The Different Models of Disability - Essay Example

The notion that the proper vernacular is essential to the portrayal of the marginalized could not be made more salient than in the case of describing individuals who are not as able-bodied as the rest of the population. Some individuals refer to those individuals as disabled while others refer to them as handicapped and yet other resort to the level of their impairment as a means of describing their physical, social or interpersonal functioning. In this vein, there are many models of disability which are utilized as tools for defining the scope and ramification of impairment as well as a method of determining the level of assistance the government will offer. Two of the most prominent models of disability are the medical and social models. These models have been greeted with great skepticism in that they are though of as being less reflective of the dynamics of disability in the real world. Additionally, they are thought of as being restrictive in nature in that they force individuals to perceive disability in a predefined and very rigid manner. These models, however, do prove to be helpful in that they establish a framework which can be utilized as a means of enabling individuals to gain an intimate understanding of the issues related to disability and the perspective of those who conceive the models as well as the institutions which utilize these models in policy setting initiatives. This report focuses on the obtaining an understanding of the different models of disability and its implications and ramifications. First and foremost, the Medical Model maintains that disability is the resultant of an underlying physical or mental limitation and is largely independent of social or geographical context. It is sometimes referred to as the Biological-Inferiority or Functional-Limitation Model. The most poignant conceptualization of this model can be seen in the definition as set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) and devised through the contribution of several medical doctors. Under this conceptualization, a disability is defined as any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range that is considered normal for humans while impairment is defined as any or abnormality of psychological or anatomical structure or function. Additionally, a handicap is defined as any disadvantage experienced by an individual which results from an impairment or disability which limits or prevents the fulfillment of a role that has become customary for that individual (WHO, 1980). Operating within this definition, the medical model maintains that the problem is organic in nature and its source is internal to the individual in question. It purports that the problem initiates with the individual and the solution emanates from that individual. This essentially is a very simplistic conceptualization of disability and does not allow for the interference of other factors such as socioeconomic status, the availability of employment for individuals who are characterized as disabled or impaired. None-the-less it still seeks a solution within the individual by him/her to overcome their very personal deficit and develop coping skill in order to deal with the very unique challenges faced by individuals who are classified as disabled or impaired. One of the most significant criticisms of this model is the notion that it fosters bias. This bias can be utilized as the source of discriminatory practices based on the prejudicial images of disabled employees being excessively ill and less productive than ‘normal’ individuals (Brisenden, 1986). The social model maintains that disability is a direct result of environmental, social and attitudinal barriers which effectively and efficiently prevent individuals with one or more impairments from participating fully in society. This model purports that the initial damage which led to the disability is not problematic but the reactions of individuals within society is responsible for the much of the effects of the disability. Essentially this model suggests that many of the problems faced by disabled individuals are not caused directly by their impairment but are based on the way in which society has been organized to blatantly disregard the needs of impaired individuals. In presenting a holistic view of the systematic oppression faced by disabled individuals there is an implication that the individual members within a society are empowered to challenge the rules of inclusion. An examination of disability within this framework has implications on an individual as well as policy making level (Tregaskis, 2004). An examination of the origin of the social model of disability proves to be interesting in that its philosophical origins can be seen in the United States African-American Civil Rights Movement and its advocacy was proliferated through the cooperative efforts of the Disability Rights Movement (Broad & Jenness, 1997). The Disability Rights Movement operated with the intent to advocate for individuals with physical, sensory, psychological, or cognitive disabilities that affect their day-to-day activities. These movements originated after WWII and effectively and efficiently facilitated the replacement of the medical model of disability with the minority-group model. Under the minority-group model it was asserted that limitations in social and vocational functioning were not a direct result of bodily damage but were a by-product of the inadequacies inherent in the social environments in which disabled individuals live. An application of this concept would be an articulation of the notion that paralysis in the legs did not effectively limit the mobility of an individual but instead, the absence of a wheelchair accessible ramp did. Essentially, under this model, a disabled individual was devalued as a direct result of socioeconomic discrimination (Longmore & Umansky, 2001). The adaptation of the social model for disability was responsible for both a metamorphism in the way in which individuals with disabilities were perceived and the legislative response to those disabilities. Much of