The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique

Abstract

 Emerging from the political activism of disabled people's movements and mainly theorised by the scholar Michael Oliver, the social model of disability is central to current debates in Disability Studies as well as to related perspectives on inclusive education. This article presents a philosophical critique of the social model of disability and outlines some of its theoretical problems. It argues that in conceptualising disability as unilaterally socially caused, the social model presents a partial and, to a certain extent, flawed understanding of the relation between impairment, disability and society, thus setting a framework that needs clarifications and extensions and presents limits to the achievement of its own aim of inclusion.This article concludes by suggesting that, despite its theoretical limits, the social model acts as a powerful and important reminder to face issues of inclusion as fundamental, moral issues.Despite the presence of people with accredited impairments at all times and in all societies, a systematized political and theoretical reflection on impairment and disability by disabled people and scholars has emerged only in the last three decades. This contribution has mainly originated from the disabled people's movements and in opposition to the prevailing analyses based on medical or mainstream sociological frameworks.The social model of disability, theorised principally by the disabled scholar Michael Oliver, is a fundamental contribution not only to the discussion about the complexity of disability, but to our understandings of disability as informed by disabled people's reflection on their own experience. An expression of disabled people's activism, the social model of disability has influenced the political positions of disability movements, both in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in the US. The model has also significantly influenced the field of Disability Studies as well as educational perspectives on inclusion. The social model defines disability as the product of specific social and economic structures and aims at addressing issues of oppression and discrimination of disabled people, caused by institutional forms of exclusion and by cultural attitudes embedded in social practices. This paper, based on political philosophy, is a critical account of the social model of disability. As such, my critique is conducted at a theoretical and political level, and identifies and addresses the conceptual problems of the social model of disability, rather than the experiential ones connected to the personal dimension of disability. In so doing, however, it aims at providing an alternative awareness on conceptual issues, which could inform the reflection on the personal experience of disability. My critique is conducted at two levels, one internal and one external to the social model itself. At the internal level, I address one intrinsic problem of the model, related to its theoretical

How well does the National Disability Insurance Scheme respond to the issues challenging Indigenous people with disability?

“…On the one hand, contributions of the social model to positive outcomes are evident, including those linked to political and social campaigns and advocacy for the rights of people with disability (Joiner, 2006;Thomas, 2007). On the other hand, this model has been criticised for neglecting some dimensions associated with disability, including the gender and culture of people with disability (Terzi, 2004), and the lived experience of the people living with mental illness and intellectual impairment (Hughes, 2009;Shakespeare, 2006). These dimensions are significant for research about how disability affects Indigenous people, who have been "disabled" and are still suffering from impairments caused by colonialism ORIGINAL ARTICLE THEORETICAL RESEARCH (Hollinsworth, 2013).…”

The right to inclusive education: why is there so much opposition to its implementation?

“…32 See Shakespeare, 2014;Terzi, 2004;Morris, 2001;Barclay, 2012. 33 See Anastasiou and Kauffman, 2013;Corker and French, 1999;Shakespeare, 2013;Tremain, 2005. Similarly, the CRPD recognises the existence of impairment but relates this impairment to those social and environmental barriers, and all its rights indeed hinge on their removal (Degener, 2016;Bartlett, 2012).…”

Pragmatism & Democracy

“…On the one hand it has been subject to a good deal of debate among proponents of disability rights, along both philosophical and political lines -see, inter alia, Barnes and Mercer (2010), Cole (2007), Oliver (1990Oliver ( , 2009 Shakespeare (2006), Smith (2005), Swain et al (2003), Terzi (2004). On the other hand it has (and this is the cause for some ambivalence in the disability rights movement) been adopted with remarkable speed into institutional frameworks and indeed government legislation.…”