Disability Models, Tragedy, and Identity

The social model of disability can be contrasted with the medical model. The medical model views disability as a flaw in a person that can be cured by some form of medical treatment; the social model views disability as a flaw in the way society treats a person that can be cured by some form of accommodation (e.g. the disability is caused by lack of a wheelchair ramp, not by the impairment of being unable to walk). The medical model comes mainly out of early 20th century views about disability and medicine; the social model comes mainly as a more modern reaction to that from the disability civil rights movement. However, there is emerging criticism of the social model from within the disability community, and questioning about its value.

One suggested new model is called the "affirmation model" in the paper Towards an Affirmation Model of Disability (John Swain, Sally French). The authors note that this model is exemplified by the Disability Arts Movement.

A key criticism of the social model presented in the paper is that it's really just a redefinition of "the problem" of disability--it redefines where the "cure" for disability is (society not medicine) but doesn't address the notion of disability as a legitimate experience, as part of culture and identity, and as something that can be positive. The social model may reject disability as a personal tragedy, but ultimately it does nothing to directly prevent the view of disability as tragic, shameful, undesirable, or something to be distanced from a person. From the Swain and French paper,

The rejection of a tragic view and establishment of an affirmative model is far more problematic and not centrally addressed by the social model of disability. Essentially, the social model redefines 'the problem'. Disability is not caused by impairment or a function of the individual, but the oppression of people with impairments in a disabling society. The non-tragic view of disability, however, is not about 'the problem', but about disability as a positive personal and collective identity, and disabled people leading fulfilled and satisfying lives. Whilst the social model is certainly totally incompatible with the view that disability is a personal tragedy, it can be argued that the social model has not, in itself, underpinned a non-tragedy view. First, to be a member of an oppressed group within society does not necessarily engender a non-tragedy 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 to be a personal tragedy. There is, for instance, nothing inherently non-tragic about having legs that cannot walk or feel.

From an introduction by Colin Cameron to a poetry anthology (Tyneside Disability Arts (1999) Transgressions (Wallsend, Tyneside Disability Arts). ),

We are who we are as people with impairments, and might actually feel comfortable with our lives if it wasn't for all those interfering busybodies who feel that it is their responsibility to feel sorry for us, or to find cures for us, or to manage our lives for us, or to harry us in order to make us something we are not, i.e. 'normal'.

The affirmation model attempts to extend the social model to include disability culture and community, personal identity as shaped by disability and impairment, and personal acceptance of impairment. To say yes, some barriers exist that we need removed in order to have full civil rights. But also to say no, we don't want to be like the non-disabled people, we are fine with who we are as we are: our impairments are an important part of ourselves and our lives.

While the social model may be useful for identifying and removing access barriers, it may ultimately fall short of accurately modeling the experience of disability.