Social Model of Disability
Nov 29th, 2010 | By Dr. Michael Sosteric | Category: Ask a Sociologist
| Cite
[hide academic citations]
AMA citation:
Sosteric D. Social Model of Disability. The Socjournal. 2010. Available at: http://www.sociology.org/ask-a-sociologist/social-model-of-disability. Accessed May 16, 2012.
APA citation:
Sosteric, Dr. Michael. (2010). Social Model of Disability. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Socjournal Web site, http://www.sociology.org/ask-a-sociologist/social-model-of-disability
Chicago citation:
Sosteric, Dr. Michael, "Social Model of Disability", The Socjournal, posted November 29, 2010, http://www.sociology.org/ask-a-sociologist/social-model-of-disability (accessed May 16, 2012).
Harvard citation:
Sosteric, D 2010, Social Model of Disability, The Socjournal. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from <http://www.sociology.org/ask-a-sociologist/social-model-of-disability>
MLA citation:
Sosteric, Dr. Michael. "Social Model of Disability." The Socjournal. 29 Nov. 2010. 16 May. 2012 <http://www.sociology.org/ask-a-sociologist/social-model-of-disability>
For more information on this plugin, visit Academic Citations.
Please, Can you explain about the social model of disability which is very different to the social model of care and social model of health. Thank you, Alia No related posts.
Please, Can you explain about the social model of disability which is very different to the social model of care and social model of health. Thank you, Alia
No related posts.
Wikipedia has a good article on this.
Basically, the social model of disability is an attempt to question the entire rubric covered by the term “disability.” It basically comes down to the question, “who are we (and by “we” I mean those who are not “disabled”) to apply the term “disabled” to somebody who does not function as “normal.” When “we” do this, we take a particular view of what it means to be “normal,” and a particular stance on what it means to be functioning, and apply that globally to everyone despite the fact that many people don’t fit into our social idea of what is “normal.”
The following quote sums it up succinctly.
“Disability refers to the social effects of physical or mental impairment. This definition, known as the ‘social model’ of disability, makes a clear distinction between the impairment itself (such as a medical condition that makes a person unable to walk) and the disabling effects of society in relation to that impairment. In simple terms, it is not the inability to walk that prevents a person entering a building unaided but the existence of stairs that are inaccessible to a wheelchair-user. In other words, ‘disability’ is socially constructed. The ‘social model’ is often contrasted with the ‘medical model’ which sees ‘disability’ as synonymous with ‘impairment.’” (ref)
There is a lot of merit in this position. Although we might like to invoke “costs” and “survival of the fittest” archetypes to justify our failure to provide accessible building entrances, or other accommodations needed to ensure individuals are not placed outside the boundaries of our social and political existence, when you think about we (and by “we” I mean normal people) are always building technological accommodations. Next time you look at a building site and see workers hauling materials using a crane, ask yourself, are these workers “disabled” because they cannot lift one ton blocks. Are they disabled because their muscles cannot handle that much weight and they therefore need a technological accommodation (iron, steel, and hydraulics) to be able to manager it? The answer is of course, no. We the “normals” see a limitation of the physical body, we create a social/technological accommodation to overcome that. We fail to do that in the case of those outside the parameters of “normal” not because we cannot ,make the accommodations, but because we apply the label “disabled” and thereby obviate ourselves of the responsibility of providing accomodations even when it is possible, desirable, and ethically necessary.