# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social model of disability | Disability charity Scope UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The social model of disability is a way of viewing the world which says that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supported conversation is a mode of facilitation that requires a deep understanding, as the onus is on the leader to pick up and run with thoughts, ideas and questions as they arise. While there is a plan, the content emerges as a collaboration - even if feedback is somewhat minimal.

# data[].attributes.subject
Supported conversation is a mode of facilitation that requires a deep understanding, as the onus is on the leader to pick up and run with thoughts, ideas and questions as they arise. While there is a plan, the content emerges as a collaboration - even if feedback is somewhat minimal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disability equality training - EQuality Training

# data[].attributes.subject
Disability equality training - EQuality Training

# data[].attributes.body
Disability Equality adds accountability to organisational accounts in specific ways, by adding theory and the interests of the Disabled people’s movement to awareness
Equality Training - Hard hitting ideas, delivered with sweetness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disability Equality Handbook

Newsletters Training Courses and Programmes 2011-12

Latest News:

EQual 3 EQual 2

Free Downloads

Disability Equality Training - Handout
Equality in Practice
The Language of Respect
Listening to the Hard to Hear
Leadership for Social Justice

Click the cover for a full screen preview. Download Your PDF Version Now >>>
Equality Handbook now available in print:
Please spread the word and please ask your libraries to stock our books - thank you!!

Click the cover for a full screen preview.
Order Your Copy Now >>>

now available in print:
Please spread the word and please ask your libraries to stock our books - thank you!!

Click the cover for a full screen preview.
Order Your Copy Now >>>
Educating for social justice, Wellbeing for all
Click the cover for a full screen preview.
Co-authored with Prof. J. West-Burnham, published by Continuum. The central themes define social justice, equality and equity and the importance of these concepts for school leaders when addressing wellbeing and inequality within their schools
Order Your Copy Now >>>

EQuality Training is an innovative, vibrant company that designs and delivers tailored training in diversity, inclusion and leadership.New this Year:

We help many organisations across the UK to improve their effectiveness through better use of people and their skills. Our clients include police forces, social services, children's directorates, the NHS, 'early years' services, nurseries, schools and colleges.

We offer a variety of programmes, each tailored to the needs of individual delegate groups. Where required, we are also pleased to develop entirely new programmes to address specific issues and organisations.

Bespoke Programmes
Choose the elements that you need for your training course. We're happy to adapt one of our existing courses to suit your needs or to create an entirely new course at no extra cost.
More>>>

Equity and WellbeingAt the heart of new legislation is a chance to tackle the inequality of opportunity within our organisations, while equality is perpetually brought into question, tackling inequality urgently requires a positive approach and proactive strategies.

To this end wellbeing theory is particularly useful because it addresses inequality by improving outcomes for all participants equally. Addressing wellbeing enables all workers to gain skills and confidence by developing new ways of working, ensuring flourishing young people in thriving communities.

Training days don't always inspire enthusiasm and participation.
So we like to do things a little differently...

An EQuality Training programme is not about passively receiving information. It's about discovering, understanding, evolving intelligent solutions to real issues and creating shared strategies to enable change.

What's in it for You?EQuality Training brings a wealth of benefits for each delegate and every organisation.

We can help you to:
* acquire essential, up-to-date information on diversity, equality and leadership issues
* make the most of everyone's skills and talents
* take a whole new approach to discrimination and inclusion
* question your professional relationships, behaviour and attitudes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equality Training - Home - Hard hitting ideas, delivered with sweetness!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disability Equality Handbook Newsletters Training Courses and Programmes 2011-12 Latest News: EQual 3 EQual 2 Free Downloads Disability Equality Training - Handout Equality in Practice The Language of Respect Listening to the Hard to Hear Leadership for Social Justice Click the cover for a full screen preview.

# data[].attributes.body
I particularly love facilitating Disability Equality Training. It’s become a source of pride, honour and huge enjoyment.  In an effort to celebrate #purplelightup I thought I would list a few joys of the job:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I love working!! It's a rare pleasure these days. Despite the effort...

I particularly love facilitating Disability Equality Training. It's become a source of pride, honour and huge enjoyment. In an effort to celebrate #purplelightup I thought I would list a few joys of the job:

I love that people enjoy thinking about words. Not political correctness, good or bad words, but the thinking that provides a diversity of ways to articulate the position of disabled people in the world.

I love that when asked to list stereotypes people initially find it difficult, but move on fast to pages full of examples. This just proves to me how many negative ideas there actually in our culture - the toxic soup in which we steep.

I love that when asked people can very quickly tell how they'd feel, and how they'd act if they felt those stereotypes related to them. The room invariably fills with an unpleasant feeling, making us all uncomfortable, and sadly for which we have only ourselves to blame.

I love that at that point I can exclame -with a certain amount of glee: "see we've created dis/ableism!!!! Did anyone mention impairment in the last 40 minutes?!?" <boom>

I love that when asked, and admittedly with a little resistance, people can typically make a list of things they can do to address the cultural and societal injustice they've identified in the session.

I love that people often come to Disability Equality Training thinking they've nothing to gain when they leave overwhelmed by the amount they have too take away.

I love that disability equality gives disabled people a voice, which added to an individual perspective, enables enfranchisement, power and strength of shared interest and a vision.

I am blessed to spend days at work revealing information others can use as a authoritative knowledge base. It's taken years, but the blend of personal experience, academic evidence and professional wisdom ensures a kind but robust approach to disability equality !

Thank you to all participants. Without you I'd look a turnip sat with a PowerPoint on my own! 🤣

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I love working!! It's a rare pleasure these days. Despite the effort... I particularly love facilitating Disability Equality Training. It's become a source of pride, honour and huge enjoyment. In an effort to celebrate #purplelightup I thought I would list a few joys of the job: I love that people enjoy thinking about words.

# data[].attributes.body
Disabled women should have the right to have their story heard and accepted. Disabled women deserve a place where they can access inspiration, quality information, and support around life, relationships, sexuality, fashion/beauty, and culture. Disabled women need to have a say in advocacy and allyship — how do you want the world to look for you and other disabled women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Lifestyle Publication for Disabled Women.

# data[].attributes.body
We support Deaf and Disabled people’s organisations in London and campaign for equality for Deaf and Disabled people

# data[].attributes.body
About Disability Equality Scotland

We are Disability Equality Scotland.  We are a membership organisation for disabled people and disability groups/organisations.

If you are a disabled person, we want to hear from you.  We want to hear about your experiences of accessibility, inclusion and equality, good or bad!  This information helps us when we meet with key decision makers who are responsible for ensuring equality and human rights are in place with policies and the law.

Become a member with us and join over 800 disabled people, sharing their views on access and inclusion. Together we can make Scotland accessible and inclusive for all!.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disability Equality Scotland, on behalf of the Scottish Government, is administering the distribution of Face Covering Exemption Cards.

The Scottish Government mandate the wearing of face coverings on transport, most indoor public places and communal areas in workplaces. Face coverings play a role in preventing the transmission of COVID-19.

There are situations where some people are unable to, or it would be inappropriate for them, to wear a face covering.

You do not need to provide written proof that you are exempt, but if it would make you feel more safe and confident in public and when accessing and using public spaces and services, you can request a face covering exemption card.

You can request a card by completing the online form on the Exemption Card Scotland website: www.exempt.scot

You can also request a face covering exemption card via a free helpline on 0800 121 6240 (Open 10am to 3pm, Monday to Friday).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to Disability Equality Scotland - Disability Equality Scotland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disability Equality Scotland, on behalf of the Scottish Government, is administering the distribution of Face Covering Exemption Cards. The Scottish Government mandate the wearing of face coverings on transport, most indoor public places and communal areas in workplaces. Face coverings play a role in preventing the transmission of COVID-19.

# data[].attributes.body
What the Equality Act says about disability discrimination

The Equality Act 2010 says that you must not be discriminated against because:

you have a disability

someone thinks you have a disability (this is known as discrimination by perception)

you are connected to someone with a disability (this is known as discrimination by association)

It is not unlawful discrimination to treat a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disability discrimination | Equality and Human Rights Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is Disability discrimination? We explain its definition, areas covered and what constitutes discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
What is Disability Equality Training? (DET)

“Many public and private sector bodies have gradually realised that their work practices and policies fall far short of fulfilling the needs, rights and aspirations of disabled people who are their clients, customers and co-workers and that, in order to change this situation, they need to turn to disabled people for education and guidance. From this realisation has grown the demand for DET run by disabled people, which aims to help people understand the meaning of disability, identify changes in work practice, and plan strategies to implement change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Disability Equality Training? (DET)
"Many public and private sector bodies have gradually realised that their work practices and policies fall far short of fulfilling the needs, rights and aspirations of disabled people who are their clients, customers and co-workers and that, in order to change this situation, they need to turn to disabled people for education and guidance. From this realisation has grown the demand for DET run by disabled people, which aims to help people understand the meaning of disability, identify changes in work practice, and plan strategies to implement change"
When and where did DET start? What are the objectives of DET?
For more information about any of the above, please contact Choices and Rights Disability Coalition.

