A Personal Politics of Disability

The Development and Critique of
the Social Model of Disability

By Dr Raymond Lang
Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive
Development Centre
The Development and Critique of the Social Model of

Disability
April 2007
Dr Raymond Lang*
* Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre.
Full Working Paper Series

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/centrepublications/workingpapers
1
Photo
© 2007credit: Jenny Matthews/Leonard
Leonard Cheshire
Cheshire Disability and Disability.
Inclusive Development Centre, UCL.
Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 2
1. The Origin and Basic Tenets of the Social Model of Disability ............................ 3
2. The Historical Materialist Variant of the Social Model ......................................... 6
2.1 Oliver’s Analysis of Disablement............................................................... 9
3. The Development of the Social Model of Disability ........................................... 16
3.1 Experience, Embodiment and the Social Model...................................... 16
3.2 A Cultural Understanding of Disablement ............................................... 22
References ............................................................................................................ 33
1
© 2007 Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre, UCL.
Introduction
The objective of this paper is to provide a description and analysis of the social
model of disability, and how it has developed during the past 30 years. Both
academics working in the field of disability studies, as well as practitioners
providing disability services have been increasingly influenced by its underpinning
philosophy. Furthermore, the “disability movement” utilises the social model as a
political platform and tool to secure the “rights” of disabled people, with the
objective of ensuring that they enjoy the status of full citizenship within
contemporary society.
The social model of disability should not be considered as a monolithic entity, but
rather as a cluster of approaches to the understanding of the notion of
disablement. As will be demonstrated below, different variants of the model ascribe
differing and relative importance to a multiplicity of factors that result in the
oppression and discrimination that disabled people experience. However, common
to all variants of the social model is the belief that, at root, “disability” and
“disablement” are socio-political constructions. It is therefore the inhospitable
physical environment, in concert with the negative social attitudes that disabled
people encounter which result in the systematic oppression, exclusion and
discrimination of disabled people.
It can therefore be appreciated that the consideration of the theoretical

understandings of disability are not solely of semantic, academic interest. The
manner in which disability is popularly perceived has a profound impact upon the
way in which “stakeholders” are considered (by disabled person’s organisations,
policy makers and NGOs alike) to have a legitimate role in deciding how resources
are distributed. The manner in which disability has been variously conceptualised,
with the resultant ramifications for the provision of disability services, has become
a highly emotive and politically charged issue.
2
1. The Origin and Basic Tenets of the Social Model of Disability
The social model arose in response to the critique of the medical model of
disability. It has generated a caucus of academic writing, predominantly written by
academics and activists who themselves have disabilities and is the total antithesis
to the medical model. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of the
medical model within this paper, but to refer to it in relates to the social model. The
primary focus of analysis is the manner in which the social model shifts away from
consideration of the deficits of the functional, physiological and cognitive abilities of
the impaired individual, to the ability of society to systematically oppress and
discriminate against disabled people, and the negative social attitudes encountered
by disabled people throughout their everyday lives. Disability is therefore situated
in the wider, external environment, and is not explicable as a consequence of an
individual’s physical and/or cognitive deficiencies. Thus, in focusing upon the
manner in which disability is socially produced, the social model gives precedence
to the importance to politics, empowerment, citizenship and choice. Furthermore,
disability is the result of society’s failure to provide adequate and appropriate
services. Consequently, the needs of disabled people are not adequately
accounted for within the contemporary social organization of society. It is perceived
in attitudinal terms - as a socio-cultural rather than a biological construct. Harlan
Hahn, writing within the North American context, stated that disability stems from:
“the failure of a structured social environment to adjust to the

needs and aspirations of citizens with disabilities rather than
from the inability of the disabled individual to adapt to the
demands of society.” (Hahn, H. 1986:128)
A further central tenet of the social model is that, irrespective of the political,
economic and religious character of the society in which they live, disabled people
are subject to oppression and negative social attitudes that inevitably undermine
3
their personhood and their status as full citizens. Underlying the notion that
disabled people are oppressed is the assumption that all societies are
characterized by conflict between two competing groups; the dominant and the
subordinate. Writing within the context of the politics of disability, James I. Charlton
defined oppression as follows:
“Oppression is a phenomenon of power in which relations

between people and between groups are experienced in
terms of domination and subordination, superiority and
control. Those with power control; those without power lack
control. Power presupposes political, economic and social
hierarchies, structured relations of groups of people, and a
system or regime of power. This system, the existing power
structure, encompasses the thousand of ways some groups
and individuals impose control over others.” (Charlton, J.
1998:30)
Charlton also maintains that the majority of disabled people have been so
psychologically oppressed by society that their oppression has become
internalised. As a result, they have developed a Marxian notion of “false
consciousness”, whereby they come to believe that they are less capable than
others. Consciousness can be defined as an awareness of oneself in the world. It
is a process of awareness that is influenced by social conditions, chance and
innate cognition. With regard to “false consciousness”, as a lethal mixture of self
pity, self-hate and shame, this state of awareness can:
“… prevent people with disabilities from knowing their real

selves, their real needs, and their real capabilities and from
recognising the options they in fact have. False
consciousness and alienation also obscure the real source of
oppression. They cannot recognise their self-perceived pitiful
4
lives are simply a mirroring of a pitiful world order. In this
regard people with disabilities have much in common with
others who have internalised their own oppression”.
(Charlton, J. 1998:27)
Paul Abberley (1987) has also analysed the concept of social oppression as it
applies to disabled people. He argued that other groups within society, such as
women and ethnic minorities, encounter oppression, but that is not possible to
construct a monolithic theory that provides an adequate explanatory framework to
comprehensively analyse the phenomenon for all marginalised groups. Social
oppression is specific in the manner in which it operates in relation to form, content
and location, “so to analyse the oppression of disabled people in part involves
pointing to the essential difference between their lives and other sections of
society, including those who are, in other ways, oppressed”. (Abberley, P.
1977:163). Abberley delineates four supplementary defining characteristics of
social oppression as it relates to disabled people. He stated:
“To claim that disabled people are oppressed involves,

however, arguing a number of other points. At an empirical
level, it is to argue that on significant dimensions disabled
people can be regarded as a group whose members are in an
inferior position to other members of society because they are
disabled people. It is also to argue that these disadvantages
are dialectically related to an ideology or group of ideologies
which justify and perpetuate the situation. Beyond this it is to
make the claim that such disadvantages and their supporting
ideologies are neither natural nor inevitable. Finally, it
nvolves the identification of some beneficiary for this state of
affairs”. (Abberley, P. 1987:163)
5
Social oppression in turn gives rise to institutional discrimination, analogous to that
experienced with sexual and racial discrimination. Barton (1993) on commenting
upon the meaning of institutionalised discrimination within the British context
stated:
“An extensive range of research findings has demonstrated

