#medical model of disability

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

Veterans were supposed to appreciate the new systems of medical and government attention by recovering rapidly. By physically and mentally adapting to retraining, disabled men were thought to be responding appropriately. Recovery was thus a way of performing gratitude with the body. Underpinning this physical performance was the state’s reassertion of the citizen’s duty. Disabled bodies were not just symbols of physical remedy, then, but also signifiers of the successful intervention of medical services and voluntary organisations in reconstructing the disabled soldier as a dutiful and useful citizen. Clearly, this put considerable social meaning and pressure on the recovering disabled person. According to Douglas McMurtrie (American Red Cross Institute for Crippled and Disabled Men), patients slow to recover were lacking in ‘personal character’ or were accused of harbouring misguided perceptions that ‘he has done his duty by his country and that he should now be supported for the rest of his natural days at national expense’.

-- Ana Carden-Coyne (2007) "Ungrateful Bodies: Rehabilitation, Resistance and Disabled American Veterans of the First World War", European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire, 14:4, 543-565

[Poster's Note: According to this article (which I agree with), It was in this period after World War One that the Medical Model of Disability really became codified in institutions and "charitable" organizations. And the U.S. military's solution to the "problem" of disabled soldiers that might come back home and rabble-rouse for revolution was to make sure those soldiers never get to leave the military; for the rest of their lives, they're subject to military hierarchies, and have to obey military commands, even though they are now home.

And then, the military's approach to "Rehabilitation" became the norm for all disabled people and what they have to do to get support and accommodation for their daily living needs, even if they'd never been in the military a day in their lives. Above the doors of many of those bureaucratic offices, and at the top of all those forms you have to fill out in triplicate is the word --

Handicapped.

And I think that's where the folk etymology (especially in the Disability Community) that the word comes from "Cap-in-Hand," and from the belief that the only thing a disabled person is good for is begging. That's not actually where the word comes from. But that's still what it feels like, when you're sitting in your state's Vocational Rehabilitation Office, in a prefab office cubical, listening to a bureaucrat talk down to you.

Which is why most online articles debunking that folk etymology (I'm looking at you, Snopes) make me clench my jaw at their condescending tone.

[trueautisticrevolution]

Decenter yourself when it comes to autism

Autism is a spectrum and therefore autistic people are going to have radically different relationships to their autism. This is because the neurology between autistic people is different because it is a spectrum disorder and because there is a massive socially constructed element to autism that people are going to feel differently towards autism.

Just because a anti ableist talking point doesn't apply you doesn't mean it not is true for lot of people. Instead of accusing people of internalize ableism for low support needs people or Aspie Supremacy for high support needs people maybe you should decenter yourself and admit that it just doesn't apply to you.

No, we should not center low support need people or high support need people when we talk about autism. This makes the neurodiversity movement weak and not in line with material reality. The autism community need to compromise between the support levels. Saying disability is 100% socially constructed ignore the fact that extreme impairments exist, that there are people who have chronic pain, that there are people with extreme sensory issues or extreme emotions that are painful to live with like in BPD. Saying autism is inherently disabling centers high support need autistics and is ableist toward low support need autistics it also infantilizes society and enables ableism and eugenics, your ultimately saying society is prefect and doesn't need to change.

We can only destroy ableism by decentering yourself by compromising with people of different support levels. Nuance is important.

[neurotypicalabusesurvivor]

[toomanyacronyms]

I firmly believe that the "society causes disability" crowd would be the first ones to up the ableism once they realize disabled people are disabled regardless of how good society is. "What do you mean you're still disabled after all the work we did to reform society? Since you don't appreciate it, I'm going to be even more ableist toward you!"

Not to mention everyone likes to treat the Social Model of Disability and the Medical Model of Disability as two separate things when they need to be seen as one thing.

[cripvideoproductions]

Fall 2024 disability talks and screenings

On October 16th 2024 I (Margot) I had the privilege of having gave four presentations on disability. I spoke to two medical student classes about disability and bioethics such as how many disability rights activists see euthanasia and medical assistance in dying, and certain genetic testing, as a violation of disability rights (Not Dead Yet 2024). This conversation highlighted the importance of understanding how society views disability and the ethical implications that arise from these views. I discussed how side effects of medications can be disabling, and how invisible physical disabilities can sometimes be misdiagnosed and therefore dismissed as psychological disorders. It’s vital for future healthcare professionals to recognize that not all disabilities are visible and that the impact of treatments can vary greatly among individuals. Then I spoke to a group of college faculty about accessible teaching strategies like UDL. Last I spoke to a class of special education teachers, and paraprofessionals about accessibility and my life story.