You can contact us at/on:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disability Equality Training - Choices and Rights Disability Coalition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is Disability Equality Training? (DET) "Many public and private sector bodies have gradually realised that their work practices and policies fall far short of fulfilling the needs, rights and aspirations of disabled people who are their clients, customers and co-workers and that, in order to change this situation, they need to turn to disabled people for education and guidance.

# data[].attributes.body
disabled politician has described the equality training given to fellow councillors as “a joke” after a Liberal Democrat rival was forced to apologise for posting a message on social media that accused him of using his impairment for political purposes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A disabled politician has described the equality training given to fellow councillors as "a joke" after a Liberal Democrat rival was forced to apologise for posting a message on social media that accused him of using his impairment for political purposes.
The comments by Lib Dem Joe Naitta were targeted last June at fellow Derby city councillor Amo Raju, who is a Labour party member and also chief executive of the user-led organisation Disability Direct.

Naitta said in a Facebook post to his supporters: "This one uses his disability, get rid of labour in Blagreaves ward."

Raju ( pictured) is the only Labour councillor in the ward. The other two are Liberal Democrats.

Naitta later deleted the post.

The comment was reported to the council by Disability Direct trustees, after they told Raju they were "totally outraged" by the comment and its possible impact on disabled people who want to stand for election.

Now a council investigation has led to Naitta being forced to apologise in writing to Raju, and post an apology on Facebook for the comment which he said "suggested that another councillor used his disability for political purposes".

Naitta added: "I fully accept that this comment was wrong and I should not have made it.

"It was made in haste and was withdrawn soon afterwards but I know people did view it."

Raju said he believed that such targeted comments could deter other disabled people from entering politics, and he has called for the council to improve the disability equality training offered to councillors.

He said: "Equality training is just sitting in front of a computer and doing some e-learning, which I think is a joke. I have done it and it's a joke."

He added: "There is a principle here that we should be encouraging more disabled people to stand for election. These kinds of comments deter disabled people."

He described Naitta's comment as "an ignorant and opportunistic attack on my character".

He said: "I have been a councillor for just under four years, CEO of Disability Direct over 20 years and have had cerebral palsy all my life.

"Yet not in any instance have I taken advantage of the latter."

Raju said he stood for office because he believed there should be more disabled people in politics, according to the principle of "nothing about us without us".

An Equality and Human Rights Commission spokesperson said: "It is essential to a healthy democracy that everyone has the right to participate fully in all aspects of political life.

"We know that disabled people often face prejudice and experience humiliating or intimidating treatment in elected office.

"We all have a responsibility to treat people with dignity and respect, and political parties and governments need to ensure that our elected representatives are protected from abuse so that our political system truly reflects the diversity of our society."

A Derby City Council spokesperson said: "A complaint was received last year, and handled by the council's monitoring officer at the time.

"Subsequently, the complaint was brought to the standards committee, who reviewed the case at their meeting in February.

"This item was exempt from the press and public, and remains so.

"The complaint was resolved internally, however if Cllr Raju wishes to take this further, he can do so with the relevant authority.

"Our training for colleagues and members, which is delivered online, is regularly reviewed and updated based on current legislation and best practice.

"We won't tolerate any form of discrimination at Derby City Council, and encourage our colleagues and members to report any such instances."

Naitta had failed to comment on his apology by noon today (Thursday).
A note from the editor: Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations. Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009. Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Council told to improve disability equality training after councillor's 'ignorant' attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A disabled politician has described the equality training given to fellow councillors as "a joke" after a Liberal Democrat rival was forced to apologise for posting a message on social media that accused him of using his impairment for political purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
Telling the story

The word methodology used to scare me, and it took me a long while to understand its meaning and its relevance to research and writing. After a conversation with my supervisor, in which I explained the difficulties I was having finding a 'paper' trail, he suggested I put these constraints down in a methodology chapter placed before the ‘literature review’. After staring at him somewhat agog, I did just this. Indeed, viewed as distortions, or bad reporting, the misrepresentation of disabled people’s interests in storytelling explained a wider context and impediments to the research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Methodology -Thinking about storytelling

Thank you Prof Megan Crawford [@DrMeganCrawford] for inviting to talk with the PhD students from the research Centre for Global Learning at Coventry University [@CovUni_GLEA] . Here's a few thoughts about that conversation.... As requested, I've focused on methodology.

The word methodology used to scare me, and it took me a long while to understand its meaning and its relevance to research and writing. After a conversation with my supervisor, in which I explained the difficulties I was having finding a 'paper' trail, he suggested I put these constraints down in a methodology chapter placed before the 'literature review'. After staring at him somewhat agog, I did just this. Indeed, viewed as distortions, or bad reporting, the misrepresentation of disabled people's interests in storytelling explained a wider context and impediments to the research.

Who tells the tale is an important consideration in research. Accounts, like reports, annual reviews, or a thesis, are forms of storytelling. As the artefacts of organisational life they represent culture, and a form of textual evidence, that help tell the tale of an organisation's activity. Stories are our archives, tell our past, the history of our times. Written for neighbours in time yet to read them. As feminists have given voice to women's interests in the she-story, existing he-story probably says more about who has most privilege - if not power. This view of pen- inequality articulates how some knowledge holders have a stronger voice than others, and therefore dominate many narratives.

Ever a moveable feast, the 'question' I started with wasn't the one I ended up exploring. The enquiry started as a hunch: Why are disabled people not referred to as a group like others? Why are their allies not viewed as activist like feminists? Why isn't there a more nuanced language to talk about disability? And why aren't there words with meaning thar are equivalent to institutional racism, patriarchy and sexism? At board meetings, I heard accountants call themselves feminists, but how do you describe reports from the position of an anti-what-disabled-people-are-oppressed-by-ist? Because let's face it anti-ableist is an unknown to most, and doesn't exactly roll of the tongue.

In research papers I found there was a few sheets where I had hoped to find a library. When I searched through papers with 'disability' in their title few appeared before 1960, even fewer in topics that dealt with global matters. Pre 1960's first-hand accounts of disabled individuals' experiences are hard to find in text. Most research is about them. In the few texts I did find, there was a noticeable absence of theory, reference to studies or equality was missing. From the 80s Disability Studies has been a growing discipline, yet its Key authors are absent in the roll calls of storytellers in tales of disability.

This rejection lead me to consider travelling theory, a management perspective that seeks to explore why some theories are picked up and are blended into other disciplines, and others are domesticated [reduced to acceptable ideas] or never get beyond their own subject writings (Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011). It seems that many theories are somewhat blunted by travel, indeed the more divergent ideas they include the more they are simplified or domesticated. Some are rejected altogether when not compatible with the adopting discipline's existing theory. The question I ended up with was: why aren't disabled people trusted as storytellers?

The methodology chapter, gave me space to explain a cultural rejection [orthotoxic], a widespread yet invisible force pushing disabled people to margins of communities' activities such as storytelling. It helped me explain why as authors, disabled writers as a particular group within the writing community, were less likely to appear on the page. This power imbalance, explained how storytellers can be privileged or silenced in research accounts.

The following literature analysis, from a human rights perspective, then highlighted how misrepresentation affects discourse in recognisable ways. For instance, the absence of disabled people speaking on matters of sustainability, despite the impact of economic measures most likely to harm them most. This erasure reflected a silencing of marginalised groups in global inequality more widely, most apparent in the rejection of authors from the Global South.

In academic texts, my major concern was the personal cost demanded from disabled participants. Traditionally the 'disabled voice' has been interpreted by a more privileged researcher. Viewed as data, individual representation when it did occur, is often stripped of institutional, political and activist positions. Furthermore, texts suggested that research on 'minority groups' often imposes an invasion of privacy can be triggering for 'respondents'. Given that there is growing number of non-academic texts penned by authors clearly aligning to disability rights, why not use these? I love the term rainbow-literatures to describe these firsthand accounts, that have mushroomed in numbers as technology enables individuals marginalised by education and employment. Viewed as a rejection of these, as poor acceptance of firsthand knowledge seems disabled people's experience has been written-out of research. replaced by an overbearing emphasis on clinical responses to disability understood as illness. No doubt driven by a wider belief in society that what disabled individuals need is care or cure. The storytelling leading people to turn to medical journals, rather than the tellers within groups or organisations representing the interests of the disabled population.

I saw the matter of representing group interest as a question of ethical choice, as it was one of epistemological justice. I decided to turn my own question on its head, by asking what do accounts look like when the key tellers are disabled. By writing an observation of organisational life, I was then able to use a reflection on it as a story to prompt theory. As a reflection on culture in spare me the ethical implications of crossing personal boundaries. As Spradley (1979) states you do not have to be in someone's bedroom to talk about sex, it can be discussed in relation to its representation. The organisational offered a deviance in its rare view of a culture where disabled people are not erased but lead storytelling.