the extent of the institutional discrimination which disabled
people experience in our society. This involves access and
opportunities in relation to work, housing, education,
transport, leisure and support services. Thus, the issues go
far beyond the notion that the problem is one of individual
disabilist attitudes. These are not free floating but are both set
within and structured by specific, historical, material
conditions and social relations. Goodwill, charity and social
services are insufficient to address the profundity and
stubbornness of the factors involved”. (Barton, L. 1993:242).
Disabled people have been subjected to a multiplicity of oppressive social attitudes

throughout history, which have included “horror, fear, anxiety, hostility, distrust,
pity, over-protection and patronizing behavior” (Barton, L. 1996:8). Such pejorative
attitudes, coupled with an inhospitable physical environment such, as inaccessible
buildings and unusable transport systems, are considered to be the real concerns
of disability. (Barnes, C. 1991). It is therefore maintained that “disabled people live
within a disabling world”.
2. The Historical Materialist Variant of the Social Model
Since the 1960s, some disabled people, particularly those aligned with the “radical
disability movement” in the UK and the United States, have attempted to develop a
theoretical understanding of the concept of disablement, from a socio-political
perspective. The early writers in this field were strongly influenced, as will be
demonstrated below, by structuralist and Marxist sociology. The theoretical
6
foundations of the social model have developed during the ensuing period,
embracing other schools of sociological thought. However, it is important to review
these early writings in some detail, for they provide a basis for understanding how
the model has subsequently developed.
Foundational to the materialist understanding of disability is the important

conceptual distinction drawn between impairment and disability, the formal
definitions provided by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation
cited in Box 1 below.
Box 1.
Definition of Impairment and Disability

(The Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1976)
 “Impairment (is) lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb,
organism or mechanism of the body;
 Disability (is) the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary
organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical

impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities.”
According to the definition cited above, the social construction of physically

impaired people as “disabled” arises, in the first instance, from the specific ways in
which society organises its basic material activities (work, transport, leisure,
domestic activities and so forth). Impairment is simply a bodily state characterised
by malfunction of the physical and/or cognitive abilities of the individual, as the
result of altered physiology or psychology, which defines the physicality of certain
people. In a very embryonic account of the materialist explanation of disability,
7
commenting upon the crucial distinction between disability and impairment, Paul
Hunt, on behalf of UPIAS, wrote:-
“In our view, it is society which disabled 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. Disabled people
are therefore an oppressed group in society. To understand
this, it is necessary to grasp the distinction between the
physical impairment and the social situation, called ‘disability’,
of people with such impairment. Thus we define impairment
as lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb,
organ or mechanism of the body; and disability as the
disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a
contemporary social organisation which takes no or little
account of people who have physical impairments and thus
excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social
activities. Physical disability is therefore a particular form of
social oppression.” (UPIAS, 1976:3-4).
A further tenet of the “materialist” thesis is that disability is not a fixed, absolute
category, but has been defined differently throughout history, and order to
understand the contemporary position in which disabled people are situated, it is
imperative to analyse disability from an historical perspective. Furthermore, given
the two premises that disability is a socio-political construction, and to a large
extent is culturally produced, disability theorists such as Oliver and Finklestein
maintain that the phenomenon of disability can be adequately explained with
reference to the “mode of production” and the dominant ideological hegemony.
Vic Finklestein (1980) was one of the pioneers in developing a materialist

explanation. He postulated that history can be divided into three “distinct and
8
sequential phases”, and that within each phase, the manner in which disabled
people are socially included or excluded within contemporary society will differ.
Firstly, the period before the European industrial revolution was characterized by
agrarian feudalism and some cottage industries. During this period, there was
scant social mobility, and this mode of production did not preclude disabled people
from active participation in their local communities. During the second phase,
spanning the industrial revolution and its immediate aftermath, disabled people
were effectively excluded from being in paid employment, due to the fact that they
were not able to maintain the pace set by the factory system. As a consequence,
disabled people were separated and thereby socially excluded from mainstream
social and economic activity. Finkelstein maintained that during the third phase,
which was just commencing, disabled people will witness and experience their
liberation from social oppression. This will be achieved through disabled people
and their allies working collaboratively to achieve commonly agreed goals, through
the aegis of the disability movement.
2.1 Oliver’s Analysis of Disablement
Mike Oliver, in his seminal work, The Politics of Disablement (Oliver, M. 1990) has
produced a variant of the social model of disability. This construction is considered
at some length, for it constitutes the foundation for the subsequent development
and maturation of disability studies, particularly in the UK and the United States.
The model is constructed and expressed in Marxist terms, and assumes that
human nature, and the resultant choices that individuals can make for themselves,
are determined by the structure and ideology of society. It is therefore argued that
the kind of society in which a disabled person lives has a profound effect upon how
their disability is experienced and structured. Furthermore, an individual’s personal
experience of disability within capitalism is itself defined, to some extent, by the
structural features of capitalism including ideology, culture and the influence of
race and gender as well as the activities of key groups and institutions
9
(professionals and professionals). The overall purpose of Oliver’s analysis is to
provide conclusive evidence that disability
“as a category can only be understood within framework

which suggests that it is culturally produced and socially
structured.” (Oliver, M. 1990:22).
Oliver began his analysis by questioning whether the medicalised, and tragic
conception of disability, which he observed to be prevalent within Britain in the late
1980s, had been replicated across other cultures and societies, and also between
historical periods. He concluded that the individualist, medicalised and tragic
conception of disability was indeed unique to capitalist societies. Oliver referred to
and quoted the work of two social anthropologists, Hanks and Hanks, who showed
that within pre-capitalist societies, the spectrum of attitudes encountered by
disabled people have varied from “ruler to outcast, from warrior to priest, from
infant to aged” (Hanks, J. and Hanks, L. 1980:12).
Oliver’s analysis of the social structuring of disability is founded upon two concepts;
the “mode of production” and the central core values, or ideology that are present
within any given society. Both interact and determine how disabled people are
perceived within their local contemporary societies. The former is understood to
refer to the type of economy and its constituent productive units, as well as the
manner in which production is organised – for example, through the network of
family units, or through the factory system utilising wage labour. The latter concept
refers to the basic values upon which a society is premised, which could be based
upon religion, science and medicine.
Different ideological premises have profound implications for the explanation of

