The implications of Social Model Disability for churches
By Martin Hobgen
A related article described the
Social Model of Disability. This article identifies some of the implications this understanding has for churches and disabled people.
One of the key criticisms of the Social Model of Disability is that it either ignores or significantly downplays the real impact of impairments.
1 We cannot escape the reality that disability, while very much to do with the attitudes and actions of others, is embodied in a person. Even if all social, economic, political and physical barriers are removed, the impact of some impairments will prevent a number of disabled people from participating in some aspects of society.
2 For instance, as a wheelchair user I would never have been able to pursue a career in the front line of the police, fire or ambulance services. By tending to ignore the impact of impairments, this model risks homogenising disabled people, since there is a failure to take into account the diversity of impairment and experience among disabled people.
3 In order to take into account diversity of impairment, the model would have to produce a fragmented series of groups made up of people with similar impairments.
The model is also at risk of ignoring the differences between disabled people on grounds of race, gender, or sexuality, very much in the same way as writers in other fields are at risk of ignoring disability, or using it in a negative way.
4 In addition, there are dangers of reducing disability to macro-social phenomena, which both disembodies and dislocates disabled people from their life experiences.
5 Ultimately, this dislocation of impairment and disability can sustain an unhelpful dichotomy of the two, by focusing on the latter to the exclusion of the former.
6 For example, although I may experience the same discriminatory social attitudes as other wheelchair users, how I respond is shaped by my particular limits, family and social context. When I was living in a hostel for disabled people, I was aware that other wheelchair users with similar impairments responded to social attitudes in very different ways, partly shaped by their family and school experiences.
7
Advocates of the Social Model argue that the emphasis on social attitudes arose as an understandable reaction to the Individual/Medical Model that focused only on individuals and their impairments. According to Shakespeare, there is a lack of awareness, particularly among its most entrenched supporters, that society has changed significantly since the inception of the model. He suggests that the “… strengths of the social model are also its weaknesses.”
8 In particular, the model was developed by political activists seeking to find an easily explainable alternative to the Individual/Medical Model. The context of the social model was identity politics, enabling disabled people to campaign for social change without “… feeling ashamed of impairments… [as] activists could deny that impairment was relevant to their situation.” While Shakespeare contends that the social model has not changed since its inception, I think that the interdisciplinary field of disability studies has broadened our understanding of what informs an understanding of disability. The experiences of a younger generation of both campaigners and academics have shaped their understanding and concerns. Some proponents of the Social Model are very dismissive of the criticisms without engaging with them fully.
9
The ‘Strong Social Model’ has achieved a significant change in the way disability is understood, by shifting the focus from the individual to social attitudes and actions. However, by focusing so much on society and barrier removal, it has done little to facilitate the development of inclusive and empowering relationships between disabled and non-disabled people.
One of the important outcomes of the Social Model of Disability was the Disability Discrimination Act (1995), later superseded by the Equality Act (2010). Although these pieces of legislation have afforded some degree of protection to disabled people, the definitions of ‘disability’ have not changed, and are still given in terms of individual impairments. According to these Acts
You’re disabled … if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.10
Both pieces of legislation also refer to ‘reasonable adjustments’ being made to enable disabled people to access work and have access to services, but this has been difficult to define clearly.
Questions
-
What do you think the advantages of this approach are for Baptist church communities?
-
Are there any disadvantages?
-
Suggest ways in which churches can change their understanding from an individual/medical approach to a social approach to disability.
-
What sort of changes can churches make that will improve the participation of disabled people in Baptist church communities?
-
What role might friendships between disabled and non-disabled people play in the fostering of inclusion and participation in Baptist churches?
-
How would such a change relate to evangelism and engagement with our local communities?
References
Gleeson, B. J. (1999).
Geographies of disability. London: Routledge.
Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997).
The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12(3), 325-340. doi:10.1080/09687599727209
Johnstone, D. (2001).
An introduction to disability studies (2nd ed.). London: David Fulton Publishers.
Marks, D. (1999).
Disability: controversial debates and psychosocial perspectives. London: Routledge.
Oliver, M. (2009).
Understanding disability: from theory to practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Reinders, H. S. (2008).
Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Shakespeare, T. (2013).
Disability rights and wrongs revisited. London: Routledge.
Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). 'The social model of disability: an outdated ideology? Exploring theories and expanding methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go'. Research in
Social Science and Disability, 2, 9-28.
Thomas, C. (2014). 'Disability and Impairment'. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Thomas (Eds.),
Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments (Third edition ed., pp. 9-16). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: Sage.
1 (Hughes & Paterson, 1997; Thomas, 2014, pp. 13-15)
2 (Johnstone, 2001, p. 21)
3 (Shakespeare, 2013, pp. 80-81) There is a need, however, to be careful about developing a hierarchy of disability. Reinders is concerned about this regarding physically disabled people and people with learning disabilities (Reinders, 2008, pp. 24-26). See also (Marks, 1999, pp. 115-136) for a discussion regarding the diversity of impairments among disabled people.
4 (Marks, 1999, pp. 89-94)
5 (Gleeson, 1999, pp. 19-22) argues that the Social Model also has a tendency to ignore history.
6 (Shakespeare & Watson, 2002, pp. 8, 10, 15-19)
7 A significant number of the other residents had attended Special Schools while I have always been in mainstream education.
8 (Shakespeare, 2013, p. 20)
9 (Oliver, 2009, pp. 48-51) dismisses the main criticisms of the Social Model within three pages.
10 Both acts use the same definition: Disability Discrimination Act (2005) definition
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50 and Equality Act (2010) definition
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010
Want to comment on this reflection? Please leave your thoughts via this contact form.
Some comments may be shared below.