On October 24th 2024 I spoke to another class of students learning to be general education and special education about the film “A Stroke Of Endurance” and modifications that can be made and addressing both mental and physical disability. This session highlighted the importance of recognizing each student’s unique needs and the role of educators in facilitating their success.

On December 5th I screened “Drama Sighted” for another group of teaching students to discuss the impacts of bullying of disabled students. The conversation turned into a discussion of “A Stroke Of Endurance” when an audience member mentioned they knew someone who had died of an ischemic stroke recently. One student said they thought Crip Video Productions main mission was to let disabled people know they matter and are valued. 

[oseberg-shipper]

Medical science, explaining the placebo effect: "So that's why when patients get warm, thoughtful care and focused attention from a nice expert, it makes them feel better and can even improve their health"

Medical practitioners, explaining the placebo effect: "So that's why you're a lying bitch who needs to get out of my office."

[what-if-a-dragon]

It's the moral model of disability of the colonial era, something that a lot of scholars say was discarded in exchange for the medical model. This switch is often attributed to the rise in institutional medicine as if to say, "We're smarted than we were, and now we know that moral value isn't the cause of disability".

And it's often directed outward, but we also see it directed inward. That is how the diet industry gets people to participate, by blaming them for being 'sinful' (sloth and gluttony usually) and drumming up fear about medical risk. You can see it in the comment sections of fat/body positive accounts when people say they are 'just looking out for the poster' by recommending diet and exercise.

It's the foundation of our mindset, and we cannot move on from it without pulling out the roots.

part of the reason America still doesn’t have universal healthcare is that a large portion of the healthy population consciously or subconsciously believes that being sick is somehow a moral failing. someone randomly has a heart attack at age 30 and there are people like “well, you should have eaten better, exercised more and drank less” like a medical emergency is proof you were living a life of sloth and sin and it could never happen to them. 

[neurotypicalabusesurvivor]

ASPD is a prefect example how psychology and mental health industry is bullshit.

One of the main criteria for ASPD is a consent disregard for the rights of others. But what is a right? Who gets to decide what a right is? A right is just something someone feel entitled to. Men right activist, father rights, private property rights are things used to oppress people that claim to be rights. A "right" is just something people feel entitled to which may or may not be helpful to society. Even rights which are for the most part good, like freedom of speach can be used to advocate for genocide. The freedom of Assocation can be used by queerphobic parents to disown their queer children. Private property (liberal definition) rights can be used to justify artificial poverty. In other words people with ASPD do not buy into the entitlements of others.

under this logic all men have ASPD because of the patarachy. All white people have ASPD because of white supremacy. All ableist (both neurotypical and neurodivergent) have ASPD. So why are these groups of people who have a history of civil right violations not label as ASPD. Because they do so in a socially acceptable way. Sexism and Racism is still social acceptable to a degree even after many decades of social justice activism.

the basing morality in and of it self is inherently problematic as you are being dependent on a biological function to decide who is moral and admoral. there are many reasons why someone might not feel guilt or remorse. The chief amongst these is dehumanization, racism, sexism, queerphobia, ableism, ageism, classism is all rooted in dehumanization. as a result, a lot of abusers engage in similar behaviors as cluster Bs. This comparison is only on surface level. Abusers get away with abuse because their behavior are protected by society, the verry same society that condition them to be abusers. Are jails are filled with narcissist and sociopaths because they do not have neuronormative privilege. When they act "abusive" they do so in ways that are not socially acceptable. meanwhile rapist, child molesters, killer cops, imperalist soldier get away with their brutality.``

The status Quo doesn't want to admit that the patarachy exist, so when a man become a serial killers they claim they have ASPD refusing to admit that people with ASPD are not immune to the patarachy. If the patarachy did not influence people to become serial killer a equal amount of men and women would be a serial killer and they would kill for the same reasons. Tough ASPD may influence why the serial killer's behavior the ASPD is not the root cause. The role of the medical model of disability as will all forms of oppression is deradicalizations. Just as the ruling class and the privilege class redirected attention away by blaming the jews, immigrants or othger margalized people the medical model redirect attention away by blaming "mentally ill people"