I found that while disability may appear on lists of groups with protected characteristics, disability theory rarely appears in discussion in later chapters. For example, while some authors will refer to disabled as an identity or protected characteristic in their introduction, however if it is referred to later it's usually positioned as an ind problem. Discussions generally do not refer to the social model, and/or institutional discrimination. Rather than build in intersectionality, discarding key ideas of adopted theory suggests a rejection of disabled authors as knowers. Blending theory in an equitable way could help give increasing definition to the multiple oppressions many individuals face within groups. And identity is rarely single and a binary view excludes, more generally I noticed many theories domesticated by more privileged writers, who ignore the ideas they don't agree with, and continue to perpetuate narratives with harmful stereotypes. The use of 'and' maybe important, suggesting 'in addition','with'and 'together', in blending theories viewed as cumulative not oppositional.

The way I read it, Feminism has crossed boundaries that are still resistant to Critical Race Theory. Quite possibly because there have been more academics willing to consider the implications of the former, while fewer have had a nuanced language to articulate their own privilege without the shame implied by the later. Who knows.... Epistemic injustice, with the characteristics of ableism, in research and society, is a distortion that explains a storytelling that speaks to 5 myths the silencing of the disabled population (Kafer, 2013).

Trying to define my knowledge as writer, not necessarily as an author, was a matter of accountability. Defining my 'gaze' was far more than an issue of individual experience, it was one of defined knowledge-base and professional wisdom. Defining my activism was a way of articulating my sensitivity as a researcher. Rather than assume neutrality, I used ethnographic values [not methods] to express deviance in the world.

Suggested by Sinclair (1995), and accessible in many ways, the idea of a chameleon serves well as a metaphor for accountability. Because, as an animal that can change its colours to represent its surroundings, as the picture illustrates the beastie still manages to represent others without changing itself radically. With Accountability as an allied position, organisations wishing to represent their communities, can choose to state the interests of groups within texts and conversations by stating their interests explicitly within its accounts - its storytelling. Articulating shared, or distinct, interests need not change purpose, or existing integrity and vision. Equally a human rights approach, in writing on the authority of named groups highlight the possible erasure of voices within civil rights movements.

I used a graphic, the web of accountabilities, as an idealised frame to qualify themes in conversation. Each radar indicating a type of dialogue identified by the analysis and accout-ability chapters. The characteristics of each dialogue allowed me to qualify the amount of time spent talking about various aspects of people's Human Rights within organisational conversations.

I found that an organisation's commitment to uphold the rights of individuals from marginalised groups can be apparent in the naming of their interests in text and conversations. Legitimacy may seem accidental from a theoretical standpoint, but accountability was in evidence in most conversations. Critical to human rights, being account-able speaks to legitimate engagement. Naming ableism is a further step, because it is not enough to not intentionally hurt, an organisation needs to speak to the discrimination groups face and the cultural oppression they are disadvantaged by. Without conversation, and a language describing the nuance, being nice to individuals has minimal impact on social aspects of belonging from a community perspective.

Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J., & Miller, T. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. (M. Mauthner, Ed.) London: Sage.

Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: rethinking the processes of organizational theory building . Academy of Management Review, 318-337.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability. Accounting Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219-237.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Waverland Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Methodology -Thinking about storytelling Thank you Prof Megan Crawford [@DrMeganCrawford] for inviting to talk with the PhD students from the research Centre for Global Learning at Coventry University [@CovUni_GLEA] . Here's a few thoughts about that conversation.... As requested, I've focused on methodology.

# data[].attributes.body
Disability Equality Training explores the concept of people being disabled by society's barriers and attitudes, highlighting the role society in the removal of those barriers and in the changing of attitudes. The training may include customer care, etiquette and appropriate language for instance.
The training will always be provided by a person with personal experience of disability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Many public and private sector bodies have gradually realised that their work practices and policies fall far short of fulfilling the needs, rights and aspirations of disabled people who are their clients, customers and co-workers and that, in order to change this situation, they need to turn to disabled people for education and guidance. From this realisation has grown the demand for DET run by disabled people, which aims to help people understand the meaning of disability, identify changes in work practice, and plan strategies to implement change Disability Equality Training Trainers Guide
When and Where did DET start?

DET courses have been organised and run by disabled people since 1981 to address the need for information about reality of disability. The use of disabled trainers is a fundamental part of the working towards a positive change in attitude by non-disabled course participants. A DET course will enable participants to identify and address discriminatory forms of practice towards disabled people. Through training they will find ways to challenge the organisational behaviour which reinforces negative myths and values and which prevents disabled people from gaining equality and achieving full participation in society.

How is Disability Awareness Training and Disability Equality Training different in their approach?

On the whole, Disability Awareness Training tends to focus on the individual impairment or condition and will often use simulation exercises (such as putting people in wheelchairs or blindfolding them) to encourage non-disabled people to have an idea of what it may be like to have that specific disability. Someone may offer the training with no personal experience of disability.

Disability Equality Training explores the concept of people being disabled by society's barriers and attitudes, highlighting the role society in the removal of those barriers and in the changing of attitudes. The training may include customer care, etiquette and appropriate language for instance. The training will always be provided by a person with personal experience of disability.

Who would benefit from DET?

Up until recently DET on the whole was only given employees working within the care setting, however it has been recognised that a much wider section of the community would benefit from such training e.g. people of various ages, abilities and backgrounds.

Therefore Equal Equality offer DET to everyone, from young people in education to service providers within the community. All our training is tailored to suit the participants' needs, it is fun and interactive but at the same time thought provoking. The trainers can deliver DET at your organisation/school for your convenience.

What are the objectives of DET?

At the end of the DET participants will be able:

1. To reach a social, as opposed to an individual, (medical), model of disability through all training exercises and teachings.

2. To challenge some of the common myths and false distinctions that relegate disabled people to the status of a discriminated-against minority .

3. To demonstrate the practical application of equal opportunities policies for disabled people within the immediate area of work of course participants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Disability Equality Training? (DET)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Disability Equality Training course will enable participants to identify and address discriminatory forms of practice towards disabled people. Through training they will find ways to challenge the organisational behaviour which reinforces negative myths and values and which prevents disabled people from gaining equality and achieving full participation in society.

# data[].attributes.body
Disability Equality Training Explained

Employees at all levels of your organisation probably need to be better informed about disability, including the practical issues that might arise.

Disability Equality Training will extend their understanding and help them capitalise on the value that disabled customers and employees bring.

All Toucan Diversity training includes sessions on:

Disability equality.

Awareness

Equality training Looks at how society affects a person’s experience of their disability. Your team will learn how disability is a social and human rights issue, rather than a medical problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Training structure / content

Because the aim of the training is to look at disability from a human rights angle, we discuss issues like:discrimination, isolation, how to remove barriers etc. We encourage participants to think about how they, personally, can help tackle these issues. Our training sessions are interactive. Participants are encouraged to engage in debate about issues.

Training objectives

Understand where attitudes come from and how they have changed over time

Highlight the importance and value of the social model

Gain a brief overview of the Equality Act 2010 and learn what is expected of service providers in the UK

Be aware of respectful language and etiquette

Create a more inclusive environment for staff, clients, volunteers, be actively removing barriers.

Training methods

PowerPoint presentation

Group activities

Quizzes

Video work

Discussions

Duration

Half day ( 3,5hrs) or full day (5 hrs) or 1 hour (Bespoke version)

Group Size: 20 maximum

Toucan Diversity Training is a proudly user-led organisation that specialises in raising awareness for issues surrounding disability. Our Disability Confident Leader accreditation means you can be sure you will be receiving the best training for your company.

All participants will be awarded a certificate of attendance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disability Equality Training - Toucan Diversity Training

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Because the aim of the training is to look at disability from a human rights angle, we discuss issues like:discrimination, isolation, how to remove barriers etc. We encourage participants to think about how they, personally, can help tackle these issues. Our training sessions are interactive. Participants are encouraged to engage in debate about issues.

# data[].attributes.body
‘Our awareness of the reality of disability is limited because we live in a society geared towards people whose bodies and minds are fully functioning. This may seem strange when one considers that disability or illness can happen to anyone at any moment of their lives - it is an inevitable part of the human experience. Nevertheless, society is organised in such a way as to treat disability as an exceptional circumstance that requires special and, in the main, separate provision which is often inadequate and serves only to maintain the divisions and lack of understanding between able-bodied and disabled people"

# data[].attributes.headline
What is a D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisation

# data[].attributes.subject
What is a D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisation

# data[].attributes.body
DDPOs grew out of the Disabled People’s rights movement and have played a pivotal role in promoting and progressing equality for Deaf and Disabled people.

There are an estimated 1.2 million Deaf and Disabled people in London and DDPOs provide essential support to this section of the community. DDPOs protect and uphold Disabled people’s rights, campaign for equality and inclusion and provide a range of peer-led accessible services that support Disabled people to access services and entitlements, challenge discrimination and exclusion and have choice, control and independence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inclusion London supports Deaf and Disabled People's Organisations (DDPOs) in London. These organisations are run by and for Deaf and Disabled People.

