How do we define disability?
There are several models and theories that have attempted to define disability. These have evolved through frameworks such as the Eugenics Model, the Medical Model, the Charity Model, the Social Model and more recently the New Radical Model.
To better understand the Social Model, however, we must understand the essential distinction it draws between impairment and disability; within this definition ‘impairment’ defines the individual features of body or mind, ‘disability’, on the other hand, describes the impact that the physical environment creates in exclusion, discrimination and oppression of the body (Sandal & Auslander, 2005).
The Social Model was developed in the 1970s and 1980s. Introduced in the United Kingdom as a reaction to the Medical Model, it remains the dominant framework in Anglo-American disability studies. However, it comes under three major areas of scrutiny in modern discourse; firstly, it does not account for the dual needs of people with learning disabilities in that it presupposes a solely outward imposition from wider society; secondly, it does not consider impairments that are directly linked to social circumstances such as (economic) poverty or malnutrition (Shakespeare, 2006); and finally, some have begun to highlight the failure of the model to account for the wider intersectionality within the experience of (disabled) people of colour.
In this way, most disability studies do not account for the larger social experiences of individuals in the Global South (as defined by emerging transnational and postcolonial countries such as Africa, Asia and Latin America) to the broader socio-economic and political contrasts of the Global North (as defined by wealthier western or European countries such as the UK and America).
Under this model, ‘Disability’ in its colloquial sense becomes a much broader category for those who are perceived to not fit into binary categories surrounding normative bodies and minds.
So, whilst the Social Model demonstrates that people from different impairment groups face common problems - empowering them alongside their allies to find solutions to remove these barriers - how can we better centre the lens of intersectionality and critical race discourse with disability justice and activism?
The intersection of race and disability remains a particularly neglected area.
‘...[the] social model of disability [and] its limitations are more severe than have been recognised [...]’
- Samaha (2007) in What Good Is the Social Model of Disability?*
The Lexicon of Ableism
Ableism defines discrimination and prejudice against people with disabilities or those who are perceived to have disabilities. As such, the Anti-Ableism movement strives to create strategies, theories, actions, and practices that challenge and counter ableism by those with disabilities (Simmons University, u.d.), such as systemic (educational) reform (Douglas-Micallef, u.d.).
As a result, anti-ableism is now being used to highlight further:
‘[...] the experiences of disabled people of colour [that] has [been] masked [by] the processes by which whiteness and able-bodiedness have been privileged in these respective movements [;] centring the positionality of disabled people of colour demands, not an analogy, but intersectional analyses that illuminate how racism and ableism intertwine and interact to generate unique forms of inequality and resistance...’
- Frederick and Shifrer, 2019
Similarly, language patterns within disability rights have also evolved in an attempt to quantify distance to and from the ‘norm’. As such, terms such as Crip and Mad are being reclaimed from the lexicon of ableism - though this is not universally accepted. To disempower the historically pejorative usage of such words, the emergence of inclusive disablist terminology as a form of ‘pride’ began during the rights movements of the 1960s and 70s. Located in Crip Theory (Sandahl, 2003), this can also be seen throughout popular social movements such as the #CripTheVote hashtag and artistic movements such as Krip Hop Nation (Moore) and the growing popularity of ‘Crip Pride’. Today ‘Crip’ or ‘Krip’ is considered by some to not only be an inclusive ‘insider’ term representing vastly divergent physical and psychological differences (avoiding hierarchy), but also a highly provocative identification within disability culture.
Disabled theory and activism are maturing alongside alliances with feminist, queer and postcolonial studies which are entering a key period where the dominant social order is being disestablished (Campbell, 2009). In this respect, the Radical Model is, for some arguably, the next frontier in disability rights. Whilst it builds out from the political identity of the Social Model, it argues that we should not distinguish between impairment and disability. More fundamentally, this newer model shifts from a framework of ‘rights’ to ‘justice’, concerned with disability in the framework of social justice*. Within this framework, therefore, disability ‘is not a point of individual or social tragedy, but a natural and necessary part of human diversity’ (Withers, 2012).
Further, this framework holds intersectionality at its heart:
‘[because] if the disability movement doesn’t recognise and prioritise the experience of disabled people who are also LGBTQ+, women, people of colour, working-class, refugees and asylum seekers and so on, then it is not truly a movement concerned with justice. Justice for all groups, therefore, is bound up in the same struggle...’.
There are presently a number of high profile disability collectives discussing and developing the model, through organising as well as online via blogging and social media forums. These include Sins Invalid, Cachín Cachán Cachunga, Sisters of Frida and the Disability Justice Collective.