This brings me to my next point neurotypes are social constructs. They are the interpation of human biology that involves the brain. These interpations is done so for the neruonormative gaze. We decide them by comparing neurodivergent people to a standard of health that is also socially constructed. Alot of time people are deemed "disabled" or "mentally ill" because they are not compatible with the status qou, as status qou that is also socially constructed, but also socially constructed for the benefit of the ruling class at the expense of everyone else.

but.... but.... alot of these people are neurodivergent. Neurodivergent people can benefit from the oppression of other neurodivergents who is not the same support level as them and neurotype as them. Being neurodivergent is not a magical pill that make you anti ableist. A neurotypical is just the highest possible amount of neuronormative privilege possible. Alot of neuronormative privilege is required to get a college degree and to become a psychologist or a neuroscientist so even if the mental health professional is neurodivergent they still have a respectable degree of neuronormative privilege.

What is to be done, You may ask? neurodivergents must seize control of the psych industry away from those who want to benefit from neuronormative privilege and weaponize it against those who want to benefit from neuronormative privilege. People who do not accept neurodivergent trait will be pathologized. We will subject them to the same trauma that neurodivergent was violently subjected to. where therapy was weaponized against neurodivergents and used as a excuse to maintain the status Quo. we will seize control of this industry and use it to oppress ableist. Instead of expecting neurodivergent to mask ableist will be expected to learn coping skills, cognitive behavior skills to reduce distressed cause by ableism. Gone will be the days in which ableist infantilize themselves by hiding behind a therapist and psych meds.

What if this system destroys the mental health of an ableist. If you're in a self defense saturation do you care if you defending yourself result in grave bodily injury of your attacker. Do slaves during a slave revolt care about the mental health of their master family or employees. Do feminist care about the mental health of there rapist. Oppressors forfeit there right by violating the justified rights of others. There has not been a single major civil right earned that did not involve violence and trauma. The peaceful protest of the liberal is a lie. When people with neuronormative privilege rape disabled women like it goes out of style, sit by and do nothing as killer cop gun disabled people down in streets, though certian neurotype in jail, the bourgeoise drive disabled people into extreme poverty, imperialist engage in wars that destory the mental health of the global south and homelessness how dare you care about the mental health of ableist. How dare you expect mentally ill people to care about the mental health of their oppressors.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

So I got another rash of notes on this post like "And don't forget, Zuko's definitely disabled if he's partially blind!" And I wanted to clarify again: the social model of disability isn't about how much quantifiable ability you (don't) have. It's about how other people treat your body. And under the social model, facial difference counts as a disability in its own right. Zuko could have 20-20 vision and count as disabled, because of ableism.

Like, I have a cousin with ptosis. It's a minor condition that causes his eyes not to open fully, but doesn't affect his vision — he doesn't need glasses. However. He carries a card in his wallet that explains the condition, to show to cops at traffic stops. He's had many elective surgeries, the first one before he turned 10, to make his appearance more normative. He got sent to multiple offices by multiple teachers convinced he was on drugs. He gets rude questions about his appearance. He's disabled according to the social model of disability, because society thinks his appearance is "wrong" and reacts accordingly.

The medical model of disability is all about what disabled folks can't do, and how much they suffer. It's about quantifying with tests one's level of impairment. It would say facial difference doesn't count as a disability, because it isn't painful and isn't removing "normal" ability. The social model says, instead, that disability is all about what we consider average or correct, and what it means to be outside of those conditions. It says that a person with a large birthmark or scar on their face is likely disabled, because disability (and beauty) are social constructs that differ across cultures.

I'm very curious to hear your take on Zuko as a disabled character? All of your analyses of disability in fiction have been very interesting to read so far, thank you for sharing your thoughts/expertise.

Thank you!  Follow-on from this post about Toph.