DDPOs grew out of the Disabled People's rights movement and have played a pivotal role in promoting and progressing equality for Deaf and Disabled people.

There are an estimated 1.2 million Deaf and Disabled people in London and DDPOs provide essential support to this section of the community. DDPOs protect and uphold Disabled people's rights, campaign for equality and inclusion and provide a range of peer-led accessible services that support Disabled people to access services and entitlements, challenge discrimination and exclusion and have choice, control and independence.

An organisation is a DDPO if:

1. Their Management Committee or Board has at least 75% of representation from Deaf and Disabled people and;

2. At least 50% of their paid staff team are Deaf or Disabled people with representation at all levels of the organisation and;

3. They provide services for or work on behalf of Deaf and Disabled people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inclusion London supports Deaf and Disabled People's Organisations (DDPOs) in London. These organisations are run by and for Deaf and Disabled People. DDPOs grew out of the Disabled People's rights movement and have played a pivotal role in promoting and progressing equality for Deaf and Disabled people.

# data[].attributes.body
Accessible travel blog sharing accessibility reviews, disability travel guides and wheelchair travel tips;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carrie-Ann Lightley - One of the UK's leading accessible travel blogs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Carrie-Ann Lightley is one of the UK's leading accessible travel blogs - sharing wheelchair travel reviews, disability travel guides and accessible travel tips.

# data[].attributes.body
Social Model of Disability

Disability Wales aims to promote the understanding, adoption and implementation of the Social Model of Disability throughout Wales

What disabled people in Wales say about the Social Model

The Medical and Social Models of Disability

Definition of ‘disability’

Examples of how society could change to allow disabled people to participate equally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Social Model of Disability

Disability Wales aims to promote the understanding, adoption and implementation of the Social Model of Disability throughout Wales

What disabled people in Wales say about the Social Model

The Medical and Social Models of Disability

Definition of 'disability'

Examples of how society could change to allow disabled people to participate equally

What disabled people in Wales say about the Social Model

The Social Model of Disability literally saved my life; after I understood what it was about it was my lifeline - it freed me up to be who I am

It puts the onus back on society to remove the barriers

It's empowering; I can direct my energies into improving my quality of life.

The Medical and Social Models of Disability

Disabled people generally have fewer opportunities and a lower quality of life than non-disabled people. There are two different ways of explaining what causes this disadvantage: the Medical Model of Disability and the Social Model of Disability.

The Medical Model of Disability:

Disabled people not joining in society is seen as a direct result of having an impairment and not as the result of features of our society which can be changed.

Society focuses on 'compensating' people with impairments for what is 'wrong' with their bodies.

This is done through 'special' welfare benefits and providing segregated 'special' services.

It shapes the way disabled people think about themselves. Many disabled people internalise the negative message that all disabled people's problems stem from not having 'normal' bodies. We think it's our fault that we can't be active, or contribute to our communities.

This internalised oppression can make disabled people less likely to challenge their exclusion from mainstream society.

The Social Model of Disability:

The Social Model of Disability makes the important difference between 'impairment' and 'disability'.

The Social Model has been worked out by disabled people themselves. Our experiences have shown us that in reality most of the problems we face are caused by the way society is organised.

Our impairments or bodies are not the problem. Social barriers are the main cause of our problems.

These barriers include people's attitudes to disability, and physical and organisational barriers.

Examples of how society could change to allow disabled people to participate equally:

Medical model problem

Social model solution

Painful hands, unable to open jars, doors

Better designed lids, automatic doors

Difficulty in standing for long periods

More seats in public places

"Housebound" or "Confined to a wheelchair"

Badly designed buildings - need ramps and lifts in all buildings, also accessible transport/parking spaces

Other people won't give you a job because they think you couldn't do it

Educate people to look at disabled people's knowledge and skills rather than looking for problems

Can't hear or see

Recognition and use of sign language and Braille/raised letters.

In the Medical Model, the disabled person is placed at the centre of the "problem". Considered "defective" or "not normal", disabled people are often described or believed to be:

unable to make decisions

in need of a doctor or a cure

always in need of help, sympathy and charity

can never be equal to a non-disabled person

Much of this language is negative and does not describe the experience of disabled people.

The Social Model is an alternate way of understanding access issues and social exclusion and sees the problem as a "disabling world". The Social Model explores why our society does not treat all its members as equal.

Definition of 'disability'

Impairment

An injury, illness, or congenital condition that causes or is likely to cause a long-term effect on physical appearance and / or limitation of function within the individual that differs from the commonplace.

Disability

The loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in society on an equal level with others due to social and environmental barriers.

Disability is shown as being caused by 'barriers' or elements of social organisation which take no or little account of people who have impairments.

Society is shown to disable people who have impairments because the way it has been set up prevents us from taking part in everyday life.

It follows that if disabled people are to be able to join in mainstream society, the way society is organised must be changed.

Removing the barriers which exclude (and disable) people who have impairments can bring about this change.

Disability Wales is campaigning and working to remove all disabling barriers in Wales.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Social Model of Disability Disability Wales aims to promote the understanding, adoption and implementation of the Social Model of Disability throughout Wales What disabled people in Wales say about the Social Model The Medical and Social Models of Disability Definition of 'disability' Examples of how society could change to allow disabled people to participate [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
The ‘Social Model of Disability’ and the Disability MovementVic FinkelsteinMarch 2007

# data[].attributes.subject
The ‘Social Model of Disability’ and the Disability MovementVic FinkelsteinMarch 2007

# data[].attributes.body
The social model helps us recognise barriers that make life harder for disabled people. Removing these barriers creates equality and offers disabled people more independence, choice and control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social model of disability | Disability charity Scope UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The social model of disability is a way of viewing the world which says that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference.

# data[].attributes.body
Hello, is it me you’re looking for

It was really important to introduce my sister in order to explain the following friendship - and what it taught me about being an ally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was really important to introduce my in order to explain the following friendship - and what it taught me about being an ally.

When I was 11 Jenny walked into our classroom one September. Until she arrived I'd been the odd kid. Asked to watch most classes, I had largely drifted in a boisterous environment, mostly trying to avoid conflict. As the British kid in a French school, having been the subject of a huge fight by my parents to be admitted, I felt I had to go un-noticed, it was a matter of survival. Because I couldn't write, teachers largely refused to engage with me. I was asked to sit quietly and watch the others. I played on this enormously, I must have avoided homework for 3 years at least...

Jenny changed all this as my best friend. It was a perfect year, full of cards, pop songs and confidences. As a Canadian she was the first person I'd met who spoke both the languages I did, celebrated Christmas and Easter the way my family did... I think it's fair to say we secured each other's belonging in the world. Lunchtimes became a joy, rather than a dread, as we sat and talked, and talked and talked... if only I could remember what was said. The feeling of those happy days though I will never forget. To be understood, to be accepted, to be wanted and loved. [reaches for tissues...] As the English speaking kids, with a British family, our bonds were tight and life-affirming. I have no doubt our understanding of social justice came from those conversations. We had no words for disability, discrimination or ableism. Bear in mind, at the time, computers were far from personal, search engines hadn't been invented. It would take me another 20 years to find the Disabled people's movement and the idea of the Social Model. We certainly did not have the words to distinguish between identity and group. In the late 70s you could not identify it wasn't an available option, you were labelled according to the most visible impairment, multiple or hidden differences had yet to be invented.

Connection is never that straightforward, the tale is definitely not to be read as disabled kid finds charity in non-disabled friend's benevolence. From our perspective the gains were mutual, the pleasures shared, the reality one of tangible happiness. We shared a similar, if opposite, connection to our sisters. Jenny's sister had Down syndrome. I am in no doubt that this played a huge part, because like my sister, her ability to understand my experience, and my hers, was significant. I now have words and ideas to describe the absence of prejudice that comes of seeing people as individuals without the skew of prejudice. It wasn't so much that Jenny wanted a disabled friend, more that the difference wasn't an issue. Our shared experience drew us together, our lack of judgement allowed a mutual respect. Jenny and I also shared a fight against sexism and xenophobia [anti-Brit]. While it's a pointless task to want to decide which ism is worse, it's certainly less damaging to understand them as cumulative! I had no idea at the time how important this understanding would be. Securing, or facilitating the belonging, of another individual defies articulation. Our lunchtime conversations I am sure set some solid foundations for the self-respect and personal pride I would need to survive the trauma in years to come. Personal endurance that would be seriously tested in the following years. As the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) literature indicates personal relationships I hugely beneficial in how we deal with violence, victimisation. While there's no insurance against the hate crime directed at individuals from marginalised groups, having people around you does minimise the likelihood of abuse and may help living with the scars - if not recovery. In my experience, being known is a game-changer, on many levels. I do think that our relationship secured a safe space in the world. Our friendship helped us be resilient in the face of pain that has hit since. While BBFs cannot immunise, they aid resilience, as they secure a belief in our likeable nature. So when people treat you badly you know others won't. I knew Jenny loved me, so I was sure others would too. Our friendship has been a source of strength and hope in the difficult years since.

