• No results found

1.10. Structure of the Thesis

2.2.2. Models of Disability

2.2.2.2. The Social Model of Disability

The social model contests the medical model‘s tendency to equate disability and illness, arguing that those with disabilities are not always ill, or in need of medical care (Marks, 1999). Moreover, since this study was carried out in Saudi Arabia, a Muslim state, it is essential to highlight how such a social model aligns with Islam. Importantly, this religion considers the needs—economic, physical and social—of disadvantaged groups, whilst promoting a change of perspective and actions amongst people (the Rules and Regulations of Special Education, 2002).

As highlighted earlier some people have associated the medical model with the Islamic viewpoint, by viewing disability as Allah‘s (God‘s) will. However, Islamic teaching explains that all things, whether good or bad, are part of Allah‘s (God‘s) will, and it is necessary to solve any problem that arises. Thus, the social model of disability is a strong model for applying Islamic teaching in an education context. Accordingly, the social model of disability, is in line with Islam‘s teachings, whereby respect and rights in society are applied to all people including both disabled and non-disabled populations. Thus, arguably, the Saudi education system needs to move closer towards recognising the social model of disability, which is supported by the teachings of the Qu‘ran.

In Saudi Arabia, stigma remains one of the key issues faced by those with disabilities. A number of derogatory terms are used to refer to such individuals, including ‗feeble- minded‘, ‗idiotic‘, ‗imbecilic‘, and mentally or morally ‗defective‘, thus inducing a number of social problems for such children (Alkalifa, 2002; Aboela, 2008). Stigma has also been linked with various social problems, and has been a fundamental obstacle to inclusion (Brown, 2005). Clements and Read (2008) claim that stigmatising children with disabilities is extended, encompassing their relatives and disturbing family relations, particularly when the disability is apparent from birth. Moreover, parental abuse and denial are often experienced by those with disabilities, possibly due to

49

parents‘ feelings of guilt and shame, leading to children being kept out of society (Wall, 2006).

The Qur'an directs attention to the disadvantage created by society and felt by people without the economic, physical and/or social qualities recognised as valuable by others (Bazna and Hatab, 2005). Esteem and respect for disadvantaged individuals are encouraged by Islam, with the rights to full inclusion and support clearly outlined (Bazna and Hatab, 2005). The responsibility and duty of society towards disadvantaged populations is further affirmed by encouragement of monetary donations from those with sufficient means (Ibn-baz, 1999). Nevertheless, societal responsibility towards those less able is not confined to financial considerations. Members of mainstream society are also required to work alongside disadvantaged groups, incorporating them within their community (Bazna and Hatab, 2005).

The originators of the social disability model, Oliver, Abberley, Finkelstein and Hunt, established the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) in 1976, as a response to the medical disability model (Chappell et al., 2001). The social model directs emphasis toward both institutional and social structures, and considers disability as an outcome of historic and cultural factors. Rather than the identifying disability as belonging to a malfunctioning or impaired body, it distinguishes between impairment and disability (Marks, 1999). The social model recognises disability in terms of the elements responsible for restricting disabled individuals, ranging from institutional discrimination through to individual prejudice, from unusable transport systems to inaccessible public buildings, and also in terms of education, schools, teachers and the curriculum (Oliver, 2009).

This innovative perspective towards disability, steering attention away from the body (Shakespeare, 2006), challenges the medical discourse, providing definitions in terms of how such people live their lives. It positions the concept of ‗disability‘ as being beyond the individual‘s responsibility, and provides a new agenda, through which the daily lives of individuals with disabilities are viewed through a social perspective. Accordingly, this model recognises disability not as a direct outcome of individual impairment, but rather as the outcome of various social obstacles (Boxall, 2002; Shakespeare, 2006). Hence,

50

the focus is on how the environment meets and fulfils the needs of those with disabilities. This includes an emphasis on particular elements of the lives of disabled children that need and warrant support. For instance, if a school is lacking ramps, this prohibits wheelchair access. For the visually impaired, the physical environment is inaccessible if there are inadequate resources, such as signs or books available in Braille. Such an approach highlights society‘s need to change, rather than focusing on the rehabilitation of those with disabilities (Oliver, 2009).

Accordingly, it is stated that disability is the outcome of society‘s failure to deliver suitable and sufficient services, and to consider disabled people‘s requirements within social organisations. In various political, economic and religious contexts disabled people face oppression and negative social attitudes that undermine their person-hood (Lang, 2000). Similarly, Thomas and Corker (2002) view disability as a form of oppression involving the social imposition of restrictions for people with impairments. Oliver (2009) and Gallagher (2014) view disability solely as a social construct and place the onus on society to adapt to those with impairment, accepting them as they are.