disability. Oliver argued that in some societies, the presence of an impairment may
not be perceived by society in pejorative terms, as it has been seen as a sign of
being chosen. Hence, Safilios-Rothschild has stated:
10
“Throughout history, discriminatory practices against the sick
and disabled have varied greatly from country to country and
from century to century; they have ranged from complete
rejection and ostracism to semideification and the according
of special privileges and humours.” (Safilios-Rothschild, C.
1970:4)
Oliver maintained that the economic structure and ideological hegemony of modern
western society have had a major detrimental impact upon the lives of disabled
people, and also other marginalised groups such as those with differing ethnic
affiliations, or those with homosexual orientations. The rise of the factory system
and the introduction of individual wage labour transformed the “means of
production”, resulting in the separation of the home from the workplace, and in the
marginalisation of disabled people, because they were unable to meet the
demands of capitalist society. Disabled people have become further isolated from
their family communities through the establishment of closed and segregated
institutions, (which first came into existence in the late 19th century), whose
function was to act as a mechanism for social control. In the latter half of the 20th
century, closed and socially isolating institutions still exist which “warehouse”
disabled people – for example, within many so called “special schools” and
sheltered training workshops. However, during the past 20 years, throughout
western democratic societies, there has been a shift in government policy towards
ensuring that disabled people live in community settings, where the package of
“care” is bespoked to the individual needs. Within the UK context, this is referred to
as the “care in the community programme”, (Priestley, 1999).
Oliver further argued that in the wake of capitalism, dominant ideological

presuppositions and modes of thought became commonly accepted, which again
had detrimental consequences for the lives of disabled people. Analogous to
Gramsci’s distinction between “organic” and “arbitrary” ideologies, He distinguished
between “core” and “peripheral” ideologies, the latter being derived from the
11
former. In relation to ideology, it was argued that the rise of capitalism necessitated
the separation of work from home (as stated above), which in turn gave rise to the
ideological construction of individualism, which became the “core” ideology vis-a-
vis disability. Consequently, the rise of capitalism gave rise to the premise that
disability is in essence an individual pathology, since a distinction needed to be
drawn between those considered “able-bodied”, (and by implication able to work),
and those who were considered disabled. Hence, within the modern capitalist era,
“disabled people could not meet the demands of individual wage labour and so
became controlled through exclusion”.
This process of individualism gave rise to the peripheral ideologies of

categorization and medicalisation of disability. In order to make a valid distinction
between the deserving and undeserving poor, the agencies of the state assigned
the medical profession the role of deciding who was disabled and who was not.
This process, initiated during the 19th century, continues to have important
ramifications for contemporary service provision, where it is commonly assumed
that the greatest problems encountered by disabled people are directly related to
their medical conditions. The medical profession still has a great deal of influence
in the manner in which disabled people live, invariably being seconded by agencies
of the state to make assessment of their needs and abilities, often in areas which
have little to do with the application of medical science. Examples falling into this
category would include the entitlement for financial grants, wheelchairs and other
appliances, assessing the ability of a person to drive, and selecting appropriate
educational provision. A possible explanation of the continued, and some would
argue expanding, influence of the medical profession in the lives of disabled people
is that the profession has widened its remit within the field of medical science to
incorporate rehabilitation. Oliver, in support of this thesis, quoted Albrecht and
Levy:
“As demand for rehabilitation services increased and

insurance benefits expanded, there was an incentive for
12
physicians to enter the rehabilitation field. Under the aegis of
designing comprehensive medical rehabilitation programs,
hospitals, and physicians began to incorporate rehabilitation
services into the medical model. Definitions of disabling
conditions and appropriate treatment were expanded to
include medical interventions and physical control”. (Albrecht,
G. and Levy J. 1981:22).
Oliver continued his analysis by arguing that the economic and social structures of
society, in combination with the dominant ideological hegemony, have resulted in
disabled people being perceived as “dependent”. Consequently a great deal of the
social welfare legislation enacted during the post-war period has compounded this
notion. The term “dependency” is used in a two-fold manner. Firstly, welfare states
have categorised entire groups of people, of which disabled people are but one,
who have become dependent upon the state for the provision of education, health
care, as well as financial support. Secondly, in specific relation to disability,
attention has focussed upon the functional limitations of disabled people who are
perceived to be unable to care for themselves.
There is also a professional basis for the creation of dependency. Many of the
services provided for disabled people, often within institutionalised settings,
engender such a state. Traditionally, these services have been established and
subsequently managed with little or no regard of the needs and aspirations of
disabled people. Furthermore, the profession-client relationship is itself
dependency-creating, as undue power and influence is vested with the
professional. The structure of the economy within industrial society has invested
professionals with the function of acting as gatekeepers of scarce resources, (in
terms of financial benefits, medical and rehabilitation services) and this inevitably
affects disabled people’s lives.
13
Despite cosmetic changes that have been made with regard to the professional-
client relationship, Oliver remained pessimistic about changing this aspect of
dependency. He therefore stated:
“Economic structures determine the roles of professionals as

gatekeepers of scarce resources, legal structures determine
their controlling functions as administrators of services,
career structures determine their decisions about whose side
they are actually and cognitive structures determine their
practice with individual people who need help - otherwise,
why would they be employed to help them? This is not just
another attack on overburdened professionals, for they are as
much trapped in dependency creating relationships as are
their clients”. (Oliver, M. 1990:91).
The task of transforming modern industrial society, so that disabled people do in

fact live as full and free citizens, devoid of social oppression and negative social
attitudes, is profoundly revolutionary. Merely by tinkering with and modifying the
institutions of the welfare state, irrespective of whether it adheres to the ideological
presuppositions of capitalism or socialism, will ultimately prove to be inadequate.
The dominant hegemony of individualism, the medicalisation and categorisation of
disability, and the resultant dependency of disabled people will remain unaltered.
Furthermore, the raison d’etre of service provision needs to change from one that
is based upon defining needs (principally by able-bodied professionals), to one
based upon social rights. Such a move would run counter to the dominant ideology
of individualism that has hitherto pervaded services provision, as well as beginning
to break the cultural linkage between political and professional dependency.
In order for this to become a reality, thereby creating a “non-disablist” society,