What I mean by saying Zuko is a disabled character: the social model of disability basically states that disability is any bodily difference that gets problematized and/or treated as abnormal by society.  This definition includes facial differences, AKA any scarring, skin marking, and so on that leads to staring by nondisabled society or other forms of stigma based on the person’s appearance.  Part of the reason for this inclusion is about complicating the disabled-nondisabled dichotomy; facial difference and facial scarring are identities within that framework.  Part of the reason comes from the U.S.’s history of Ugly Laws, which literally made it illegal for people with facial differences to appear in public in some cities as late as 1974.  Part of it is the huge overlap between ableism (giving more privileges to the nondisabled) and lookism (giving more privileges to the normatively beautiful).

Avatar: The Last Airbender has some high-quality anti-ableism in showing Zuko’s story, including how other characters respond to Zuko and how Zuko’s appearance informs but does not define his characterization.

One of the ways this comes out is by turning nondisabled characters’ gaze back on them:

In “The Serpent’s Pass,” Jet says to Zuko “You know, as soon as I saw your scar, I knew exactly who you were…” and then goes on to describe his almost hilariously wrong conclusion that Zuko’s a Freedom Fighter waiting to happen because Zuko’s village was presumably also destroyed by the Fire Nation.  We get to see Zuko’s moment of terror that he actually has been recognized turn into incredulity as he then gets invited to join a guerrilla force opposing everything he (currently) stands for.  Jet looks stupid for jumping to conclusions based on appearances.

In both “Zuko Alone” and “The Cave of Two Lovers,” that same jumping-to-conclusions works in Zuko’s favor, because both Song’s mother and Li’s parents assume that anyone with a burn scar must be a veteran of the fight against the Fire Nation.  Again, the emphasis is on the fact that the people judging Zuko based on his appearance are wrong.

In “The Chase,” Azula becomes the only person we ever see mock Zuko for his appearance, when she covers her own left eye to draw out the “family resemblance” for Aang.  The moment gets a horrified reaction out of Aang — Zuko’s his enemy, but Aang also realizes that this is a nasty thing to do — and helps to establish Azula as not just a villain, but a sadistic one.

In “The Beach,” Zuko blows up at Ty Lee for commenting that stress can cause breakouts.  His response is unnecessarily mean-spirited, but it also draws attention to the relative level of privilege (the biggest skin problem she has to worry about is acne) that informed her careless comment.

In “Crossroads of Destiny,” Zuko assumes that, when Katara calls him “the face of the enemy,” it’s a way of calling him frightening to look at — and it’s Katara who looks like a jerk for implying it, even accidentally.

The other big way that this comes out is clapping back at the implied treatment of disability as demanding explanation, or the “But why are you like this?” form of ableism:

The show makes it clear that Zuko does not owe anyone — not Song, not Li, not Jet, not his crew, not his friends — an explanation for why he looks the way he does.  None of the Gaang ever ask Zuko what happened, and the few characters who do (Li, Song, Lieutenant Jee) don’t end up looking good when they do so.

“The Cave of Two Lovers” clearly underlines the show’s theme of “my body, my business” in the scene where Song tries to touch Zuko’s face.  The tone (including literal musical tones) signals that Song is being inappropriate and invasive.  It’s understandable that she wants to make a connection, but it’s also emphatically not okay to touch body parts of strangers one has not received permission to touch.

To be clear, taking people’s ostrich-horses is also not okay, Zuko, but Baby’s First Grand Theft Auto helps drive home just how thoroughly Song has let her curiosity and rudeness sour a budding connection.  It also shows that, while she’s right that she and Zuko have some things in common, she has privileges he lacks because she doesn’t have to disclose her scars if she doesn’t feel like it.  Plus, that moment contrasts to Katara and Mai both touching Zuko’s cheek — Katara just after they’ve shared a moment of vulnerability, Mai just before they start smooching — because they’re both doing so in a way that’s respectful to Zuko himself.

When he wakes up from a dream of turning into Aang, the first thing Zuko does is touch his left eye to make sure he’s still himself.  It’s part of his identity, and the only time we see adolescent Zuko without it (earlier in the dream sequence) it’s a way of showing that Zuko isn’t truly himself.

Zuko grapples with the fact that he’s always going to bear evidence of having survived abuse, and a big part of his character journey is concluding that he’s free to make whatever meaning he chooses of that scar, regardless of what Ozai might’ve intended.

