Models of Disability:
There are three primary models of disability that are typically discussed: the medical model, the social model, and the strengths-based model. While each of these provides a valuable perspective when considering individuals with disabilities, specifically neurodivergent individuals, some may be more relevant than others in certain circumstances.
The Medical Model of Disabilities:
Associated with placing the individual with disabilities in the role of someone needing a cure, the medical model of disabilities functions as labeling disability as solely related to health. This interaction causes the societal inequality aspect to be ignored or overlooked, and also has a large influence on public policy. Often, the medical model views these individuals as sick, relating to the problem behind only trying to find a cure for certain disabilities. The idea of trying to cure these disabilities can be extremely offensive to the same individuals and can imply that they have a deficit or are a problem that must be solved when, often, it is society that fails to provide the adequate resources and support. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines the medical model as “understand[ing] a disability as a physical or mental impairment of the individual and its personal and social consequences. It regards the limitations faced by people with disabilities as resulting primarily, or solely, from their impairments.”
Usage of the medical model without considering other models can propel common stigmas in our society, including the belief that individuals with disabilities are inferior to their counterparts. Moreover, the National Black Disability Coalition explains, “The medical model places the source of the problem within a single impaired person [...]. A more sophisticated form of the model allows for economic factors, and recognizes that a poor economic climate will adversely affect a disabled person’s work opportunities. Even so, it still seeks a solution within the individual by helping him or her overcome personal impairment [...].” It is clear how the medical model of disabilities can advance detrimental assumptions rather than productively work to improve the quality of life of individuals with disabilities.
Nevertheless, the medical model of disability should not be completely rejected as therapies and treatments can be beneficial to numerous individuals. Rehabilitation or other interventions may be the appropriate course of action for certain individuals, and this decision can not be generalized for all. Refusing to consider these benefits may be an oversimplification of issues relating to disability. In fact, the biological basis of many disabilities and the social stereotypes of these disabilities are complexly interrelated in the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. As such, it is critical to also examine other models of disability and analyze where and how the perceptions intersect.
The Social Model of Disabilities:
The social model of disability is a concept rooted in the perspectives of numerous disability advocates, especially regarding physical disabilities, from the United Kingdom. This model focuses on the stereotypes and hurdles perpetuated by society rather than the differences between those with disabilities and those without as the issue. Specifically, according to the Fundamental Principles of Disability, “In our view, it is society which disables physically impaired people. [...] Thus we define [...] disability as the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities. Physical disability is therefore a particular form of social oppression.” Therefore, the social model calls for an improvement in societal treatment of individuals with disabilities.
As a result, the social model of disability views disability as a civil rights issue, believing that it is society’s job to instill necessary changes that minimize exclusion and inequalities. However, one key point to note is that the social model does not reject the idea of disability all being attributed to society or using medical terms and knowledge to help individuals. Instead, a better interpretation of the social model may be the understanding of biological differences and the willingness to adapt to and and support individuals with these differences. The social model argues that accommodations to ensure accessibility and equal treatment should be a right for all, but currently, the conditions of society do not take into account individuals with disabilities, and in fact suppress or restrict them systemically. To summarize, as stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the social model characterizes disability “as a relation between an individual and her social environment: the exclusion of people with certain physical and mental characteristics from major domains of social life.” Today, a majority of individuals consider the relationship between the social and medical model of disabilities, with neither being more significant or relevant than the other.
The Strength Based Model of Disabilities:
The strength based model of neurodiversity emphasizes two aspects: embracing the differences of those with disabilities in order to hone in on their potential and discovering the flaws in models created for those with disabilities to strengthen them. Kristie Patten Koeing, a PhD from New York University, describes a shift towards a strength based model that shifts the focus from decificits to long term successes and outcomes will result in a higher “quality of life, well-being and the ability to live a self-determined life.”
The strength based model roots itself in the self determination theory which is characterized by autonomy, competency, and relatedness. Autonomy is defined as individual freedom or the ability to choose how you live your life without others controlling those decisions for you. Competency is being able to start things and follow through with them, and relatedness is choosing which relationships you have. Oftentimes, professionals who help those with disabilities view the self determination theory as a problem which hinders self development and the utilization of strengths in the disabled individual. According to a study conducted by Patten Koeing and Williams, approximately only 12% of disability instructors viewed their students’ interests as potential strengths. By focusing on such interests, the instructors were able to develop a strength based model that permitted the students to focus on their individual strengths and master their unique skills.
Shifting towards a strength based model will enable professionals to reroute their goals from normalizing the disabled through intervention to discovering the abilities of each individual. Understanding the weaknesses of currently set systems can help stimulate this model if questions such as “How may social biases be affecting me?” and “Am I focusing on their interests rather than dismissing them as wrong behavior?” are asked. Strength based models will lead to better outcomes and the advantages of producing a more holistic approach to individuals with disabilities can help them feel more empowered.
Relation of the Models of Disability to Neurodiversity:
Each of the aspects in the Models of Disability tie back to neurodiversity and can be utilized to create a mindset that can better benefit the neurodiverse community.
In terms of the medical model, drawing attention away from the harmful mindset of seeking a cure towards proposing public policy will contribute to the acceptance of those with neurodiverse conditions in our society. It is important for us to “target our efforts towards the real challenges we face, rather than towards a broader, nebulous concept of ‘curing’ autism that is offensive to many of the people that it aims to benefit”. Rather than viewing these conditions that the medical community needs to solve, neurodiversity can be advocated for in the common understanding within the health world is that neurodiverse individuals are assets that have varying views on the world to offer.
As for the social model, neurodiversity has been defined as “a social and political movement which campaigns to end the marginalization and oppression of neurodivergent people by shifting attention away from the negative aspects of neurodiversity and towards their positives”. Better understanding the stigmas that surround the community and working to overcome them as a society is crucial to developing a world that is fit to better accommodate the needs of the neurodiverse whether that be through spreading their truths through the advocacy of their stories or working towards a greater standard of life through political changes.
The strength based model then focuses on the strengths of neurodiverse individuals and understanding what they can contribute to the world. By seeking out the betterment of set systems, improvements can be made as educators and professionals that work with the neurodiverse community realize that certain models focus on normalization rather than empowerment. Each neurodiverse individual holds a place in this world and by creating models that promote positivity and mastery, neurodiverse individuals can work towards improving their own lives.
References:
Comments