this can be attributed to the quest for equal rights among individuals of color and women. Until the mid-twentieth century, disability was handled in a very discrete manner and individuals with disabilities were stigmatized. In fact disabilities were seen as shameful (Ward & Meyer, 1999). Individuals with disabilities were categorically excluded from participation many of the activities which were open to other citizens. Children with disabilities were regularly banned from activities within public schools. This was done irrespective of their ability to perform the tasks needed. This practice prevailed until the 1970s. Adults with disabilities were often disenfranchised as a direct result of the lack of proper accommodations for them. In fact, there were many barriers which made accessibility to services impossible and was effective in facilitating an increase in unemployment and underemployment among adults with disabilities. (Krieger, 2003). As a direct result of the adverse experiences of people with disabilities, the subject of disability was one that was politicized and had demanded attention by the political systems much like the other Civil Rights movements. For the first time, the disabled represented an interest group and their cause was motivated by the growing concern that individuals with disabilities were systematically victimized and will continue to be violated until something was done to bring attention to their plight (Ward & Meyer, 1999). Through sustained activism and advocacy, disability was transformed from a simple cause to one that had taken on a rights-based connotation (Yongjoo & Haider-Markel, 2001). The fight to end the systematic discrimination of the disabled was one that was marked by serious limitations on social and political participation. This discrimination prevailed despite the ongoing governmental efforts aimed at improving inclusion of individuals with disabilities. An example of this can be seen in the fact that the employment rates among individuals with disabilities had not been significantly impacted after the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many disability activists and advocates consistently questioned the efficacy and integrity of governmental programs designed to support the efforts of individuals with disabilities and their families in securing full participation of individuals with disabilities in society. In fact, the Disability Rights Movement has been criticized on the basis that it was a mere duplication in legislative action with regards to the marginalized. It was felt that disabilities policies (especially the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) were unnecessarily litigious, counter-productive, and failed to represent the collective interests of the stakeholders. These differing interpretations of policy effects facilitate the need for more effective communication with regards to disabilities as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the varying perceptions of stakeholders’ as they relate to the rights and personal characteristics of the disabled (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). The impact of social movements and interest groups on the delineation and definition of the issues involved remains ambiguous to a great extent as there is a wide range of limitations faced by individuals with disabilities. Essentially, individuals often vary in the problem definitions they choose to adopt (Rochefort & Cobb, 1994). As with any other civil rights movement, the involvement of citizen as well as their attachment to social movement groups varies with some individuals adopting the issue definition advocated by the social movement while others deviate from this definition. Issue definition at the individual level, however, remains vital because it determines whether individuals exhibit a propensity to make claims on government during policy implementation. This in turn affects the overall impact of the program and reiterates the point that the sole purpose of the government is to respond to the needs of its constituents. The practical implications of this are such than when the demands of the different groups are viewed together; these demands serve to influence program funding as well as to refine the focus of governmental initiatives. Essentially, our frame of thought with regards to social problems relies on the operational definition we utilize when referring to them. Throughout the course of the addressing the social model of disability, one general theme remains evident. That theme relates to the notion that much of the inherent inaccessibility to services for individuals with limitations have a strong socio-economic tie (Lieberman, 2002). This is most evident in the comparative incomes of individuals with limitations and those without. The first salient point to be made here is that there is a general correlation between income and political participation. Essentially, individuals of higher income generally participate in political activities while individuals of lower socio-economic status are actively engaged in their day-to-day survival (Milbrath & Goel, 1977). In fact Verba, Scholozman & Brady (1995) purport that individuals of higher socio-economic status possess more civic skills when compared to their lower socio-economic counterparts. This effectively accounts for the difference in participation in politics and alignment with movements for the disenfranchised based on socio-economic status. Furthermore, political participation has a strong association with the development of a more intimate understand o the political environment taken within a social context. As a direct result, personal involvement in the political process facilitates a clear understanding of the adverse effects of policy and prompts action on the part of the civic minded individual. The implications of this are such that there has been a class-based determination of policy as it relates to individuals with impairments and the end result is the expectation that middle and upper class individuals are more likely to encourage initiatives aimed at ending marginalization