Search

This paper provides a conceptual argument for the sociological analysis of the everyday experiences of disabled people through the example of acquired brain injury (ABI) survivors. Most research concerning ABI has been carried out within a medical framework. This paper adds a new dimension to research concerning ABI, and indeed, to my knowledge, is the first to explore a long-term, interdisciplinary view of both ABI and neurological rehabilitation. This paper sets out how the use of critical sociological theory can provide thorough analyses of disabled people's experiences that are free from the pre-judgement of traditional discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines disability terminology to explore how the news media frame cultural representations of the disability community. More specifically, the paper examines the impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on journalist's language choices about disability topics. A content analysis of news stories using disability terms in The Washington Post and The New York Times during the past decade was conducted. The paper illustrates that disability community identity continues to be formed, transformed and maintained through news media presentations of disability terminology. The paper argues that the US Disability Rights Movement had some success during the 1990s in putting forth language that advances its aims, though the study also suggests that some journalists continue to use terms that perpetuate limiting, narrow stereotypes about people with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with learning difficulties, like all disabled people, face social oppression. Much recent policy and practice are underpinned by at least some understanding of this oppression, and the social model of disability has been influential in discussions of services and supports for people with learning difficulties. However, in the area of mental health, the picture is somewhat different. This paper argues that the medical model has predominated in discussions of mental health support for people with learning difficulties, and that a social model approach could have much to offer. The paper draws on an ongoing action research study in which service providers, families and young people with learning difficulties are working together to articulate what is needed, in order to find routes to improve the support offered to young people with learning difficulties and mental health support needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, a growing number of scholars in Disability Studies have begun to critique the social model of disability. This paper documents the movement in these critiques, analyzing several ways paradigms and theories have been used in relation to the social model and the ways in which resistance plays a part in these paradigms. In the second part of the paper, we begin to explore the implications of resistance theory for disability theory, noting that resistance appears to exist throughout all paradigms at play in disability studies while it is rarely explicitly addressed. We conclude by describing the potential use of resistance theory for both theory and praxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers sociological understandings of what constitutes disability. Current meanings of disability in both disability studies and medical sociology are examined and compared, using selected articles from leading authors in each discipline as case studies. These disciplines are often represented as offering starkly contrasting approaches to disability, with their differences amounting to a disciplinary 'divide'. It is argued that, on closer inspection, common ground can be found between some writers in disability studies and medical sociology. It is suggested that this situation has arisen because, in disability studies, the social relational understanding of disability developed by Vic Finkelstein and Paul Hunt in the 1970s has been lost over time, overshadowed by the rise to prominence of its offspring: the social model of disability. The paper concludes with some reflections on the need to revive a social relational understanding of disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a broad-based overview of the development of emancipatory disability research in the UK since its emergence in 1992. Drawing on personal experience in the field, the author responds to several important considerations that need to be addressed before considering adopting this controversial perspective. The paper is divided into two main sections. The first part provides a concise introduction to the thinking that underpins the concept of emancipatory disability research. The second section discusses key elements of this approach including the problem of accountability, the social model of disability, choice of methods and, enpowerment, dissemination and outcomes. The paper concludes by suggesting that whilst there has been considerable progress over the last decade the future of emancipatory disability research remains precarious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary disability discourse is marked by a struggle between medical and social meanings and models. The latter reflects the aspirations and youthful radicalism of the disability movement, while the former regards itself as the legitimate voice of truth in all matters associated with bodily function and process. This paper argues that the battle lines between these two camps need not be redrawn. Despite hints to the contrary, the proposed extension of the social model to accommodate a sociology of impairment does not involve a rapprochement with the medical model. On the contrary, a sociological account of impairment seeks to augment the armoury of the social model by developing one of its weaknesses, namely the cultural critique of medicine. This paper examines some of the ways in which medicine has been involved in the 'aesthetic invalidation' of disabled people and proposes that 'geneticization' is an important current contributor to this form of disability discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an attempt to develop a sociology of impairment and to theorise embodiment in the lebenswelt. Disability studies has failed to address adequately the fundamental issue of bodily agency. The impaired body is represented as a passive recipient of social forces. Such a conception of the body is losing ground within social theory. This paper attempts to overcome disability studies' disembodied view of disability by utilising a phenomenological concept of embodiment. Phenomenology offers the opportunity to transcend the traditional Cartesian dualisms which posit the body as a passive precultural object. However, such a view, when extended to impairment is empty of political content since phenomenological analyses have relied upon medicalised and individualised understandings of disability. In order to counter the disablism evident in phenomenology on the one side and disability studies' disembodied view of disability on the other, we argue for a radical phenomenological approach to the (impaired) body. To demonstrate the vitality of such an approach, we also attempt to deploy Leders' (1990) concept of dysappearance as a means of analysing the carnal politics of everyday life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author responds to the paper by Tom Shakespeare and Nicholas Watson defending the social model in its wider context. Disability study critiques have emphasised the way in which medical sociologists' work on the experience of illness have often underplayed the influence of structures; and simultaneously how, in their desire to move away from the individualised "tragedy" model of disability, much of their own work has concentrated on structures, and rather less on the subtleties and complexities of lived experience. The Leeds Conference "Exploring the Divide" in March 1996 was organised precisely to address these issues and to see if a more sensitive rapprochement might be found between the two. Shakespeare has argued elsewhere that one of the achievements of the Disability Movement has been to separate impairment from disability. Whilst author appreciate the force of these arguments, and their grounding in disabled people's experience of marginalisation and exclusion from mainstream society, his two papers argue that attempts to treat the two as discrete entities glosses over the complexity of individual lives.