There are other elements of Zuko’s story the Avatar writers do well.  He bears a superficial resemblance to the thousands of villains (especially in SF) who become villainous because they incur facial scarring, but of course his story is infinitely more humanized and nuanced than “skin bleached in a vat of acid, might as well go rob banks now.”  His appearance incurs very different reactions depending on his current wealth and political power, emphasizing the intersections of disability and imperialism.  He discusses the possibility of a cure with Katara, but also goes on to live a long and fulfilling life without one.

Maybe there’s no clearer evidence that Zuko counts as disabled in the sense of “society treats your body as a problem that needs to be solved” than the way that adaptations of AtLA treat the scar.  They tend to minimize, hide, or otherwise avoid it.

[Image description: Sepia-toned image of the Gaang from a Legend of Korra promotional that appeared on the Nickelodeon website.  Zuko has his head turned and his hair swept forward in such a way that none of the left side of his face is visible.]

[Image description: Screenshot of Zuko from the 2010 adaptation The Last Airbender.  Dev Patel has a very subtle amount of makeup meant to convey minimal scarring around his left eye.]

Like I said: facial difference counts as a disability because society treats it like one.  In the social model, that’s what counts rather than, for instance, how much peripheral vision Zuko does or doesn’t have.

I’m not linking to any of many works of fan art that depict Zuko tilted to the right, occasionally even when other characters are presented facing directly ahead.  Nor am I going to link to any of the equally-plentiful works of fan fiction that keep most other elements of canon the same but specify that Zuko’s face is unscarred.  (A similar number, it’s worth noting, also make Toph sighted.)  This isn’t a callout.  It’s an explanation of how Avatar does an effective job of showing how Zuko’s facial difference informs his identity without making that difference the sum total of his identity.

[thestarlightforge]

This very question needled at me for a long time. But after much pondering (and a lifetime of using a wheelchair), here’s the personal TL;DR I came to:

My impairments are the medical things “wrong” with me (i.e. everything from chronic pain or illness to sensory processing problems).

My disabilities are the institutional barriers which prevent me from participating in society to the extent I medically could, if proper accommodations were provided/allowed.

So my impairments (noun) are: Brittle Bone Disease and assorted complications—including Scoliosis, conductive hearing loss, and chronic pain and fatigue—as well as a smattering of neurodiversity (anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc.).

But these medical conditions do not disable (verb) me. Instead, I am disabled by (and this is an incomplete list, mind you): Shitty wheelchair access, systemic discrimination, and a lack of access to accommodations (both physical and logistical, from extra time for things to better-designed spaces) that would allow me to take better care of myself, both physically and mentally.

This follows the social and economic models—making the institutions that refuse to be inclusive responsible for ableism, and recognizing the economic motivations behind that eugenic behavior, rather than individualizing the results of widespread discrimination (i.e. we need to fix you, not our stairs)—while still leaving space for folks who legitimately want their medical issues addressed, to improve their personal quality of life (i.e. their choice, not a decision the state or outside parties pressured onto them). It also holds space for disabled people to form intersectional, interdependent communities, both for their own disability-specific reasons and for activist purposes, like with other oppressed identities.

Almost all disabled folks have their own feelings about person first, identity first, reclaiming slurs, the different models of disability—and as long as they consider themselves part of the community, I respect their opinions. This is just a sliver of where I’ve landed, for now.

"disability only exists because the world isnt accessible" idk how to tell you this but chronic pain still hurts

[trueautisticrevolution]

What is Eugenics Model of Disability

The Eugenic model of disability breaks humanity into a fit to reproduce category and an unfit to reproduce category and believes the unfit to reproduce category should be genocided.

Can normal people engage in eugenics

Eugenics does not have to be carried out by the government. Saying so is infantilization. Our society operates under the medical model of disability which state that disability is 100% biological. Truth is disability is both biological and socially constructed and people who believe disability is 100% biological are buying into a eugenic way of thinking.

What are Some Examples of Eugenics

Extermination Camps.

Force Sterilization.

The abortion of people with undesirable traits.

Encouraging Suicide by making life hell for people with undesirable traits.

Viewing Disability as 100% biological with no socially constructed element to it.

Giving disabled people Medical Assisted Suicide just because they can't hold a job or because their disability negativity affects other people.

Making it extremely hard to get on to disability.

