spaces and communities. The radical model explicitly draws attention to interlocking forms of oppression, such as anti-black racism and colonial violence, and acknowledges that power functions in the overlap of oppressing ideologies. (Withers, 2012)<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>Bodyminds<\/h1>\n

In disability studies, and within this Pressbook, we may use the term