What is the case for and how would one begin to construct a sociology of impairment? This paper argues that the realignment of the disability/impairment distinction is vital for the identity politics of the disability movement. The body is at the heart of contemporary political and theoretical debate, yet the social model of disability makes it an exile. The transformation of the body from a reactionary to an emancipatory concept implies a sociology of impairment. This paper explores the contribution that post-structuralism and phenomenology might make to this end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reflects critically on the meaning of play, especially as it relates to disabled children and their experiences. We explore the close alliance of play to cognitive and social development, particularly in the case of psychologies of development, and reveal a dominant discourse of the disabled child as a nonplaying object that requires professional therapeutic intervention. We argue that this pathologisation of play on the part of disabled children is closely tied to normalisation of childhood, in which non-normal bodies are increasingly expected to be governed and corrected not only by professionals but also by parents/carers. In order to rescue more enabling visions of the disabled child and their play we turn to three perspectives - the new sociology of childhood; social oppression theories of disability; critical developmental psychology. These resources, we suggest, allow us to reconfigure what we mean by play and disability in a contemporary climate that celebrates competition and marketisation over the intrinsic potentialities of all children. We argue that how we conceive play will per se undermine or promote forms of inclusive research, policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary sociology has made sense of bodily difference by mobilising a number of tropes. 'Wounded' (or vulnerable), 'monstrous' and 'abject' stand out by virtue of their ubiquity though they do not exhaust the repertoire. These categories highlight the conceptual tensions between the sociology of the body and Disability Studies. In this paper, I will examine the value of these tropes to Disability Studies and suggest that while they can help to clarify the processes that bring about the misrecognition of disabled people, understanding the nature and scope of the lives of disabled people in modernity requires a more embodied language rather than one that has been generated from a sociological imaginary that is strongly influenced by a non-disabled subject position in which repulsion for the other -- which one must become -- is never fully resolved. Disability has had little impact on sociological theories of the body and when sociology ventures into disability it has tended to conflate it with an ontology of human frailty or gloss it with tropes that may be instructive about the generic or gendered modernist structure of exclusion but it tells us little about the specific forms of invalidation experienced by disabled people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the barriers encountered in undertaking an oral history project with survivors of a total institution for ‘mental defectives’ in the province of Alberta, Canada. Powerful social actors were able to bar access to survivors through legal guardianship orders, and to make access to the institution and its grounds and to publicly archived materials quite prohibitive to the researcher. In addition to overt efforts on the part of powerful social actors to block the project, concerns about the potential to discredit survivor narratives led to changes in the research design. Specifically, research and literature about the ‘acquiescence’ of intellectuals with intellectual impairments led the researcher to broaden the sources for this history as a preemptive strategy. Despite these barriers, survivors of the institution provided a rich and powerful testimony to the brutality of institutionalization, and provide us with an emancipatory history from the perspectives of those most oppressed by disability policies and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with a disability continue to experience social oppression and domestic violence as a consequence of gender and disability dimensions. Current explanations of domestic violence and disability inadequately explain several features that lead women who have a disability to experience violent situations. This article incorporates both disability and material feminist theory as an alternative explanation to the dominant approaches (psychological and sociological traditions) of conceptualising domestic violence. This paper is informed by a study which was concerned with examining the nature and perceptions of violence against women with a physical impairment. The emerging analytical framework integrating material feminist interpretations and disability theory provided a basis for exploring gender and disability dimensions. Insight was also provided by the women who identified as having a disability in the study and who explained domestic violence in terms of a gendered and disabling experience. The article argues that material feminist interpretations and disability theory, with their emphasis on gender relations, disablism and poverty, should be used as an alternative tool for exploring the nature and consequences of violence against women with a disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses perceptions and experiences of impairment and disability from the perspectives of learning disabled children, their parents and their social workers. The author reports on findings from her doctoral study that adults often fail to take into account the views and experiences of learning disabled children. As a result, these children developed their own interpretations of impairment and disability based on their experiences and interactions with others. Whilst this indicates that they are active social interpreters, it also suggests that adults should make greater efforts to inform and consult learning disabled children. The author concludes by