Allies at work

As this tale seeks to demonstrate, you don't always need the right words to stand beside others as allies. I would argue that it's a more straightforward route though. What Jenny gave me isn't so much of value, but beyond measure, it is simply priceless. Not all friends are allies, there's a deliberate effort involved in standing against oppression. However, I'd argue that it's my love for Jenny that made my activism meaningful. In ways I was yet to discover, my intersectional stance, was born out of many relationships similar to ours.

Looking back, it seems a matter of high irony that if it had not been for school we wouldn't have met. That the self-belief I gained from our relationships not only enabled a sense of belonging but set me on a trajectory as an activist. Years later I find myself placing the rights of people like Jenny, and her sister, at the heart of my work every day. Would I have strived to address the characteristic discrimination other marginalised groups face, if it were not for her. Yet, today other mum are fight tooth and claw to get their young people into schools. As rejection often based on the bogus assumption that for the most part disabled people take - but do not give. Education is therefore for those that will contribute, most insidiously it is implied, on economic terms. Denying schools places to disabled youngsters denies the experience that equality and equity can be lived. Not seen as an idealistic dream, or a goal solely viewed as the most able. Jenny and I had no idea where we were headed, and I thank every star we had those months. As I read it education needs to equip us for life, not just for work. Schooling as it stands, pandemic aside, is still showing us how to divide and reject.

Yes, we keep in touch, many many letters over many decades. Jenny is an awesome ally, a bond beyond words, in my heart and a message away. I'm glad we both had the sisters we did, without them we'd have struggled to be allies. We have been friends I'm sure but, it's the closeness to our sisters that defined our ability to see the injustice we faced. It's this outward facing rage that has fuelled my activism. With every p.s., every X and every O, I thank you mon amie.

Writers note:

Evidence suggests that the way we talk about the disabled population as a group in the public sphere is often subject to misrepresentation. Narratives often lead a storytelling that depicts disability as a individualised and medicalised telling. Trope: brave perky Crip overcomes personal tragedy to inspire us all. It's hardly surprising if even disabled people end up writing about themselves that way. Ableism runs deep, internalised oppression deeper. Even where we hold the pen, non-disabled publishers hold the power. When I tell my story in public, I do it quite consciously to counter identified stereotypes imposed on many marginalised groups. In terms of ableism, you'll notice from others blog posts, I try to counter the prejudice, discrimination and inequality the disabled population face.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was really important to introduce my in order to explain the following friendship - and what it taught me about being an ally. When I was 11 Jenny walked into our classroom one September. Until she arrived I'd been the odd kid.

# data[].attributes.body
At Shape, all of our work is informed by the Social Model of Disability. The Social Model holds that a person isn’t 'disabled' because of their impairment, health condition, or the ways in which they may differ from what is commonly considered the medical 'norm'; rather it is the physical and attitudinal barriers in society – prejudice, lack of access adjustments and systemic exclusion – that disable people. To say that someone is 'just different' or 'differently-abled' ignores the fact that they face these disabling barriers created by society, and implies that they do not experience discrimination, and that society does not need to change to become more accessible and inclusive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do we actually mean by 'disabled'? Why do we say 'disability' and 'disabled' instead of 'diffability', 'differently-abled', 'special' or 'different'? What are disabling barriers?
At Shape, all of our work is informed by the Social Model of Disability. The Social Model holds that a person isn't 'disabled' because of their impairment, health condition, or the ways in which they may differ from what is commonly considered the medical 'norm'; rather it is the physical and attitudinal barriers in society - prejudice, lack of access adjustments and systemic exclusion - that disable people. To say that someone is 'just different' or 'differently-abled' ignores the fact that they face these disabling barriers created by society, and implies that they do not experience discrimination, and that society does not need to change to become more accessible and inclusive.

The Social Model was developed by disabled people to identify and take action against discrimination, and to centre equality and human rights. This is in contrast to the traditional Medical Model, which presents disability as an individual, medical 'problem', focuses on what a person can't do because of their particular physical, neurological or psychological characteristics, centres care, cure and welfare instead of accessibility, independence and inclusion, and places responsibility and burden on the disabled individual. The Social Model takes the focus away from impairment; it places responsibility on government, organisations, businesses and individuals across all sectors of society to identify and implement constructive changes to remove barriers and increase access. A good place for organisations and companies to start is by undertaking professional Disability Equality Training and access consultation, services which can be provided to arts and cultural organisations by Shape.

Under the Social Model, disability is framed as a social construct created by barriers which can be changed and eliminated, providing a dynamic and positive model which identifies the causes of exclusion and inequality and proposes a solution. It is on society to make changes, not on the disabled person; for individuals and organisations to understand and then make the adjustments required to stop marginalising and excluding people whose bodies and minds don't comply with society's idea of what is normative and acceptable.

The Social Model makes a clear distinction between impairment (a condition, illness or loss/lack of function) and disability (barriers and discrimination). It also demonstrates that people from different impairment groups, far from having separate issues and interests, face common problems - such as lack of access to information and communication, environmental exclusion and discrimination in employment - and empowers them, along with their allies, to find common solutions to remove these barriers. It moves away from a position of 'blaming' the individual for their 'shortcomings', argues that impairment is and always will be present in society, and suggests that the only logical outcome is to plan and organise society in a way that includes, rather than excludes, disabled people.

NDACA's Social Model Film
Read about the National Disability Arts Collection and Archive
Unlimited's 'Removing Barriers' Film

Unlimited's animation on the Social Model of Disability. Click here for an Audio Described version.
Explore all of our resources We provide professional Disability Equality Training and access consultancy services for organisations wanting to become accessible, open up to disabled people and improve their diversity. To find out more please click here.
The disabled activist Vic Finkelstein is widely credited as the founder of the Social Model of Disability. You can read more about him on his Wikipedia page at wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Finkelstein

This page is an adaptation of a resource created by Barbara Lisicki.

Banner image: A pair of hands with red nails are pictured multiple times across the image signing different letters in BSL.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the social model that informs all of our work at Shape.

# data[].attributes.body
Social models of disability and other life strategies

Tom Shakespeare break the social separation between disabled people, defined by their flawed bodies, and non-disabled people, defined by their perfect bodies. The strong social model does this by denying the flawed body and claiming that what defines disabled people is oppression and exclusion

# data[].attributes.body
The Social Model of Disability

We believe in and follow the social model understanding of disability and the cultural model of Deafness. Our use of the term ‘Disabled people’ reflects this, as does our description of Deaf and Disabled people and organisations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download this Factsheet as a Word Document:
The Social Model of Disability Factsheet - Inclusion London.doc
Download this Factsheet as a PDF:
The Social Model of Disability Factsheet - Inclusion London.pdf
EASY READ Factsheet (PDF):
The Social Model of Disability Factsheet - EASY READ - Inclusion London.pdf
Watch this Factsheet in BSL:

Introduction

The aim of this Factsheet is to provide the reader with an introduction to the Social Model of Disability, and an overview of some of its implications for us as Disabled people and society more generally.

It is important to note that the word 'model' is a term used to describe a way of thinking or a concept. There are a number of different 'models' of disability as detailed later in this factsheet. These models approach disability in very different ways. It is generally accepted that conceptual models are not set in stone, rarely provide a perfect explanation and are often difficult to apply in "real life". The Social Model of Disability is no exception; it was never designed to be a perfect theory of disability but an explanation of Disabled people's experience in society and, equally importantly, a tool for creating social change.

What is powerful and liberating about the Social Model is that it does reflect Disabled people's real life experience, and puts forward a radical and practical approach to ending Disabled people's exclusion and oppression that does not require Disabled people to change who they are in order to be deemed to be entitled to the same rights and opportunities as non-disabled people.

Beginnings of the Social Model

In the 1960s and 1970s, inspired by the great civil rights movements of the time, Disabled people started to question their life experiences and why so many Disabled people were institutionalised and excluded. Disabled people started to discuss and develop an understanding of Disabled people's experiences that radically questioned society's assumptions about what Disabled people could and could not do, and how Disabled people should live. Disabled people began to challenge the exclusion, discrimination and lack of choice and control they experienced in daily life, and the prevailing negative attitudes in society. This was the beginnings of the 'Disability People's Rights Movement'.

The early part of the Movement saw the development of organisations like the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS), and the Liberation Network of People with Disabilities. These groups, very importantly and uniquely for the time, were run by and for Disabled people, and enabled Disabled people to develop their political thinking and actively campaign for radical change.

Many of the early UPIAS members, for example, were residents in institutional care services, and wanted out of these institutions in order to live like other citizens with choice and control over how they lived and with whom. They began to develop a new approach to thinking about disability that reframed disability as a civil rights and equality issue, rather than a medical or charitable issue. These groups began to demand choice and control over their lives and, equally importantly, began to lay out the changes in society that would need to happen in order for Disabled people to have the same rights and opportunities as others (see, for example, the development of the "pillars of independent living" detailed on Page 10 of this factsheet.

