This post is adapted from Yun Li’s doctorate dissertation, Effective Disability Ministry Practices at Local Church, pp. 10-14.
Understanding Disabilities
Table of Contents
A General Framework
Disability is a normal part of being a human. Every person will experience disabilities, temporarily or permanently, at some point in life. Many wear glasses because their vision is impaired, braces because their teeth are imperfect, or hearing aids because their hearing is damaged. Though individual limitations and impairments are different in kinds and degrees, we need to recognize the ubiquity of impairments and limitations and that we are all vulnerable and depend on one another.
Several conceptual models have been proposed to understand what disability is, and the models most often used are the medical model and the social model.
Medical Model
The medical model “defines disability in terms of individual defect” and sees disability as a “problem” that resides in the mind and body of the individual.1 Therefore, it requires medical intervention or some type of rehabilitation to address the individual’s “problem,” so the person can live a life close to what the general public consider “normal.”2 For example, through medication and counseling, people with depression can learn techniques to handle life’s circumstances better. With physical therapy, people having physical challenges can develop a greater range of motions. Still another example is that students with learning difficulties can improve their schooling through special education services. As McNair points out, there is nothing wrong with interventions or treatments, and proper interventions can improve the quality of life of people affected by disabilities.3 The problem with the medical model lies when we reduce the complexity of disability to the “fixing” of the individual. We try to mitigate or correct the “individual defects” with the goal of enabling the person with a disability to live a “normal, typical” life. We neglect to see the person as a human being with body, mind, and spirit, and we never question where our “norm” comes from or who decides the standard of being typical.
Social Model
The social model arose in response to the inadequacies of the medical model. According to Tom Shakespeare, the social model distinguishes between disability (social exclusion) and impairment (physical limitation) and claims that people with disabilities are an oppressed group.4 What is disabling is not the individual’s impairment but the environment and society’s response to it. Being in a wheelchair becomes disabling when the building is designed with the assumption that everyone can walk; being mute or deaf is disabling only when people do not want to take the time to learn sign language. John Swinton points out that “it is negative social reactions to such impairments and inflexible social structures which assume a norm that excludes particular impairments which causes a person to become disabled.”5 According to the social model, disability becomes a social creation. The approach to disability then, as Swinton indicates, is no longer medical treatment or intervention but social change and political action for justice and inclusion.6 Like the medical model, the social model reduces the complexity of disability and “locates the issue squarely within the society.”7
Comparing the two
The medical model sees disability as an abnormality, reduces disability to a set of medical conditions, focuses on a person’s impairments, and relies on healthcare professionals to fix disability through medical interventions. The social model sees disability as a difference, reduces disability to social constructions, focuses on a society’s exclusion, and relies on activists and lobbyists to fix the disability through policy and legislation.8 Neither the medical model nor the social model is complete and adequate on its own. Disability is a complex issue that involves personal, social, political, educational, medical, and psychological factors. It is an interaction between the individual with a disability and the overall context in which the individual lives; it is an interaction between the individual’s impairment and the social treatment and response the individual receives due to the impairment.9
Social Role Valorization
Wolfensberger’s social role valorization (SRV) theory employs a two-pronged approach to help people with disabilities have valued social roles by improving their personal competencies (the medical model) and enhancing their social image (the social model). Disability advocates seek to combat the marginalization of people with disabilities and effect social change through policy interventions or political actions. Yet, no amount of legislation will bring about real change unless people’s hearts are changed.
Conclusion
It is high time for us to honestly reflect on our heart attitudes and current practices so that we will move toward maturity in supporting full integration and participation of people with disabilities.
References
1 Tom Shakespeare, “The Social Model of Disability,” in The Disability Studies Reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis, 4th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2013), 216.
2 John Swinton, “Who Is the God We Worship? Theologies of Disability; Challenges and New Possibilities,” International Journal of Practical Theology 14, no. 2 (January 2011): 278, accessed September 2, 2019, https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ijpt.2011.14.issue-2/ijpt.2011.020/ijpt.2011.020.xml.
3 Jeff McNair, “Disability Studies Applied to Disability Ministry,” Review & Expositor 113, no. 2 (May 2016): 159–66, accessed August 9, 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0034637316637862.
4 Shakespeare, “The Social Model of Disability,” 215.
5 Swinton, “Who Is the God We Worship?” 279.
6 Ibid.
7 Mike Oliver, “The Individual and Social Models of Disability,” July 23, 1990, accessed September 26, 2020, https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/Oliver-in-soc-dis.pdf; Mike Oliver, an advocate of the social model, believes disability is a social creation and has nothing to do with individual limitations.
8 Jeff McNair, “Disability and Human Supports,” Christian Journal for Global Health 2, no. 2 (November 5, 2015): 11, https://journal.cjgh.org/index.php/cjgh/article/view/86.
9 World Health Organization, “Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF” (2002), 9, accessed September 26, 2020.