Oliver proposed a three-fold strategy. Firstly, states should enact antidiscrimination
legislation, thereby making it an offence to discriminate against disabled people in
14
the fields of education, employment, housing and so forth. Secondly, within
western societies, more emphasis should be given to securing freedom of
information, so that disabled people can have access to information that has
previously remained confidential.
Thirdly, an infrastructure should be established in which the needs and aspirations

of disabled people can be met, with the appropriate range of services being
provided. This can only happen with adequate state funding, to assist
organisations of disabled people to secure their rights. Hence, it is ultimately
disabled people themselves who are defining how they wish to live their lives. In
the last 20 years, organisations of disabled people have been established in the
majority of countries throughout the world. The vast majority adhere to the
principles of “empowerment, and human rights, independence and integration, and
self-help and self-determination” (Charlton, J. 1998:130). In commenting upon the
consequences of adopting a human rights approach to disablement, Dimitris
Michailakis stated:
“A human rights approach implies legal reasoning. ... The

human rights approach implies, thus, among other things, the
creation of a legislation which shall give persons with
disabilities and their organisations the lever to ensure that
there is effective advocacy for their rights. ... Implicit in any
application of the human rights’ strategy is structural
transformation, involving redistribution of economic and
political power. As in the struggle against racism, advocates
and policy-makers chose to combat discrimination against
persons with disabilities by reference to human rights.”
(Michailakis, D. 1997: 19-20)
This human rights approach to disability has been adopted, within the last decade,
by the United Nations, who in 1993 at its 85th Plenary Meeting of the General
15
Assembly, passed the resolution “Standard Rules for the Equalisation on
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities” (United Nations, 1993). Although this
internationally agreed document does not have the status of a legally binding
document upon any sovereign state, it has nevertheless been very influential in the
development of disability policy throughout the developed and developing world. In
explaining the rationale that underpins the Standard Rules, the Resolution stated:
"The term ‘equalisation of opportunities’ means the process

through which the various systems of society and the
environment, such as services, activities, information and
documentation, are made available to all, particularly to
persons with disabilities. The principle of equal rights implies
that the needs of each and every individual are of equal
importance, that those needs must be made the basis for the
planning of societies and that all resources must be employed
in such a way as to ensure that every individual has equal
opportunity for participation. Persons with disabilities are
members of society and have the right to remain within their
local communities. They should receive the support they
need within the ordinary structures of education, health,
employment and social services.” (United Nations, 1993,
Introduction, Paragraph 25)
3. The Development of the Social Model of Disability
3.1 Experience, Embodiment and the Social Model
It is beyond doubt that the genesis and subsequent development of the “disability
movement”, underpinned by the theoretical foundation of the social model, both
within the United Kingdom and throughout the world, have created a quantum shift
in the manner in which disability has been perceived, and what is now considered
16
to be the appropriate and legitimate manner in which disability policy is to be
developed and implemented. It has now become the dominant hegemony
underpinning policy-making and service provision. In the past, and to a significant
extent today, it has certainly been the case that disabled people have experienced,
as have other marginalised groups, ostracism, discrimination and oppression,
which has resulted in them being classified as “second class citizens” in the
contemporary societies in which they live. The movement has been successful in
raising the profile of disability upon the political agenda, by poignantly highlighting
the social, economic and political structures, as well as the pejorative attitudes that
have contributed to ascribing disabled people the status of second class
citizenship.
Notwithstanding the significant contribution that the structuralist and historical

materialist theoreticians have made in constructing a socio-political understanding
of disability, recently a new generation of disability scholars have emerged, who
have attempted to develop and build upon the earlier work described above. Two
issues are considered to be of central importance within the ensuing debate. First,
the dualistic Cartesian distinction between “disability” and “impairment” is now
beginning to be questioned, in particular Oliver’s assertion that “disablement has
nothing to do with the body”, and that “impairment is in fact nothing less than a
description of the physical body” (Oliver, M. 1995:4-5). It is therefore argued that
an individuals’ own experience of living with an impairment on a daily basis,
sometimes in a state of acute physical pain, has an important and valid role in
experiencing disablement. Secondly, those working with disability studies are now
beginning to question to what extent can disabled people be considered as a
monolithic, homogeneous entity, and to what extent is the understanding of
disablement contingent upon social and cultural factors. In other words, is it
possible to construct a “grand theory” of disablement, that is valid and pertinent for
all impairment groups, across all cultural settings?
17
Within the current disability studies literature, most writers would adhere to and
acknowledge the general principles and axioms of the social model outlined above.
However, opinion is indeed divided as to what significance should be given to the
personal experience of individual disabled people within an analysis of
disablement. Some within the disability movement argue that the discussion of the
personal experience of disabled people detracts from achieving its main objective -
that is to challenge the structure and processes that exist within contemporary
society that oppress them. It is contended that such considerations dilute the
potency of the social model to act as a force for political change, for it de-politises
the debate. Finklestein (1996) has therefore stated:
“ ... attitudes and emotions that came from experiencing

discrimination ... Writers like Jenny Morris have elevated the
importance of personal, psychological in understanding
disability. Such a work encouraged a shift away from thinking
about changing the real world. Finding insight the experience
of discrimination is just a return to the old case file approach
to oppression, dressed up in social model jargon”.
(Finklestein, V. 1996:11)
Conversely, other disability theorists, such as Hughes and Patterson, influenced by

post-modern ideas, have argued that engaging with debates concerning the body
in relation to the notion of disablement in fact strengthens the potency of the
explanatory power of the social model. They have stated:
“The social model of disability presupposes an untenable

separation between body and culture, impairment and
disability, while this has been of enormous value in
establishing a radical politics of disability, the cartesianized
subject that it produces sits very uneasily in the contemporary
world of identity polities.. This paper is an internal critique: It
18
argues not for the supersession, but for the expansion of the
social model and it proposes and embodied, rather than a
disembodied, notion of disability”. (Hughes, W, and Paterson,
K. 1997:326).
Hughes and Paterson (1997) have thus argued that while the social model has
provided a penetrating critique of the medical model, it has nevertheless left
discourses regarding the body and impairment to the domain of biomedicine, thus
exiling the study of impairment from sociological examination. Furthermore,
Hughes (1999) argues that the social model, as originally conceived, provided a
pertinent critique of capitalism, but has largely been ineffective in critiquing
modernity. Consequently, maintaining the rigid distinction between disability and
impairment:
“ ... restricts the analytical power and ‘reach’ of disability