Capitalism Artificially Disables Alot of People

The problem with Eugenics is that the concept of function is socially constructed. Capitalism combined with autonomation has created so many resources that work should no longer be mandatory for everyone. In fact, many of our business have to throw away goods because they over produce them, which is a waste of resources. So there no reason why everyone in society should working 40 hour a week and trying to maximize productivity. So, when RFK Jr. Say autistic people will never pay taxes society should never care.

In Marxism there a concept called the Cultural Hegemony of the Bourgeoise. Which state the opinions of the average person is the reflection of that of the capitalist class. This is done by gaining control over media and selectivity funding elections while at the same time using violence to crack down on effective dissidents to the capitalist state. This results in alot of disabled people feeling disabled when they don't have to because their opinions align with the capitalist classes.

Eugenics is Bio Essentialist

Disability also has a huge socially constructed element to it this is something eugenic advocates refuse to accept. Despite what RFK Jr. believes Autistic people struggling with socializing is largely a byproduct of lack of accessibility. Am I saying that everything can be accommodated to the point of triviality, no that not possible, but that doesn't mean society inability to help you or refusal to help you isn't socially constructed. Instead of wasting money of police and miliary when could be spending that money on ways to help high support need disabled people. Anyone can become disabled if society changes and their biology becomes incompatible with the status Quo.

Eugenics Encourage Birth Defects

Another problem with eugenics is the lack of genetic diversity. Dog breeds are a byproduct of eugenics, as we all know pure breed dogs have birth defects do to the lack of genetic diversity. What wait I thought you said disability was a social construct. No, I said disability has a huge socially constructed element to it disability is both biological and socially constructed. There are biological differences that make people lives hell and while accommodations may help they won't make it 100% go away.

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

More on the "Moral Model of Disability"...

"More," that is, jumping off the discussion in this thread (starting 18 April, 2024). It's a good discussion. We were mostly talking about how people are judged as either morally good or morally bad by how their disability effects their role in Society (translation: "Are you a Productive Cog in the Capitalist Machine, or Not? / "Are you an Inspiration / Good Example for Others, or Are You a Burden, and a Scrounger?").

But, that's not, strictly speaking, what the phrase "Moral Model of Disability" refers to. Or, at least, that's not what it originally meant.

There was once the widespread -- almost universal -- belief that disability is caused by sin, and can be treated and cured by discovering that sin, and repenting, and changing your way of life to live without sin (Think faith healers, and making pilgrimages to holy shrines, and drinking from wells dedicated to saints).

When I was a kid I met fellow disabled kids at summer camp who had been told outright by people that they were born disabled because their parents must have sinned, somehow.

Most people in the medical (and medical-adjacent) professions would probably think their training is far removed from these superstitious ideas, and that the Medical Model is seen as a great advancement from that.

But --

Think how quickly they assume that ME/CFS, or Long Covid (ME/CFS by a different name) is the result of laziness (The modern-day sin). Or how people with visible disabilities are shamed if they don't seek a cure, but people with invisible disabilities are shamed if they do, regardless of how much suffering or "lack of productivity" a disability causes (not to mention how young autistic kids are put through programs that force them to mask).

It's almost like the objective of "hiding evidence of the community's sins" is more important than actually helping people.

Grrr.

[neurotypicalabusesurvivor]

Ableist will be like: anything that hurts my feelings is abuse.

No abuse requires a power imbalance or an attempt to create a power imbalance.

Because of this people who are oppressed and marginalized are not automatically abusive just because your feelings got hurt.

Trauma that comes from being a Oppressor or privilege is not abuse. Slaves who revolt against their masters are not being abusive towards their master. Employees who go on strike are not being abusive towards their boss. Women who out men for being rapists are not being abusive towards their rapists. Traumatized people who have maladaptive coping mechanisms are not abusive towards endos because it is the societies as a whole responsible to protect children for being traumatized and you fucking failed.

[sailor-cerise]

What's the point of the social model of disability?

My musings on the social model of disability, including what I think is a common misunderstanding and some criticism I have.

My understanding is that the social model of disability is not about claiming society is the only reason for suffering and limitations -- that most certainly is not true for many people -- but rather about why the disability prevents you from participating in society and what should be DONE about your disability.

The medical model: you are broken and you and doctors must work to "fix" you so that you fit in and be as normal as possible. You need to make yourself fit in. Accomodations are about making you as least different and most "productive" as possible, minimizing the differences others see and have to accommodate. There is one "right" way to be and you aren't it.

