EDAD MEDIANA

Both the social materialist and the social idealist perspectives evolved out of the work of disability activists and their critique of what they described as the medical model. These activists considered the foci on the individual and the impairment was

inappropriate and emerged from the medical profession’s interest in functional limitations, classifications and interventions to reduce the impairment and, therefore, the disability (Gilson & DePoy, 2002; Imrie, 2004). Some activists considered that this also led to the person with the impairment being placed in a passive position with the locus of control over their lives being held by medical experts who set goals and strategies for them (M. Barnes & Ward, 2000; Imrie, 2004; Shakespeare, 2006). It was also considered that this focus on the individual led to blame for the disability being placed on the person with the impairment or the person being left feeling somehow inadequate (Abberley, 1987). This significant shift in thinking was considered important in a number of ways as it opened the way for political activism to remove societal barriers and allowed people with impairments to reject a deficit way of thinking about themselves which empowered them to activism (Shakespeare, 2006).

Some researchers within the social paradigms consider that the ICF, which has been such a unifying model in the individual paradigms, may also be useful in monitoring the implementation of non-discriminatory social and political policies (Cerniauskaite et al., 2011). Others within these social paradigms, however, reject the ICF as an overarching

framework to explain the experiences of disability considering that the foci on classification and the way it uses disability-adjusted mortality rates11 means that it is still heavily biased in favour of the individualised biomedical aspects (Hurst, 2003), ignores definitions developed by those experiencing disability, and fails to capture the complexity of impairment (Godley, 2011). These social paradigms focus on the issues of exclusion due to political, economic, cultural, social and relational barriers (Godley, 2011). These paradigms also consist of a number of perspectives that can be found in a range of different disciplines across the social sciences and humanities, including sociology, cultural studies, social work (Morgan, 2012) and education (Godley, 2011), and are often described under the generic heading of Disability Studies.

3.4.2.1. Social Materialist

Figure 3.2 shows that the social materialist quadrant in Priestley’s (1998) typology can be most closely aligned with the British disability activists and the social model of disability that was first described by the Union of Physically Impaired Against

Segregation (UPIAS) in England in 1976 (M. Oliver, 1990, 1996; Shakespeare, 2006). UPIAS’s main premise was that disability was not due to an individual’s impairment but by socially created barriers that prevented participation, isolating and excluding those with impairments (C. Barnes, 2009; M. Oliver, 1990). Activists with this understanding seek to eliminate disability through political action. The British model is considered to provide the most extreme understanding of the social nature of disability that rejects the impact of impairment (Shakespeare, 2006). Some researchers, however, challenge these extreme views and the distinction between impairment and disability

(Shakespeare, 2006; Sullivan, 1996). These researchers consider that the extreme view represented by this paradigm makes it difficult for groups who experience

disability to form activist groups around the common experience of impairment, hinders research on particular impairments that could potentially benefit those who experience disability, and is hard to uphold in practice in the lives of those with impairments (Shakespeare, 2006; Sullivan, 1996).

The literature would seem to indicate that there are some perspectives that do adhere to this paradigm but that some consider that this understanding needs to be modified and aligned more closely with the individual idealist paradigm with its consideration of the individual experience, the individual materialist with its consideration of research on impairments, and the social idealist with its consideration of a common experience of

11

Disability-adjusted mortality rates are used by the World Health Organization to give a summary of the burden of disease by adjusting life expectancy rates to allow for costs of disability.

disability. While these diverse understandings have the potential to cause stress

between perspectives and hinder cross-disciplinary collaboration, they can also provide valuable insights in the multifaceted phenomenon of disability and provide a basis for cross-disciplinary understanding between these different paradigms.

3.4.2.2. Social Idealist

Scholars in the social idealist quadrant of Priestley’s (1998) typology, rather than focusing on the socio-structural barriers, focus on the socio-cultural factors of disability (Linton, 1998). These scholars reject the distinction between impairment and disability and consider that biology and culture interact. They undertake cultural and literary analyses of the cultural descriptions of disability in films, novels, art and drama and consider that disability is often used as a metaphor to represent the negative or evil aspects of society, which stigmatises and disables those with impairments (Mitchell & Snyder, 1997). These scholars focus on changing attitudes rather than policies (Mitchell & Snyder, 1997). There are two closely aligned models, the minority group and affirmation models that could be considered to fit within this quadrant of Priestley’s (1998) typology.

The minority group model grew out of the American civil rights movement (Meekosha, 1998; Zola, 1982). These American activists adopt a social interpretative stance and focus on the need to raise the social status of those experiencing disability through such things as emphasising the need for non-discriminatory language and encouraging the use of ‘people first’ descriptions (Linton, 1998). This minority group model is also closely aligned with the affirmation model (Swain & French, 2000) that celebrates disability and its positive impact on society as evidenced in the Disabled Peoples’ Movement, the Deaf culture and the disability arts movement (Corker, 1998a; Swain & French, 2000).

Some argue that despite the minority group or affirmation models addressing the oppression of those with impairments, the lack of focus on structural issues and political action has meant that these models have not resulted in change. This lack of focus on structural issues and political action is also considered by some authors to be the reason why legislation, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, still reflects a medical interpretation of disability (Donoghue, 2003). Some researchers also consider that the reason why the focus on the individual remains the dominant discourse and why those with impairments remain segregated is because of the ‘otherness’ created by the minority group model (Corker, 1998b).

In a similar way to the social materialist paradigm, it would seem that there are close adherents to this social idealist paradigm but that there are different foci. For example, one perspective focuses on the common experience of disability and advocating for non-discriminatory language and one focuses on the positive aspects of impairment. It would seem that the main challenges to this paradigm, that have the potential to cause stress in cross-disciplinary collaboration, come from adherents of the social materialist paradigm who advocate for political action.

While the two social paradigms both consider that disability is caused by society, each has a different view on how it can be eliminated, which has the potential to hinder cross-disciplinary collaboration. The social materialist considers that disability can be eliminated by political action and the social idealist by cultural change. There are no clearly aligned disciplines in either of the quadrants and individuals from those holding to the social nature of disability can be found in a range of disciplines. It could be broadly stated, however, that those from disciplines such as cultural studies would adhere more to the social idealist paradigm while those from disciplines such as political studies would be more likely to align with the social materialist paradigm (Godley, 2011; Morgan, 2012). It can also be seen, however, that there is a growing awareness within these social paradigms of the need to consider the embodied experience of disability (C. Barnes & Mercer, 2004; Scott-Hill, 2004; Watson, 2004). This growing concern means that researchers in these paradigms increasingly stress the need to undertake theory building using participatory methods, particularly group based discussions, so that the voices of experience and knowledge can interact (Bailey, 2004; Scott-Hill, 2004). These trends mean that there is not only common ground built around the understanding of society as the cause of disability between the two social paradigms but that there is also a growing awareness of the individual’s embodied experience. This awareness of the individual’s embodied experience within these two social paradigms means that there is also potential to find common ground with the individual idealist paradigm and the individual materialist paradigm.