studies: in particular, it confounds the possibility of developing
a social theory of impairment which is largely dependent upon
escape from Cartesian categories.” (Hughes B 1999:156).
Writers such as Hughes and Paterson maintain that the relationship that exists
between disabled people and their bodies is mediated through medicine and
therapy, devoid of policy and political analysis. Such an approach results in the
dualism of a medical analysis of disabled peoples’ bodies and a political analysis of
disabled peoples’ social existence. They therefore stated:
“In the social model, the body is rendered synonymous with

its impairment or physical dysfunction. That is to say, it is
defined - at least implicitly - in purely biological terms. It has
no history. It is in essence, a timeless ontological foundation.
Impairment is therefore the opposite of disability: it is not
socially produced. ... Indeed, there is a powerful convergence
between bio-medicine and the social model with respect to
19
the body. ... Impairment is consequently entrenched in the
biomedical and reduced to its dysfunctional
natomophysiological correlates. Yet impairment is more than
a medical issue. It is both an experience and discursive
construction. ... The social model of disability has not
entertained debates that problematise the body”. (Hughes, B.
and Paterson, K. 1997:328-329).
Deborah Marks (1999) has cogently argued that the dichotomizing of disability and
impairment, as posited by the historical materialist variants of the social model,
paradoxically results in the social model becoming, in fact, highly individualistic. By
excluding a sociological analysis of experience and the body, a theoretical vacuum
is thereby created.
Feminist disability theorists, such as Liz Crow and Jenny Morris, concur with the
analysis presented by Hughes and Paterson, and have called for the social model
of disability to be reconceptualised, to incorporate a sociology of impairment. Jenny
Morris (1991) maintained that the social model has effectively denied the fact that
the physical and emotional pain and suffering experienced by disabled people due
to their impairments has any impact upon their practical daily living. The sharp
distinction drawn between disability and impairment has compartmentalized bodily
experience from social experience - pain from politics. In addition, Liz Crow (1996)
has persuasively argued that the social model of disability has not made adequate
accommodation for the subjective experiences of pain, fatigue, depression, and to
an extent, the uncertainty that disabled people inevitably experience as a result of
their impairment. The existence of impairment is indeed an objective reality as well
as being subjectively experienced. She therefore states that:
“an impairment such as pain or chronic illness may curtail an

individuals activities so much that the restriction of the outside
world becomes irrelevant ... for many disabled people
20
personal struggles relating to impairment will remain even
when disabling barriers no longer exist” (Crow, L. 1996:9 and
209)
Sally French (1994) has delineated four definitive factors that have a profound
influence upon the way disabled people experience the consequences of their
impairments: 1) the precise period in a person’s life when they acquired their
impairment; 2) the relative visibility of that impairment; 3) how “severe” the
impairment is considered to be from the model of other people, and 4) whether the
impaired individual also has other illnesses.
Furthermore, while recognizing that the concept of disablement is a socio-political

construction Bickenbach et. al. questioned whether sufficient rigor has been given
by protagonists of the early versions social model to establishing the mechanisms
of the causal linkage between impairment and disability. It is indeed difficult to
devise social indices that identify and measure this linkage. Bickenbach et. al
made the following insightful comments:
“Despite its intuitive power, the insight that disablement is a

complex phenomenon in part created by the social
environment cannot easily be translated into researchable
questions. How precisely does the social environment create
disablement? Should we expect patterns of disadvantage
linked to specific physical or mental conditions? How do we
identify which aspects of the social environment are
responsible for disadvantage? Which interventions will make
a difference and can we measure the improvement?
The data from these research questions could lay the medical
model to rest, and provide disability advocates with hard
evidence of how the social world ‘disables’ them. Yet these
questions are too vague, multifactorial and imprecise for the
21
basis of research. As a result, very little empirical research
has been done on the fundamental question of how intrinsic
features of an individual interact with features of the social
environment to produce disablement.” (Bickenbach, J. et. al.
1999:1174).
3.2 A Cultural Understanding of Disablement
Protagonists of the historical materialist variant of the social model, such as Mike
Oliver, maintained that irrespective of the category of impairment, all disabled
people encountered “oppression”. Indeed, oppression was perceived as the
common denominator that unites all disabled people, notwithstanding differences
in socio-economic or cultural background. However, it is contended here such an
understanding of oppression is problematical, as both disability and impairment are
socially and culturally constructed. What is means to have an “impairment” and
experience “disability” is therefore, by implication, culturally defined and will vary
between societies. For example, consider the case of an individual who has
dyslexia. In a predominantly rural agrarian society, such as South India, the fact
that an individual cannot read and write is not likely to inhibit their ability to work
and participate fully in local community life, and will not be popularly considered to
be disabled, and thereby encounter oppression. However, a person who is dyslexic
living in a western-based society is more likely to be unemployed, for in a myriad of
ways, in order to function within society, there is a prerequisite for an individual to
be literate.
The Department for Education and Employment, as part as its last Labour Force
Survey, published in Autumn 1999, examined the relationship between disability
and employment (Department for Education and Employment, 1999). The Survey
found that although disabled people constitute nearly a fifth of the working-age
population in Great Britain, they nevertheless constitute one eighth of all those in
employment. Furthermore, disabled people are over six times as likely an the able-
22
bodied counterparts to be unemployed and claiming state benefits. The Survey
also found the employment rates vary accord to type of impairment. Some
impairment groups, such as those with diabetes, skin conditions and hearing
impairments attain relatively high employment rates. However, three quarters of
those with mental illness and two-thirds of those with learning difficulties are
unemployed (Department for Education and Employment, 2000). It can there be
appreciated that the prospects of disabled people gaining employment are far
greater in South India than they are in a western country such as Great Britain.
The above also illustrates that the notion of impairment, as conceived by the
historical-materialists, is very “physicalist” in its understanding. As demonstrated by
the disability theorists cited above, the notion of an impairment is indeed a more
sophisticated phenomenon, that can encompass cognitive and psychological
manifestations. Those with cognitive difficulties and mental illness may in fact have
bodies that the majority would deem to be “normal”, but this does not necessarily
mean that such individuals do not encounter the negative connotations and reality
of experiencing impairment.
Recently, the World Health Organisation has also begun to recognise the symbiotic
relationship between disability and impairment, and that both are socially
constructed. Consequently, in 1993, they began the process of revising their 1976
classification of disability, handicap and impairment. According to the newly
devised scheme, the multifaceted nature of disablement is essentially comprised of
three principal components, which interact with each other. These have been
defined in the following manner:
23
Box 2.
The International Classification of Impairment, Activities and Participation: A

Manual of Dimensions of Disablement
(World Health Organisation, 1997:14)
 “Impairment is a loss or abnormality of body structure or of a physiological or
psychological function.
 An Activity is the nature and extent of functioning at the level of the person.
Activities may be limited in nature, duration and quality”.
 Participation is the nature and extent of a person’s involvement in life situations
in relation to Impairments, Activities, Health Conditions and Contextual factors.