The social model: society should adapt to the people that live in it, including disabled people, and society should change to accommodate people living with disabilities. Accomodations are about putting you in equal ground with others. You should be empowered to live life as fully as possible, to interact with other people and the world not as a burden or an object of pity or an afterthought, but a PERSON.

When the social model says "society disables you", it's a criticism of how society treats disabled people and makes their issues bigger problems than they need to be, and pressures people to suppress their needs and appear "normal".

If society changed, I would still:

Have wildly inconsistent energy

Have intense pain sometimes (period pain, migraines, body aches)

Be unable to exercise vigorously in cold, dry weather

Require aids like tinted glasses and noise cancelling headphones

Require a lot of medications to feel well enough to do things I care about

BUT I would also:

Not be forced to give ALL my limited energy to work, leaving me with some for myself and my relationships and hobbies

Be able to take the time and treatments I needed to get throughout painful episodes

Not spend a ton of energy acting "normal" for the sake of keeping my job and family relationships, hiding my needs and pushing through in unhealthy ways

Rest without shame

Have my accomodations accepted without mockery or outrage or judgement

Have the supports I need to see doctor and go to physical therapy so I can do more of the activities I want to

Be able to more effectively manage my triggers, reducing the amount of pain and fatigue I deal with

When people say "society disables you", it's a common over-simplification, one I see from both people who are excited about the social model, and from those who are frustrated with the insinuation that the disability itself is trivial.

Yes, if society changed, many of us would still have limitations and pain and frustrations.

But the point is to remove those that are unnecessary obstacles to participating in society.

Barriers to voting, to going to the doctor, to eating food we like, to seeing our friends, to enjoying artwork, to relaxing, to being ourselves.

The social model isn't intended to say "the only thing causing us pain is society!"

It means "society should focus on alleviating our pain and struggles in ways that work for US, not on conformity at all costs and the appearance and performance of 'health'"

Also while this is my ramblings on it, I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

The language is, in my opinion, flawed. Specifically, they* separate out "impairment" and "disability" like so:

Impairment is a medical condition that leads to disability. Disability is the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and barriers in the physical, attitudinal, communication and social environment. For example, it is not the inability to walk that keeps a person from entering a building by themselves, but the stairs that are inaccessible to them.

Personally, I think the word "impairment" is more irritating and condescending than disability, but their point is that the physical or mental limitations of your condition aren't what holds you back from participation, but the lack of accomodations for them.

I expect this choice comes from things like the ADA definition of disability (emphasis mine):

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities

If the impact of your "impairment" (geez I really don't like that word...) no longer limits your major life activities, then by that definition, it's not a disability.

I do still think there are cases where this isn't true, that the limitations of your body/mind are too hard to be fully overcome no matter the supports, but I don't think there's any disability that couldn't be improved by society prioritizing meeting people where they are, and accommodating the different needs people have.

*"They" meaning a most sites I read talkingabout it, but specific definition from:

Which also says:

A social model perspective does not deny the reality of impairment nor its impact on the individual. [...] For example, it is not the inability to walk that keeps a person from entering a building by themselves, but the stairs that are inaccessible to them.

The impairment still exists. You still can't walk or hear or see or deal with loud noises or get a full night's sleep every night or whatever else your symptoms/daily reality might be.

But the point is that you should have an equal chance to participate in life.

And back to the original question...

Why does this even matter?

I have mixed feelings, but these are the reasons I care:

It's hard to criticize something without shared vocabulary to talk about it. It gives us a framework for the criticism

We can never improve society if we don't have a goal in mind and an idea of our issues

I am fucking angry about the way the world treats disabled people and having an acknowledgement of the shittiness makes me feel seen

It helps me to stop blaming myself for not being able to get better

It helps people who are recently become/just finding out they are disabled accept it, shifting mindset from "I don't have a disability because that would mean I failed/am a failure/there is something less about me now" to "I do have a disability and I can't be 'normal' anymore and it's okay to be different".

I know disability isn't a bad word. But it feels like one to many people, and they don't change overnight. Having an off-ramp from the well-established path of ableism is important.