This approach to disability became known as the Social Model of Disability. Over the last 40 years the Social Model has been extended, refined and consistently questioned but it still remains both the best explanation of disability and the best "route map" for achieving equality and real social change for Disabled people.

Traditional Models of Disability

The Social Model of Disability was developed by Disabled people to identify and take action against Disabled people's oppression and exclusion. It was developed as a direct challenge to the prevailing models of disability that viewed disability as an individual, medical problem that needed to be prevented, cured or contained; and/or as a charitable issue that viewed Disabled people as unfortunates who needed to be pitied and catered for by segregated, charitable services.

Here is a diagram of a Medical Model of Disability that shows some of the thinking and assumptions of this Model.

Both the Medical and Charitable Models of Disability rest on assumptions of what a Disabled person 'can't do' because of their impairment; for example: "She cannot walk, therefore she will never be able to work". A Medical Model of Disability will then focus on trying to help the individual to walk again through operations or equipment, whilst a Charitable Model of Disability will conclude that the person who is unable to walk needs special charitable services (often segregated from society), such as day centres, as an alternative to work. Both of these Models locate the source of the 'problem' as the individual Disabled person and, in doing so, place responsibility for the situation onto the Disabled person and away from society and how it is run and organised.

Both the Medical and Charitable Models of Disability are still alive and kicking, and often still lurk in approaches and assumptions made by government and public bodies, despite these organisations purporting to adopt a Social Model approach.

The Social Model of Disability

The Social Model of Disability, developed over the last 40 years by Disabled people, is a radically different Model to the Medical and Charitable approach to disability described above. It states that people have impairments but that the oppression, exclusion and discrimination people with impairments face is not an inevitable consequence of having an impairment, but is caused instead by the way society is run and organised.

The Social Model of Disability holds that people with impairments are 'disabled' by the barriers operating in society that exclude and discriminate against them.

Here is a diagram of the Social Model of Disability that shows some of the thinking and assumptions of this Model.

The Social Model not only identifies society as the cause of disability but, equally importantly, it provides a way of explaining how society goes about disabling people with impairments. Sometimes referred to as a "barriers-approach", the Social Model provides a "route map" that identifies both the barriers that disable people with impairments and how these barriers can be removed, minimised or countered by other forms of support.

Key disabling barriers from a Social Model approach include:

Attitudinal barriers

These are social and cultural attitudes and assumptions about people with impairments that explain, justify and perpetuate prejudice, discrimination and exclusion in society; for example, assumptions that people with certain impairments can't work, can't be independent, can't have sex, shouldn't have children, need protecting, are "child-like", are " dangerous", should not be seen because they are upsetting, are scroungers, etc.

Physical barriers

These are barriers linked to the physical and built environment, and cover a huge range of barriers that prevent equal access, such as stairs/ steps, narrow corridors and doorways, kerbs, inaccessible toilets, inaccessible housing, poor lighting, poor seating, broken lifts or poorly managed street and public spaces.

Information/Communication Barriers

These are barriers linked to information and communication, such as lack of British Sign Language interpreters for Deaf people, lack of provision of hearing induction loops, lack of information in different accessible formats such as Easy Read, plain English and large font.

Barriers "disable" by creating exclusion, discrimination and disadvantage for people with impairments.

The Social Model, in highlighting the barrier, often simultaneously identifies the solution to the barrier; for example:

Barrier: The intercom in a block flats does not have a video camera, therefore Deaf/hard of hearing residents cannot establish who is seeking entry.

Solution: Install an intercom system with video for Deaf and hard of hearing residents.

Additional benefits: Elderly people and other people who may feel vulnerable feel more secure in the accommodation.

Likewise, from a Social Model perspective, to enable Disabled people to achieve genuine independent living requires a range of support to be in place in society to counter the effects of discrimination and oppression. These are known as the ' pillars of independent living', which are:

Appropriate and accessible information

An adequate income

Appropriate and accessible health and social care provision

A fully accessible transport system

Full access to the environment

Adequate provision of technical aids and equipment

Availability of accessible and adapted housing

Adequate provision of personal assistance

Availability of inclusive education and training

Equal opportunities for employment

Availability of independent advocacy and self-advocacy

Availability of peer counselling

The Social Model of Disability is dynamic and effective in that it focuses on barriers and solutions to such barriers and, in doing so, maps out an approach to inclusion and equality that is of benefit to society as a whole, not just Disabled people.

Impairment vs disability

From a Social Model perspective, there is a radical difference between impairment and disability:

Impairment is an individual's physical, sensory or cognitive difference (for example, being blind, experiencing bipolar, having M.S. or a learning difficulty).

Disability is the name for the social consequences of having an impairment. People with impairments are disabled by society, so disability is therefore a social construct that can be changed and removed.

Language

Language reflects the cultural assumptions and thinking of the society around us. It follows then that for much of history, the language and words used to describe Disabled people have reflected a negative, charitable or medical view of disability. Words that reflect these views of disability include: "handicapped", "cripple", "wheelchair bound", "retarded", "suffering from" and "special needs".

Social Model language rejects this negative or medical language and replaces it with language that describes more accurately our experience. For example, "Disabled person" (not "handicapped" or "cripple"), "wheelchair user" (not "wheelchair bound"), "person with learning difficulties" (not "retarded"), "person with an impairment" (not "suffering from") and "access needs" (not "special needs").

Although the words we use to describe things change over time, it is important to respect and use the language people have chosen to describe and define themselves.

Disabled people or people with disabilities?

From a Social Model perspective, the term 'Disabled people' is a political term that people with impairments use to emphasise the social cause and nature of the exclusion and discrimination we face as people with impairments, disabled by society.

Using the term 'Disabled people' or 'Disabled person' is not a value judgment on what people can or cannot do, but rather a political description of the shared, disabling experience that people with impairments face in society. It is used to bring together a very diverse group of people with impairments to identify the causes of our discrimination and oppression, communicate shared experience and knowledge, and create social change.

Non-Social Model language/Medical Model language such as "a person with disabilities" confuses impairment and disability and implies disability is an individual matter - something a person "has". This is wrong. It is the disabling barriers operating in society that disables us, not our impairments.

The Social Model of Disability is central to the struggle for inclusion and equality for Disabled people. However, as with any model, there are challenges to the Social Model approach. Two current areas of challenge are:

The creation & promotion of a Biopsychosocial Model of Disability

Criticism by Disabled people

The Biopsychosocial Model of Disability

The Biopsychosocial Model of Disability was championed and developed by the private health insurance sector in America. This Model re-frames disability away from a Social Model understanding back to an individualist, quasi-medical and psychological approach.

This Model seeks to put the responsibility for Disabled people's situation back onto the individual Disabled person. For example, the primary cause of unemployment amongst Disabled people, from this view, is not the economic and attitudinal barriers operating in the work place but an individual's (so-called negative) attitudes, thinking and behaviour about work, which need moderating and changing. If a Disabled person fails to find work it is primarily, from this Model's perspective, a failure of the individual to be sufficiently motivated and flexible to "get on their bike and find work".

This is a dangerous approach, as the answer to disability equality from a Biopsychosocial Model perspective is to strip Disabled people of rights and support (things that this Model argues de‐incentivise Disabled people and stop them being self‐reliant), to develop a denial of disability as a social construct, and ultimately to place the blame and responsibility for exclusion, discrimination, poverty and all that flows from this back onto the individual.

The Biopsychosocial Model is rapidly gaining ground in the UK. It was a founding approach of Atos[2] and underpins the Work Capability Assessment [3]. It is promoted relentlessly by increasing numbers of private companies involved in health, employment and public services, including Unum Insurance who also sought to gain academic credibility for the Model through funding the Centre for Psychosocial & Disability Research at Cardiff University.

Criticism from Disabled people

Criticism from Disabled people primarily focuses on the failure of the Social Model to explain or address the specific experiences and needs of certain groups of Disabled people; for example, mental health system survivors and people with long term health conditions.

We would agree that there has indeed been a failure by advocates of the Social Model to apply and address the specific experiences of certain - often excluded - groups of Disabled people. However, we would argue this is not a failure of the Social Model itself, but a failure of its application and implementation by the Disabled people's rights movement.

We need to get much better at recognising, understanding and responding to the specific and diverse range of experiences, barriers and needs of all people with impairments. We need to deepen and broaden the application of the Social Model so it is a tool for all of us - across all impairment groups - and is used with as much vigour to unpack, understand and help remove the barriers that people with mental health issues experience, for example, as it has been used for people with physical impairments.

We also need to do more to celebrate the diversity and difference we represent as Disabled people, and the culture and community we have developed, both of which help mark the way for a different approach and understanding of society and humanity.