Participation may be restricted in nature, duration and quality”.
Emphasis is now placed upon highlighting the social aspects of disability. The
newly devised classification has abandoned the word “disability” and “handicap”
altogether, replacing these terms with “activities” and “participation”. It emphasises
the dynamic relationship between the health condition of the individual, together
with their own “personal” characteristics as well as the broader social environment.
All these factors are seen as determining how an impairment affects the
participation of that individual.
WHO, commenting on the revised classification, stated:
“The new classification that has been devised by the World

Health Organisation is an attempt to measure the
multifaceted dimensions of disablement. Furthermore, the
notion of disablement is not perceived in terms of an attribute
24
of a person, but as a complex collection of conditions many of
which are created by the social environment. Hence, the
management of the problem requires social action and it is
the collective responsibility of society to make the
environmental modifications necessary for the full
participation of people with disabilities into all areas of social
life. The issue is, therefore an attitudinal or ideological one
which requires social change, while at the political level it is a
matter of human rights”. (WHO, 1997:6)
WHO’s latest conceptualisation of disablement constitutes a substantive

improvement upon the previous classification, for it attempts to take the social
dimensions of disablement fully into account, indicating a movement along the
continuum from a medical to a social understand of disablement. It is also aware of
the cultural and material factors which sometimes have a significant bearing upon
a particular individual’s ability to participate in contemporary society. Thus, the new
classification recognises that poverty, the lack of adequate housing, or inferior
environmental factors such as inadequate sanitation, as well as the gender status
of a disabled individual, may well affect their ability to participate in contemporary
society.
Bickenbach et. al. identified WHO’s revised classification of disablement as

attempting to encompass a “biopsychosocial” conception, principally by providing a
syntheses of the medical and social perspectives of disability. In commenting upon
the symbiotic relationship between the malfunction of the body, and the manner in
which society is structured, Dimitris Michailakis stated:
“ ... the person-environment approach implies a view of

handicap as something that involves the individual’s
functional limitation, as well as his environment will lead to
another understanding. Handicap is not a property, a
25
characteristic of the individual in the first hand, but something
that develops between the individual and the environment. ...
The inability to walk, to talk, to see and so on (functional
limitations) is clearly distinguished in the person-environment
approach from the inability to go to school, to work and
generally participate in community life. A functional limitation
becomes a handicap when the environment impedes action
and participation. ... The implications of functional limitations
vary according to socio-economic circumstances of each
society and the provisions it makes for its citizens. From a
person-environment approach, handicap is a problem which
exists in relation to society and which each society, therefore,
has the capacity to reduce or control” (Michailakis, D. 1997:
22-23).
Imrie (1997) also found the original conceptualization social model to be

problematical. By purporting that the origins of oppression are located
exclusively in “attitudes”, it is difficult to determine their social location,
and how these in turn result in oppressive action. The model is deficient
in failing to analyze the socio-political contexts in which attitudes and
values are constructed, and how they are in turn transformed into
oppressive actions and practices.
A further question arises concerning the appropriateness in developing countries of

the western-based notion of empowerment, which presupposes that rights are
exercised and that decisions are made in accordance with the preferences and
wishes of the individual. Such an individualised notion of empowerment, as
espoused by the international disability movement runs contrary to accepted social
customs and practices found within many developing countries. In societies such
as found in Asia, it is customary that all major decisions, for example, who one
should marry or the purchase of property or career decisions, are taken not by the
26
individual, but collectively through consultation within extended family and kinship
networks. This is particularly the case in rural areas, and operates irrespective of
whether disability is present within the family. Thus, a focus on rights and decision-
making practices rooted in the ideology of individualism is, in many societies,
particularly in an African and South-Asian context, often at variance with
established cultural and social norms and practices. It is surely right to question the
efficacy of proselytising western-based individualism, which runs contrary to long
standing local practices. A further matter for discussion is the most appropriate
strategy for achieving social change so as to result in the construction of a non-
disablist world. As the previous section has shown, one of the principal tenets of
the social model is that disabled people experience discrimination and social
oppression, resulting in disabled people living within a “disabling world”. Upon the
supposition that disabled people are indeed an oppressed group, the movement
has advocated that conflict should be used in combating such oppression and
discrimination.
While appreciating the foundation of such sentiments, and without denying the
validity of the assertion that disabled people do indeed face discrimination and
oppression, it is contended that disability is a far more complex phenomenon than
can be solely and adequately explained by social oppression and discrimination. It
is my experience that vast numbers of people, rather than actively oppressing
disabled people, are in fact fearful and ignorant of disability, which leads them to
relate to disabled people in inappropriate and often demeaning ways. In agreement
with this position, the feminist disability writer, Jenny Morris stated:
“Our disability frightens people. They don’t want to think that

this is something that might happen to them. So we become
separated from common humanity, treated as fundamentally
different and alien. Having put up clear barriers between us
and them, non-disabled people further hide their fear and
discomfort by turning us into objects of pity, comforting
27
themselves by their own kindness and generosity”. (Morris, J.
1991:192).
Oppression is often of an unwitting nature. If oppression and discrimination were

the sole factors in the creation of a disablist society, then conflict might be the most
appropriate strategy to adopt. However, if as is contended here, fear and ignorance
also provide a significant explanation to societal attitudes towards disability, then a
more appropriate and pertinent strategy for the creation of a non-disablist society
might be through the medium of education. It is an undisputable fact that disabled
people are in the minority within society, albeit a significant one, comprising
approximately ten percent of the world’s population. Disabled people, in order to
create a society which is indeed non-disablist and which secures effective, full
citizenship, needs to foster and build alliances with their able-bodied peers, and
this is best achieved through consensus building and education.
Conclusion - The Future of Disability Theory: Towards an