Issues I have with it:

Easily misunderstood and oversimplified to the point that it causes distress/harm

An empty sentiment if it's not backed up by a push for change

Too much emphasis on how we talk about it rather than how we fix it

The all-or-nothing/binary approach to medical model vs. social model that seems to be fairly common. I DO want medical help with many of my issues, and believing in the social model should NOT be considered antithetical to medical assistance

The word "impairment", apparently. TIL this about myself

[danikore-does-pole]

Y’all camp halfblood would be THE place to figure out how much of ADHD and dyslexia are social disabilities or medical disabilities.

For those of you who haven’t stumbled upon the social, medical and combined theory of disability before lemme give you the run down.

The social model says you aren’t actually disabled it’s society that is disabling. If everywhere was wheelchair accessible and designed to be used from a wheelchair would you still be disabled. Same with if the world was designed to minimise sensory overload would you still be disabled by your sensory issues. If everyone was blind the world would be built for blind people so you wouldn’t be disabled if you were blind. Basically the social model says it’s a systemic issue that you’re experiencing rather than your body being the problem.

The medical model of disability says that you are disabled by your body and by treating the symptoms and causes you become less disabled/ able bodied. Here you get things like chronic pain, autoimmune disease, paralysis, brain damage, epilepsy. Things that even in a world built to accommodate you would still probably impact your functioning.

The combined model of disability is the combination of both previous models. You might be disabled by your chronic pain making it hard to leave the house and get things on your to do list done but also by a lack of accessible infrastructure which might force you to push past your limits to get things done and injure yourself in the process. These can be having stairs but no lift, or having to walk further than expected due to inaccessible transportation.

Now back to CHB

Camp halfblood is designed by and for demigods, the majority of which are children with ADHD, dyslexia and probably many other mental health issues. So why would CHB be designed the way the rest of the world is?

Here you can actually work to accommodate campers instead of trying to make them fit within a system. Are new campers given stim toys? Are they encouraged to pace while listening to instructions? Is information given in 3 or 4 different formats to help people remember what they need to do?

While being dyslexic because they’re hardwired to read Ancient Greek instead of English doesn’t sound right (to my knowledge dyslexia applies to all written words and it’s probably that there’s godly magic that gives them this skill that mortals interpret as dyslexia) let’s assume Demigods are born fluent in reading Ancient Greek and find it easier than English, are all the maps, sign posts and pamphlets in Ancient Greek? Why wouldn’t they be if everyone finds it easier?

In a place designed for neurodivergent children what changes? And how different is it to the rest of the world? Are there quiet zones for people who can’t focus with noise? Are there noise zones for people who need music and TV to focus on hard tasks?

In what ways does ADHD still impact campers negatively? The social model suggests that if everyone was disabled no one would be, is that the case? How does executive dysfunction get managed? What about hyper focus? We know Annabeth often forgets to eat when she’s working on a big project, does camps scheduled meal times help with that?

I just have questions about this

[saveliloandstitch]

From a member of our Ohana.

Fall 2024 disability talks and screenings

On October 16th 2024 I (Margot) I had the privilege of having gave four presentations on disability. I spoke to two medical student classes about disability and bioethics such as how many disability rights activists see euthanasia and medical assistance in dying, and certain genetic testing, as a violation of disability rights (Not Dead Yet 2024). This conversation highlighted the importance of understanding how society views disability and the ethical implications that arise from these views. I discussed how side effects of medications can be disabling, and how invisible physical disabilities can sometimes be misdiagnosed and therefore dismissed as psychological disorders. It’s vital for future healthcare professionals to recognize that not all disabilities are visible and that the impact of treatments can vary greatly among individuals. Then I spoke to a group of college faculty about accessible teaching strategies like UDL. Last I spoke to a class of special education teachers, and paraprofessionals about accessibility and my life story.

On October 24th 2024 I spoke to another class of students learning to be general education and special education about the film “A Stroke Of Endurance” and modifications that can be made and addressing both mental and physical disability. This session highlighted the importance of recognizing each student’s unique needs and the role of educators in facilitating their success.

On December 5th I screened “Drama Sighted” for another group of teaching students to discuss the impacts of bullying of disabled students. The conversation turned into a discussion of “A Stroke Of Endurance” when an audience member mentioned they knew someone who had died of an ischemic stroke recently. One student said they thought Crip Video Productions main mission was to let disabled people know they matter and are valued.