Further reading & links

The aim of this section is to provide you with a starting point for further reading, discussion and/or for training and informing other people.

Generic Images (Moving and Still)

Some people prefer pictures to words. Images can be useful in illustrating a point or as an alternative for those with limited literacy; and film/dvd clips can help to illustrate points. You can download and use some of these as a free resource.

It is always worth encouraging people to think about how to apply the narrative to other impairment groups and noting the similarities in terms of barriers. This can be a great training exercise.

History of Disabled People

Current Debate, Commentary and Blogs
Please note that the views expressed by these sites & commentators are not necessarily those upheld by Inclusion London

Jenny Morris is an academic and commentator who addresses a number of important issues about disability, rights and representation in her blog. http://jennymorrisnet.blogspot.co.uk/

DPAC (Disabled People Against the Cuts) is a grassroots campaigning organisation, run by and for Disabled people. Its website is good source of information and commentary about current issues affecting Disabled people and current campaigns. http://dpac.uk.net

Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance is a grassroots alliance of Disabled people and our organisations in England. http://www.rofa.org.uk/

Tom Shakespeare is a disabled academic who historically has been supportive and influential in the disability movement in the UK and internationally. In the early 2000s, he started to challenge the Social Model of Disability and argue that the time had come to move beyond this position. We challenge his position but also urge you to understand his arguments. http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Shakespeare-social-model-of-disability.pdf

He has moved on and developed an "other" model of disability focusing on Human rights, which you can see him discuss on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oviU8D4r1nc

[1] For example see the UPIAS Fundamental Principles of Disability and the Derbyshire Coalition "Seven Needs for Independent Living: http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/UPIAS-fundamental-principles.pdf; http://www.breakthrough-uk.co.uk/#!independent-living/cl31

[2] Atos Healthcare - part of the UK branch of the Paris-based multinational Atos - conducted the Work Capability Assessment on behalf of the DWP from October 2008 until March 2015. Their contract ended controversially early after serious concerns about their competency.

[3] The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is the controversial test designed and used by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to determine whether claimants for certain disability benefits are eligible, or deemed "fit to work".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download this Factsheet as a Word Document: The Social Model of Disability Factsheet - Inclusion London.doc Download this Factsheet as a PDF: The Social Model of Disability Factsheet - Inclusion London.pdf EASY READ Factsheet (PDF): The Social Model of Disability Factsheet - EASY READ - Inclusion London.pdf Watch this Factsheet in BSL: The aim of this Factsheet is to provide the reader with an introduction to the Social Model of Disability, and an overview of some of its implications for us as Disabled people and society more generally.

# data[].attributes.body
The Social Model of Disability

Tom Shakespeare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tom Shakespeare

image: The Blind Leading the Blind - Seamus McKinlay

I. Introduction

In many countries of the world, disabled people and their allies have organised over the last three decades to challenge the historical oppression and exclusion of disabled people (Driedger, 1989; Campbell and Oliver, 1996; Charlton, 1998). Key to these struggles has been the challenge to over-medicalised and individualist accounts of disability. While the problems of disabled people have been explained historically in terms of divine punishment, karma or moral failing, and post-Enlightenment in terms of biological deficit, the disability movement has focused attention onto social oppression, cultural discourse and environmental barriers.

The global politics of disability rights and deinstitutionalisation has launched a family of social explanations of disability. In North America, these have usually been framed using the terminology of minority groups and civil rights (Hahn, 1988). In the Nordic countries, the dominant conceptualisation has been the relational model (Gustavsson et al, 2005). In many countries, the idea of normalisation and social role valorisation has been inspirational, particularly amongst those working with people with learning difficulties (Wolfensburger, 1972). In Britain, it has been the social model of disability which has provided the structural analysis of disabled people's social exclusion (Hasler, 1993).

The social model emerged from the intellectual and political arguments of the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS). This network had been formed after Paul Hunt, a former resident of the Lee Court Cheshire Home, wrote to The Guardian newspaper in 1971, proposing the creation of a consumer group of disabled residents of institutions. In forming the organisation and developing its ideology, Hunt worked closely with Vic Finkelstein, a South African psychologist, who had come to Britain in 1968 after being expelled for his anti-apartheid activities. UPIAS was a small, hardcore group of disabled people, inspired by Marxism, who rejected the liberal and reformist campaigns of more mainstream disability organisations such as the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance. According to their policy statement (adopted December 1974), the aim of UPIAS was to replace segregated facilities with opportunities for people with impairments to participate fully in society, to live independently, to undertake productive work and to have full control over their own lives. The policy statement defined disabled people as an oppressed group and highlighted barriers:

"We find ourselves isolated and excluded by such things as flights of steps, inadequate public and personal transport, unsuitable housing, rigid work routines in factories and offices, and a lack of up-to-date aids and equipment." (UPIAS Aims paragraph 1)

Even in Britain, the social model of disability was not the only political ideology on offer to the first generation of activists (Campbell and Oliver, 1996). Other disabledled activist groups had emerged, including the Liberation Network of People with Disabilities. Their draft Liberation Policy, published in 1981, argued that while the basis of social divisions in society was economic, these divisions were sustained by psychological beliefs in inherent superiority or inferiority. Crucially, the Liberation Network argued that people with disabilities, unlike other groups, suffered inherent problems because of their disabilities. Their strategy for liberation included: developing connections with other disabled people and creating an inclusive disability community for mutual support; exploring social conditioning and positive selfawareness; the abolition of all segregation; seeking control over media representation; working out a just economic policy; encouraging the formation of groups of people with disabilities.

However, the organisation which dominated and set the tone for the subsequent development of the British disability movement, and of disability studies in Britain, was UPIAS. Where the Liberation Network was dialogic, inclusive and feminist, UPIAS was hard-line, male-dominated, and determined. The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, set up as a coalition of disabled-led groups in 1981, adopted the UPIAS approach to disability. Vic Finkelstein and the other BCODP delegates to the first Disabled People's International World Congress in Singapore later that year, worked hard to have their definitions of disability adopted on the global stage (Driedger, 1989). At the same time, Vic Finkelstein, John Swain and others were working with the Open University to create an academic course which would promote and develop disability politics (Finkelstein, 1998). Joining the team was Mike Oliver, who quickly adopted the structural approach to understanding disability, and was to coin the term "social model of disability" in 1983.

II. What is the social model of disability?

While the first UPIAS Statement of Aims had talked of social problems as an added burden faced by people with impairment, the Fundamental Principles of Disability discussion document, recording their disagreements with the reformist Disability Alliance, went further:

"In our view, it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments, by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society. Disabled people are therefore an oppressed group in society." (UPIAS, 1975)

Here and in the later development of UPIAS thinking are the key elements of the social model: the distinction between disability (social exclusion) and impairment (physical limitation) and the claim that disabled people are an oppressed group.

Disability is now defined, not in functional terms, but as "the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organisation which takes little or no account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities." (op cit)

This redefinition of disability itself is what sets the British social model apart from all other socio-political approaches to disability, and what paradoxically gives the social model both its strengths and its weaknesses.

Key to social model thinking is a series of dichotomies:

1. Impairment is distinguished from disability. The former is individual and private, the latter is structural and and public. While doctors and professions allied to medicine seek to remedy impairment, the real priority is to accept impairment and to remove disability. Here there is an analogy with feminism, and the distinction between biological sex (male and female) and social gender (masculine and feminine) (Oakley, 1972). Like gender, disability is a culturally and historically specific phenomenon, not a universal and unchanging essence.

2. The social model is distinguished from the medical or individual model. Whereas the former defines disability as a social creation - a relationship between people with impairment and a disabling society - the latter defines disability in terms of individual deficit. Mike Oliver writes:

"Models are ways of translating ideas into practice and the idea underpinning the individual model was that of personal tragedy, while the idea underpinning the social model was that of externally imposed restriction." (Oliver, 2004, 19)

Medical model thinking is enshrined in the liberal term "people with disabilities", and in approaches which seek to count the numbers of people with impairment, or which reduce the complex problems of disabled people to issues of medical prevention, cure or rehabilitation. Social model thinking mandates barrier removal, antidiscrimination legislation, independent living and other responses to social oppression. From a disability rights perspective, social model approaches are progressive, medical model approaches are reactionary.

3. Disabled people are distinguished from non-disabled people. Disabled people are an oppressed group, and often non-disabled people and organisations - such as professionals and charities - are the causes or contributors to that oppression. Civil rights, rather than charity or pity, are the way to solve the disability problem.

Organisations and services controlled and run by disabled people provide the most appropriate solutions. Research accountable to, and preferably done by, disabled people offers the best insights.

For more than ten years, a debate has raged in Britain about the value and applicability of the social model (Morris, 1991, Crow, 1992, French, 1993, Williams, 1999; Shakespeare and Watson 2002). In response to critiques, academics and activists maintain that the social model has been misunderstood, misapplied, or even wrongly viewed as a social theory. Many leading advocates of the social model approach maintain that the essential insights developed by UPIAS in the 1970s still remain accurate and valid three decades later.