of the disabled (Lieberman, 2002). The most poignant contributors to the Disability Movement have to be the body of legislation which denounces exclusionary practices in both education and employment. Even this body of legislation has proven to be discriminatory in nature in that it utilized generalizations in its descriptions of individuals with limitations. These individuals have been described as individuals with special needs and as such they have been further marginalized. A look at the 1948 National Assistance Act and the 1981 Education Act proves to be illustrative of this fact. First and foremost the 1948 National Assistance Act was effective in ensuring that disabled individuals were offered the necessary assistance, however, it was very derogatory in its approach to describing individuals with disabilities. In this case it offered a disablement benefit under the conditions that that disability met the guidelines as delineated by the Medical Board. The conditions include the reassurance that there was permanent loss of the physical or a mental capability to function as what was referred to as ‘normally’. This determination of normality was based on a ‘compassion with a normal healthy person of the same age or sex.’ (Hall, 1963, pp. 41-45). The Education Acts have been instrumental in attempting to create normalization standards for people with disabilities. The key principles of these normalization standards entail the legislative response to dealing with the developmentally disabled. The 1970 Education Act the 1981 Green Paper and the 1983 Government Circular on Community Care, the King’s Fund programme An Ordinary Life (1980, 1984), and more recently the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act and the 2001 White Paper Valuing People have systematically helped to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. In the process it has embodied a strong push towards the deinstitutionalization movement for individuals with developmental disabilities and as a direct result implored the community to take a more active role. (Brown & Smith, 1992). The push to normalization, has also been instrumental in ensuring that there is an assurance of education for the developmentally disabled for the first time in 1970. As such, the achievements were remarkable and have changed the lives of many disabled individuals. Despite this remarkable achievement, some of the ideas within the Social Model of disability proved problematic in that the inclusion of individuals with disabilities facilitated unwarranted attention to the disabled. In lieu of full inclusion of all individuals with developmental disabilities, some theories dictate that such individuals should engage in a constant process of self-regulation to avoid drawing attention to their perceived difference and thereby increasing their chances of social acceptance and ‘passing’. Once again this is reverting to the individual treatment of individuals with disabilities rather than unilateral inclusion (Tregaskis, 2004). Finally, the Disability Movement has made significant changes in the lives of individuals with disabilities. These changes include the inclusion of individuals with disabilities within both the educational and employment segments. It was instrumental in the passage of several prolific pieces of legislature. We have seen a transformation from a medical model of disabilities to a social one. Despite this the attitudes of many individuals have seen very little transformation. Individuals with disabilities are viewed as “abnormal” and their needs are minimized by virtue of normalization movements. Individuals with disabilities have special challenges they face each day. These challenges include inaccessibility of services. Much of this is due to the physical barriers these individuals face. Over the course of time, this inaccessibility is changing but as much as the services are made accessible to individuals with disabilities, the stigmatism and marginalization remains. This will not change until each and every one of us becomes cognizant of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities and attempt to treat individuals with disabilities as we would able-bodied individuals. On the most fundamental level, these individuals need to be treated with the same respect and dignity afforded each person by virtue of being human. References Barnartt, S.N. & Scotch, R.K. (2001). Disability Protests: Contentious Politics 1970–1999. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Brisenden, S. (1986). Independent Living and the Medical Model of Disability. Disability, Handicap & Society, 1(2), 173-178. Broad, K. & Jenness, V. (1997). Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Brown H & Smith H (1992) Normalisation: A Reader for the Nineties. London: Routledge. Fleischer, D.Z. & Zames, F. (2001). The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hall, M. P. (1963). The Social Services of Modern England. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Lieberman, Robert C. (2002). Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change. American Political Science Review 96(4): 697-712. Longmore, P. K. & Umansky, L. (Eds) (2001). The New Disability History: American Perspectives. New York: New York University Press. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Scotch, R. K. (2001) From Good Will to Civil Rights: Transforming Federal Disability Policy. (2d ed). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Shapiro, Joseph P. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Times Books, 1993. Tregaskis, C. (2004). Constructions of Disability: Researching the Interface between Disabled and Non-Disabled People, New York: Routledge. Trent, J. W. (1994). Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ward, M.J. & Meyer, R.N. (1999). Self-Determination for People with Developmental Disabilities and Autism: Two Self-Advocates' Perspectives. Focus on Autism &Other Developmental Disabilities 14(3), 133-139. World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: A manual for classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: Author Read More