A Social model of disability

The social model of disability is a contemporary one, which was developed in Britain and gave opportunity for those with disabilities to organize and resist the claims of the biomedical model. Oliver (2004) had mentioned that in this viewpoint, people with disability are grouped together as a minority, and are therefore segregated in some way from the larger groups without disabilities, due to stigma and exclusion. Its focus is more on the social environment than on the organisation. Kasser and Lytle (2005) suggest that the social model proposes that all people with disabilities can relate to the same issues, or rather, one issue: having a disability. Rather than being based on biological causes, the social model focuses on society’s perceptions of disability in contrast to the medical model which focused more on the impairment on the individual. Instead of viewing disability from the perspective of internal issues, the social model views disability in terms of the comparison between the disabled and the non-disabled (Ahmad, 2007, Al-Zyoud, 2011). Specifically, the social model argues that the only reason for segregation between the two groups is that they have been manufactured by a largely non-disabled social system (Shapiro et al., 2012). This essentially leads to the majority of the population viewing disability as ‘different’ ‘less able’ and a ‘minority’ situation, and this then becomes the most commonly-held viewpoint (Shapiro et al., 2012). It does not shed any light on the role of organisations, and disability sport organisations in particular, that have changed over time and how they promote sports for disabled people.

Sherrill (1997) and Kasser and Lytle (2005) have pointed out that while current society separates the notion of disability, there must be a decomposition of previous stigma and viewpoints in society if disability is to become viewed in a more encompassing manner. The benefits of this change would be that those with disabilities could be thought of, and treated as, unique people with unique successes and challenges (Brittain, 2004). This would, in turn, lead to greater confidence and respect for disabled people. It can be argued, however, that it is not effective to analyze disability from only a social or medical perspective, even though both the social and biomedical models of disability are generally thought of as separate theories. Instead, a broader, more varied and inclusive model of disability should be adopted (Brittain, 2004). Both models fail to explain the role of organisations and change and how these have unfolded over a long period of time. Both models serve

80

to explain the impairment and enablement of disabled individuals and call into question the “nature” of their exclusion.

In an attempt to support the social model, a number of scholars such as Devine (1997) tried to create new descriptions for people with disability. It has been said that the social model of disability aims to help others understand how ideas are generated and consequently accepted to be true (Devine, 1997). The social model has been utilized by those involved with disability reforms, who have wished to change the widely-accepted medical-based status quo regarding disability. For example, it has been suggested that, in the UK, both Vic Finkelstein’s action in 1980 and the Union of Physically Impaired against Segregation in 1976 incorporated the social model of disability (Brittain, 2004), where they advocated to change societal attitudes and perceptions towards disability thus enhancing interaction with the people with disability. Priestly (1998, p. 80) pointed out ''that these two studies have bred the key beliefs of contemporary disability scholars''. Furthermore, it is argued that a great number of hurdles often linked to disability would be overcome if society’s stigma surrounding disability was eradicated, thus lifting the road-blocks of the current climate regarding disability (Morris, 1991; Shakespeare, 2006). It has also been argued that it is not the ‘disability’ itself that leads to a ‘lack of ability’; but rather, that society is responsible for the notion of a ‘lack of ability’ through the word ‘disability’ (Brittain, 2004).

Despite the compelling points made in this theory, it is often refuted. Drake (1996) had thought the opposite of this by refuting the notion that society is responsible for the concept of a ‘lack of ability’ in ‘disability’ meaning that society does not have to take the blame for creating an exclusive and restrictive climate for people with disability (Drake, 1996; in Imrie, 1997). On the other hand Imrie (1997) argued that it is unrealistic to imply that disabled people’s day-to-day reality can be altered by adapting the environment, with a greater number of disability-inclusive facilities, such as wheelchair ramps. If the day-to-day reality for people with disabilities is to be changed, it requires more than a physical change. There must be a revolution in terms of stigma and exclusion. Imrie (1997) further suggests that the social model essentially ‘forgets’ about the physical body, and only focuses on the views of society and how these influence social regulations. The social model implies that the

81

stereotypical way of thinking in society must evolve if reality for people with disability is to become different (Brittain, 2004). But stereotypes and perception can help to be altered surely through the changing landscape of disability sport organisations who can be the facilitators of change.

Furthermore, according to the social model, since society has the power to shift regulations and politics, a more inclusive viewpoint of disability would surely result in more inclusive regulations and guidelines. In terms of sport and disability, there is an opportunity for further exploration here, since Devine (1997) argues that despite the fact that a number of scholars such as Kew (1997), Henderson and Bedini (1997) have explored the topic, hardly any have explored it under the viewpoint of the social model. But any further research on this topic must address the questions how, why and what in disability organisations has changed over time if we are truly interested in taking an inclusive viewpoint on disability.