“Affirmation” Model
This paper has so far outlined the genesis and subsequent development of the
social model of disability, as well as highlighting some of the difficulties that are
inherent in its universal application across cultural settings. The social model of
disability continues to evolve and develop. John Swain and Sally French (2000),
building upon the intellectual work described above, have outlined an “affirmation”
model of disability, which seeks to “celebrate the difference” that characterise the
lives of disabled people. It is therefore contended that disabled people can be
“proud” the fact that they are different from the majority of the population. Swain
and French begin their analysis by rejecting the tragedy conception of disability as
purported by the medical model. They proceed by maintaining that it is not possible
to make a stark distinction between those who are disabled and those who are not,
since all people, to some extent have a degree of impairment, but do not
necessarily encounter the negative consequences of disability. Those who wear
spectacles to compensate for low vision are a case in point. Neither can a stark
28
distinction be maintained between those who encounter oppression and those who
do not, for it is possible disabled people themselves to be oppressors, by having
racist, homophobic or sexist attitudes.
They further contend that the social model of disability has clearly shown how
contemporary society has oppressed and discriminated against disabled people.
However, in contrast the majority of most disability studies theorists, they maintain
that the vast majority of disabled people accept the analysis of the social model.
They have candidly stated:
“The social model was borne out of the experiences of

disabled people, challenging the dominant individual models
espoused by non-disabled people. Nevertheless, it is our
experience that many non-disabled people readily accept the
social model, albeit superficially and at a very basic
conceptual level. Non-disabled people can generally accept
that a wheelchair-user cannot enter a building because of
steps. ... Non-disabled people are much more threatened and
challenged by the notion that a wheelchair-user could be
pleased and proud of the person he or she is” (Swain J. and
French, S. 2000:570).
Ascribing to the notion of an affirmative model of disability questions the analysis of

early variants of the social model, since it is argued that the adoption of the
precepts of the latter does not necessarily result in a non-tragic view of
disablement. Swain and French again state:
“While the social model of disability is certainly totally

incompatible with the view that disability is a personal
tragedy, it can be argued that the social model, in itself,
underpinned a non-tragedy view. First, to be a member of an
oppressed group within society does not necessarily
29
engender a non-tragic view. There is, for instance, nothing
inherently non-tragic about being denied access to buildings.
Secondly, the social model disassociates impairment from
disability. It, thus, leaves the possibility that even in an ideal
world of full civil rights and participative citizenship for
disabled people, an impairment could be seen as a personal
tragedy” (Swain, J. and French, S. 2000:571).
Swain and French further develop their thesis by stating that, in contrast to the
tragic view of disablement, the occurrence and onset of an impairment can result in
an improvement of the quality of lives an individual disabled person. Examples are
given of disabled people being able to “escape” the underlying social oppressive
practices and structures that characterise some societies. Thus, disabled people
may indeed be liberated from the responsibilities in the realms of sexual relations,
responsibility within the domestic household, and may be more attuned to
comprehend the oppression encountered by other minority groups.
The above demonstrates that it is possible for disabled people is inculcate and
project a positive identity, thereby celebrating the diversity and richness of the lives
that they invariably lead. In summarising the philosophy of an affirmative model of
disability. Swain and French stated:
“The affirmative model directly challenges presumptions of

personal tragedy and the determination of identity through the
value-laden presumptions of non-disabled people. It signifies
the rejections of presumptions of dependency and
abnormality. ... Embracing an affirmative model, disabled
individuals assert a positive identity, not only in being
disabled, but also in being impaired. In affirming a positive
identity, disabled people are actively repudiating the dominant
view of normality. The changes for individuals are not just
30
transforming of consciousness as to the meaning of
‘disability’, but an assertion of the value and validity of life as
a person with impairment”. (Swain, J. and French, S.
2000:578).
Swain and French conclude their analysis by stating that embracing an affirmative
view of disablement in fact strengthens the political leverage of the disability
movement. Disabled people can not only look towards a future society devoid of
structural, environmental and attitudinal barriers, but one that can “celebrate
difference and values people irrespective of race, sexual preference, gender, age
and impairment” (Swain, J. and Fench, S. 2000:580).
The desire to celebrate diversity and difference, and take pride in the positive value
of living with impairments, has also been expressed by those who are deaf. Some
“Deaf” people are of the opinion that they are not in fact disabled, but constitute a
distinct and coherent social minority, complete with their own culture and language.
A distinction is drawn between those how can hear, and those who cannot. By
implication, then, those with a physical disability such as paraplegia or cerebral
palsy would, in the minds of some of those who are deaf, as belonging to the latter
category. Ladd and John (1991), in investigating the relationship between the
“Deaf Community” and “disabled people” have stated:
“ ...we do not want to mainstream society to restructure so

that we can be part of it. Rather, we wish for the right to exist
as a linguistic minority group within society ... Labelling us as
‘disabled’ demonstrates a failure to understand that we are
not disabled within our own community. ... Many disabled
people see Deaf people belonging with them outside the
mainstream culture. We, on the other hand, see disabled
people as ‘hearing’ people in that they use a different
language to us, from which we are excluded, and see them
31
as being members of society’s culture” (Ladd, P. and John, M
1991:14-15).
However, the position outlined above has been criticised from within the Deaf
community itself. By claiming that they constitute their own distinctive cultural
identity, Mairian Corker argues that protagonists of such a position are in fact,
accepting as a fait d’compli, thee norms and social mores of a disablist society,
which is invariably oppressive. She states:
“ ... the allusion to withdrawal from mainstream society