reflecting on the relevance of these findings to contemporary theories of disability and childhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the use and impact of the Internet by disabled people in China, informed by the social model of disability. Based on survey data from 122 disabled individuals across 25 provinces in China, study findings suggest that there is an emerging digital divide in the use of Internet amongst the disability community in China. Internet users in our study do not appear to be representative of most disabled people in China. For the minority of disabled people who do have access to the Internet, however, its use can lead to significantly improved frequency and quality of social interaction. Study findings further suggest that the Internet significantly reduced existing social barriers in the physical and social environment for disabled people. Implications for future research, and strategies for increasing reducing the digital divide between the minority of Internet users and the majority of disabled people in China are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on the researcher's experiences as a countryside access advisor in exploring some of the ways that social model ideas can influence the development of organizational policy and practice in mainstream settings. It argues that, in seeking to influence the development of more inclusive policies and practices, disability studies needs to look for new ways of engaging with diverse audiences of practitioners who are used to operating within an individual model of disability, and who may therefore see no immediate organizational advantages to adopting social model principles in their work. This evolutionary process demands in particular that we work constantly towards finding new, more accessible, ways of explaining social model ideas to mainstream audiences. Thus, in a social climate that continues to tolerate disabled people's oppression, disability studies has a key role to play in demonstrating to theorists, policy-makers and practitioners why and how social model ideas can support the move towards inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modernity is at the heart of the transformation of impairment into disability. This paper seeks to map out the processes that underpin this claim. Its focus is on the cultures of modernity and post-modernity, and how these complex legacies have constituted and invalidated mental and physical difference. The work of Zygmunt Bauman, particularly his use of the sociology of the (modern) stranger and his redemptive critique of modern and post-modern cultures provides a framework for the discussion. Bauman's work has no explicit connection to Disability Studies, but his sensitivity to modern patterns of exclusion and 'othering' provide not only a useful template to think through the relationship between modernity and disability, but also a useful corrective to the tendency in UK disability studies to ignore the 'cultural turn'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the social model of disability currently inform the delivery of services for people labelled as having profound and complex learning difficulties? What distinguishes practice which draws on the social model from that which is influenced by an individual model or a medical model of disability? This paper draws on the findings of a small scale interpretive research study and some of the current debates within disability studies to illuminate these questions. It concludes that the social model can and does positively impact on some practice and that it should be taught to all providers of services for this group. It further concludes that to include discussion about individual experience of impairment in such training may have negative consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author responds to the paper by Tom Shakespeare and Nicholas Watson that defends the social model of disability in its wider context. The WHO model has been widely used as a model of disability and continues to be the implicit model adopted in the delivery of health care. The model has been criticised in a variety of ways with resulting suggestions that it be modified or abandoned. However the model offers a useful starting point by clearly separating the concepts of "impairment" and "disability." The model proposes that disability is the result of impairment, but opens up the possibility that other factors may also influence disability. Clarification of these other factors is essential to the viability of this model. Since disability is defined in behavioural terms, it seems obvious that disability should be influenced by the same variables as influence other behaviours, including physiological, environmental, social, cognitive and emotional factors. The author has proposed that it is possible to integrate the WHO model with some of the current most strongly validated theories of behaviour.

We welcome Forshaw's reply to our paper because it opens up debate about psychology and its relationship with the development of an emancipatory disability studies. In our paper we aimed to: (1) raise possibilities for disability studies researchers' engagement with psychology (rather than psychology colonizing disability studies); (2) trace some of the epistemological journeys we underwent in carrying out disability research and community psychology research; (3) consider these possibilities and journeys in relation to previous literature on emancipatory disability research. Forshaw's reply appears to ignore aims (2) and (3) and instead focuses on the ways in which we (mis)represent psychology. He suggests that we: present an inaccurate account of qualitative research in contemporary psychology; make a divisive argument for a 'breakaway group' of community psychologists; epistemologically contradict ourselves because of our concern with 'reality' and social constructionism; argue for only adopting participatory action research; not least, adopt 'simplistic' and 'outdated' views of psychology. We will respond to these criticisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]