Hence, the model directs attention to planning and policy in an effort to fulfil the requirements of those with disabilities (Marks, 1999; Smith et al., 2014). According to Shakespeare (2006), it plays a key role in empowering those with disabilities, through advocating and supporting their rights. The idea of ‗right, not charity‘ is promoted by The People with Disabilities Movement, along with legislation regarding anti- discrimination (Oliver, 2009). In other words, support is a right not something that may be conferred as a type of care or kindness (Silvers, 2004). Accordingly, the social model results in more socially inclusive policies, as well as the delivery of greater support for those with disabilities to live within wider society, including living independently (Oliver, 2009).

There are, however, some limitations to the social model of disability. Indeed, Shakespeare (2006) clams it ―has created as many problems as it has solved‖ (p.31). Marks (1999) argues that it does not adequately consider the complicated social factors and wide-ranging diversity affecting disability production, including the differences in experiences with regard to ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, the model is inadequate in

51

accounting for those with learning difficulties (Chappell et al., 2001). This is related to the model‘s focus on the physical domain, in relation to how they are affected by the physical environment, whereas those suffering with learning difficulties might not be as significantly impacted by this environment (Al-Khatteeb, 2008). Essentially, the model does not suitably highlight the interrelationship between biological, psychological and social factors (Marks, 1999). Moreover, it does not manage to fulfil people‘s needs when there are multiple impairments and/or disabilities (Shakespeare, 2006).

Shakespeare (2006) argues that it is somewhat restrictive to see disability as simply an issue requiring the removal or even circumventing of social barriers. This will not remove all impairments, since the same barriers might not be applicable or relevant to all those with disabilities. Moreover, a barrier may be identified by one individual or group, but not by another. For instance, an individual with a visual disability might not experience problems with holding a telephone conversation, whereas an individual with a hearing problem would. There are also other factors to be taken into account in attempting to remove environmental barriers for those with disabilities, including cost and practicality. Accordingly, the removal of obstacles is not the end solution; although, it may improve access to facilities, and, hence, inclusion amongst disabled individuals. Nevertheless, segregated or different services in particular cases could also ensure that such services are of high quality (Shakespeare, 2006).

Furthermore, the social model does not consider the importance assigned to impairment for various individuals with disabilities (Shakespeare, 2006). However, despite the limitations of the social model, it is still a valuable theoretical system (Barnes, 1999; Shakespeare, 2006). It is significant in suggesting that, rather than merely focusing on medical interventions with the aim of rectifying an impaired body, removing societal barriers should also be prioritised, as these also cause issues for disabled individuals, such as in terms of inaccessible physical environments, inadequate welfare policies, negative attitudes, and discriminatory treatment (Shakespeare, 2006; Smith et al., 2014). In terms of implications for education, the social model decreases the burden placed on the individual through the medical model (Rieser, 2006). Hence, Middleton (1999) questions the logic of exclusion of those with special needs. Those children share a right

52

to be included, like any child without a disability. As Priestley (2003), argues the shift to the social model has facilitated the development of a number of critiques in terms of how disabled individuals are viewed by society. Table 2.1 shows a summary comparison relating the medical and social model of disability, as set out by Oliver (2009).

Table 2.2: Comparison of the medical and social models, Source: (Oliver, 2009: p.45)

The medical model, by nature, implies that society is unable to respond to the needs of disabled individuals, meaning that such individuals do not benefit from full public policy rights. The social model, in contrast adopts a rights-based approach as McEwan and Butler (2007) note, it offers a more holistic and flexible approach to understanding disability recognising the importance of context.

The social model recognises that those with learning difficulties commonly face discrimination, attitudinal obstacles and a lack of independence. Should these factors be eradicated, those with learning difficulties would be less disabled in their community (Boxall, 2002). The social model is supportive of the values and underpinnings of inclusive education and is, therefore, pivotal to this research. Whereas the medical model considers disabled individuals as having inherent problems that need to be

53

addressed through intervention, the social model considers inclusion within mainstream society as achievable through the eradication of obstacles and barriers. Thus, the social model of disability contributes to a more inclusive society.

The facilitation by the social model of a deeper, more holistic understanding of disability has resulted in the acceptance of this approach in around the world (Nagata, 2008). However, Frederickson and Cline (2009) propose that the complete application of the social model would necessitate a complete overhaul of school classroom management, curriculum and organisation. In various countries, including Saudi Arabia, disability is commonly viewed through the medical lens, although a number of efforts have been directed towards emphasising the social model.

As mentioned above, different interpretations of Islamic teaching have contributed towards this confusion over whether the social or medical model is more appropriate in a Saudi context. Certainly, there are positive and negative aspects of both models, and there is a great deal of complexity surrounding society‘s understanding of disability. Nevertheless, in comparing the two models, it seems that the social model is more beneficial, and would be a better fit in the context of Saudi culture and religious beliefs. The Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2002) is important in this regard, and is recognised as a practical application of both the social and medical models. Accordingly, the next section addresses the Index for Inclusion.