suggests withdrawal from something; all accounts suggests
that this something is cultural and linguistic oppression. But
Western society, together with the dominant human services
culture and its governance and legal systems which at
present control to a large extent how we live, sill view all dead
people, including those who are Deaf, in terms of the
individual/medical model. Hence, though sign language is
increasingly acknowledged as a viable means of
communication, it does not follow that there is a widespread
cultural acceptance within such frameworks for thinking and
service development” (Corker, M. 1998:29-30).
32
References
Abberley, P, “The Concept of Oppression and the Development of a Social Model of Disability”,
Disability, Handicap & Society, 1987 No. 2(1) pp. 5-19
Albrecht, G. and Levy J., “Constructing Disabilities as Social Problems” in G. Albrecht (ed.) Cross
National Rehabilitation Polices: A Sociological Perspective. London : Sage, 1981.
Barnes, C. (1991), Disabled People and Discrimination in Britain: The Case for Anti-Discrimination
Legislation. London: Hurst & Co.
Barton, L., “The Struggle for Citizenship: The Case of Disabled People”, Disability, Handicap &
Society, 1993 No. 8(3) pp. 235-248
Bickenbach, J., Chatterji, I., Badley, E. and Ustun T., “Models of Disablement, Universalism and the
International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps”, Social Science & Medicine,
1999 No.48(9) pp. 1173-1187
Branfield, F., “What Are You Doing Here? ‘Non-Disabled’ People and the Disability Movement: A
Response to Robert F. Drake”, Disability & Society, 1998 No. 13(1) pp.143-144
Charlton, J. (1998), Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability, Oppression and Empowerment.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press
Corker, M. (1998), Deaf and Disabled, or Deafness Disabled? Milton Keynes: The Open University
Press
Crow, L., “Including all our Lives; Renewing the Social Model of Disability”, in J. Morris (ed.)
Encounters with Strangers: Feminism and Disability. London: Women’s Press, 1996
Department for Education and Employment, DfEE Disability Briefing: Disability Statistics February
2000. http://www.disability.gov.uk/dissum99.html.
Department for Education and Employment (1999), Labour Force Survey,1999. London: DFEE
Finklestein, V. (1996), “The Disability Movement has run out of Steam”, Disability Now, February
1996, No. 11
Finklestein, V., “Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for Discussion”, World Rehabilitation Fund,
1980, New York.
French, S. (ed.), (1994), On Equal Terms: Working with Disabled People, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann
33
Hahn, H., “Public Support for Rehabilitation in Programs: The Analysis of US Disability Policy”,
Disability, Handicap & Society, 1986, No. 1(2) pp. 121-138
Hanks, J, and Hanks, L., “The Physically Handicapped in Certain Non-Occidental Societies” in
Phillips, W. and Rosenberg, J. (eds.), Social Scientists and the Physically Handicapped. London:
Arno Press, 1980.
Hughes, B., “The Constitution of Impairment: Modernity and the Aesthetic of Oppression”, Disability
& Society, 1999, No.14(2) pp. 155-172
Hughes, B. and Paterson, K., “The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards
a Sociology of Impairment”, Disability & Society, 1997 No. 12(3) pp. 325-340
Imrie, R., “Rethinking the Relationships between Disability, Rehabilitation and Society”, Disability
and Rehabilitation, 1997 No. 19(7) pp. 263-271
Ladd, P. and John, M. (1991), Deaf People as a Minority Group. Milton Keynes: The Open
University Press.
Marks, D., “Dimensions of Oppression: Theorising the Embodied Subject”, Disability & Society,
1999 No. 14(5) pp. 661-626
Michailikis, D., “When Opportunity is the Thing to be Equalised”, Disability & Society, 1997 No.
12(1) pp. 17-30
Morris, J. (1991), Pride Against Prejudice. London: The Women’s Press
Oliver, M. (1990), The Politics of Disablement. London: MacMillan
Priestley, M. (1999), Disability Politics and Community Care. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970), The Sociology and Social Psychology of Disability and Rehabilitation.
New York: Random House
Swain, J. and French, S., “Towards and Affirmative Model of Disability”, Disability & Society, 2000
No.15(4) pp. 569-582
United Nations, (1993), Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities, Document A/RES/48./96. New York: United Nations
UPIAS, (1976), Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired
Against Segregation
World Health Organisation (1997), International Classification of Impairment, Activities and

Participation: A Manual of Dimensions of Disablement - Beta-1 Draft, Geneva: WHO
34

A Personal Politics of Disability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Personal Politics of Disability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Personal Politics of Disability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development and Critique of

the Social Model of Disability

The Development and Critique of the Social Model of

* Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre.

Full Working Paper Series

2. The Historical Materialist Variant of the Social Model ......................................... 6

2.1 Oliver’s Analysis of Disablement............................................................... 9

3. The Development of the Social Model of Disability ........................................... 16

3.1 Experience, Embodiment and the Social Model...................................... 16

3.2 A Cultural Understanding of Disablement ............................................... 22

It can therefore be appreciated that the consideration of the theoretical

“the failure of a structured social environment to adjust to the

“Oppression is a phenomenon of power in which relations

“… prevent people with disabilities from knowing their real

“To claim that disabled people are oppressed involves,

“An extensive range of research findings has demonstrated

Disabled people have been subjected to a multiplicity of oppressive social attitudes

2. The Historical Materialist Variant of the Social Model

Foundational to the materialist understanding of disability is the important

Definition of Impairment and Disability

 “Impairment (is) lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb,

organism or mechanism of the body;

 Disability (is) the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary

organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical

According to the definition cited above, the social construction of physically

“In our view, it is society which disabled physically impaired

Vic Finklestein (1980) was one of the pioneers in developing a materialist

2.1 Oliver’s Analysis of Disablement

“as a category can only be understood within framework

Different ideological premises have profound implications for the explanation of

Oliver further argued that in the wake of capitalism, dominant ideological

This process of individualism gave rise to the peripheral ideologies of

“As demand for rehabilitation services increased and

“Economic structures determine the roles of professionals as

The task of transforming modern industrial society, so that disabled people do in

In order for this to become a reality, thereby creating a “non-disablist” society,

Thirdly, an infrastructure should be established in which the needs and aspirations

“A human rights approach implies legal reasoning. ... The

"The term ‘equalisation of opportunities’ means the process

3. The Development of the Social Model of Disability

3.1 Experience, Embodiment and the Social Model

Notwithstanding the significant contribution that the structuralist and historical

“ ... attitudes and emotions that came from experiencing

Conversely, other disability theorists, such as Hughes and Patterson, influenced by

“The social model of disability presupposes an untenable

“ ... restricts the analytical power and ‘reach’ of disability

“In the social model, the body is rendered synonymous with

“an impairment such as pain or chronic illness may curtail an

Furthermore, while recognizing that the concept of disablement is a socio-political

“Despite its intuitive power, the insight that disablement is a

3.2 A Cultural Understanding of Disablement

The International Classification of Impairment, Activities and Participation: A

 “Impairment is a loss or abnormality of body structure or of a physiological or

Activities may be limited in nature, duration and quality”.

 Participation is the nature and extent of a person’s involvement in life situations

in relation to Impairments, Activities, Health Conditions and Contextual factors.

WHO, commenting on the revised classification, stated:

“The new classification that has been devised by the World

WHO’s latest conceptualisation of disablement constitutes a substantive