III. Strengths of the social model

As demonstrated internationally, disability activism and civil rights are possible without adopting social model ideology. Yet the British social model is arguably the most powerful form which social approaches to disability have taken. The social model is simple, memorable and effective, each of which is a key requirement of a political slogan or ideology. The benefits of the social model have been shown in three main areas.

First, the social model, which has been called "the big idea" of the British disability movement (Hasler, 1993), has been effective politically in building the social movement of disabled people. It is easily explained and understood, and it generates a clear agenda for social change. The social model offers a straightforward way of distinguishing allies from enemies. At its most basic, this reduces to the terminology people use: "disabled people" signals a social model approach, whereas "people with disabilities" signals a mainstream approach.

Second, by identifying social barriers which should be removed, the social model has been effective instrumentally in the liberation of disabled people. Michael Oliver argues that the social model is a "practical tool, not a theory, an idea or a concept" (2004, 30). The social model demonstrates that the problems disabled people face are the result of social oppression and exclusion, not their individual deficits. This places the moral responsibility on society to remove the burdens which have been imposed, and to enable disabled people to participate. In Britain, campaigners used the social model philosophy to name the various forms of discrimination which disabled people (Barnes, 1991), and used this evidence as the argument by which to achieve the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. In the subsequent decade, services, buildings and public transport have been required to be accessible to disabled people, and most statutory and voluntary organisations have adopted the social model approach.

Third, the social model has been effective psychologically in improving the selfesteem of disabled people and building a positive sense of collective identity. In traditional accounts of disability, people with impairments feel that they are at fault.

Language such as "invalid" reinforce a sense of personal deficit and failure. The focus is on the individual, and on her limitations of body and brain. Lack of selfesteem and self-confidence is a major obstacle to disabled people participating in society. The social model has the power to change the perception of disabled people.

The problem of disability is relocated from the individual, to the barriers and attitudes which disable her. It is not the disabled person who is to blame, but society. She does not have to change, society does. Rather than feeling self-pity, she can feel anger and pride.

IV. Weaknesses of the social model

The simplicity which is the hallmark of the social model is also its fatal flaw. The social model's benefits as a slogan and political ideology are its drawbacks as an academic account of disability. Another problem is its authorship by a small group of activists, the majority of whom had spinal injury or other physical impairments and were white heterosexual men. Arguably, had UPIAS included people with learning difficulties, mental health problems, or with more complex physical impairments, or more representative of different experiences, it could not have produced such a narrow understanding of disability.

Among the weaknesses of the social model are:

1. The neglect of impairment as an important aspect of many disabled people's lives.

Feminists Jenny Morris (1991), Sally French (1993) and Liz Crow (1992) were pioneers in this criticism of the social model neglect of individual experience of impairment:

"As individuals, most of us simply cannot pretend with any conviction that our impairments are irrelevant because they influence every aspect of our lives. We must find a way to integrate them into our whole experience and identity for the sake of our physical and emotional well-being, and, subsequently, for our capacity to work against Disability". [Crow, 1992, 7]

The social model so strongly disowns individual and medical approaches, that it risks implying that impairment is not a problem. Whereas other socio-political accounts of disability have developed the important insight that people with impaired are disabled by society as well as by their bodies, the social model suggests that people are disabled by society not by their bodies. Rather than simply opposing medicalisation, it can be interpreted as rejecting medical prevention, rehabilitation or cure of impairment, even if this is not what either UPIAS, Finkelstein, Oliver or Barnes intended. For individuals with static impairments, which do not degenerate or cause medical complications, it may be possible to regard disability as entirely socially created. For those who have degenerative conditions which may cause premature death, or which any condition which involves pain and discomfort, it is harder to ignore the negative aspects of impairment. As Simon Williams has argued, "... endorsement of disability solely as social oppression is really only an option, and an erroneous one at that, for those spared the ravages of chronic illness." (Williams, 1999, 812) Carol Thomas (1999) has tried to develop the social model to include what she calls "impairment effects", in order to account for the limitations and difficulties of medical conditions. Subsequently, she subsequently suggested that a relational interpretation of the social model enables disabling aspects to be attributed to impairment, as well as social oppression :

"once the term 'disability' is ring-fenced to mean forms of oppressive social reactions visited upon people with impairments, there is no need to deny that impairment and illness cause some restrictions of activity, or that in many situations both disability and impairment effects interact to place limits on activity." (2004, 29)

One curious consequence of the ingenious reformulation is that only people with impairment who face oppression can be called disabled people. This relates to another problem:

2. The social model assumes what it needs to prove : that disabled people are oppressed. The sex/gender distinction defines gender as a social dimension, not as oppression. Feminists claimed that gender relations involved oppression, but did not define gender relations as oppression. However, the social model defines disability as oppression. In other words, the question is not whether disabled people are oppressed in a particular situation, but only the extent to which they are oppressed. A circularity enters into disability research: it is logically impossible for a qualitative researcher to find disabled people who are not oppressed.

3. The analogy with feminist debates about sex and gender highlights another problem: the crude distinction between impairment (medical) and disability (social).

Any researcher who does qualitative research with disabled people immediately discovers that in everyday life it is very hard to distinguish clearly between the impact of impairment, and the impact of social barriers (see for example Watson, 2002; Sherry, 2002). In practice, it is the interaction of individual bodies and social environments which produces disability. For example, steps only become an obstacle if someone has a mobility impairment: each element is necessary but not sufficient for the individual to be disabled. If a person with multiple sclerosis is depressed, how easy is it to make a causal separation between the effect of the impairment itself; her reaction to having an impairment; her reaction to being oppressed and excluded on the basis of having an impairment; other, unrelated reasons for her to be depressed? In practice, social and individual aspects are almost inextricable in the complexity of the lived experience of disability.

Moreover, feminists have now abandoned the sex/gender distinction, because it implies that sex is not a social concept. Judith Butler (1990) and others show that what we think of as sexual difference is always viewed through the lens of gender. Shelley Tremain (2002) has claimed similarly that the social model treats impairment is an unsocialised and universal concept, whereas, like sex, impairment is always already social.

4. The concept of the barrier-free utopia. The idea of the enabling environment, in which all socially imposed barriers are removed, is usually implicit rather than explicit in social model thinking, although it does form the title of a major academic collection (Swain et al, 1993). Vic Finkelstein (1981) also wrote a simple parable of a village designed for wheelchair users to illustrate the way that social model thinking turned the problem of disability on its head. Yet despite the value of approaches such as Universal Design, the concept of a world in which people with impairments were free of environmental barriers is hard to operationalise.

For example, many parts of the natural world will remain inaccessible to many disabled people: mountains, bogs, beaches are almost impossible for wheelchair users to traverse, while sunsets, birdsong and other aspects of nature are difficult for those lacking sight or hearing to experience. In urban settings, many barriers can be mitigated, although historic buildings often cannot easily be adapted. However, accommodations are sometimes incompatible because people with different impairments may require different solutions: blind people prefer steps and defined curbs and indented paving, while wheelchair users need ramps, dropped curbs, and smooth surfaces. Sometimes, people with the same impairment require different solutions: some visually impaired people access text in Braille, others in large print, audio tape or electronic files. Practicality and resource constraints make it unfeasible to overcome every barrier: for example, the New York subway and London Underground systems would require huge investment to make every line and station accessible to wheelchair users. A copyright library of five million books could never afford to provide all these texts in all the different formats which visually impaired users might potentially require. In these situations, it seems more practical to make other arrangements to overcome the problems: for example, Transport for London have an almost totally accessible fleet of buses, to compensate those who cannot use the tube, while libraries increasingly have arrangements to make particular books accessible on demand, given notice.

Moreover, physical and sensory impairments are in many senses the easiest to accommodate. What would it mean to create a barrier free utopia for people with learning difficulties? Reading and writing and other cognitive abilities are required for full participation in many areas of contemporary life in developed nations. What about people on the autistic spectrum, who may find social contact difficult to cope with: a barrier free utopia might be a place where they did not have to meet, communicate with, or have to interpret other people. With many solutions to the disability problem, the concept of addressing special needs seems more coherent than the concept of the barrier free utopia. Barrier free enclaves are possible, but not a barrier free world.

While environments and services can and should be adapted wherever possible, there remains disadvantage associated with having many impairments which no amount of environmental change could entirely eliminate. People who rely on wheelchairs, or personal assistance, or other provision are more vulnerable and have fewer choices than the majority of able-bodied people. When Michael Oliver claims that "An aeroplane is a mobility aid for non-flyers in exactly the same way as a wheelchair is a mobility aid for non-walkers." (Oliver, 1996, 108) his suggestion is amusing and thought provoking, but cannot be taken seriously. As Michael Bury has argued, "It is difficult to imagine any modern industrial society (however organised) in which, for example, a severe loss of mobility or dexterity, or sensory impairments, would not be 'disabling' in the sense of restricting activity to some degree. The reduction of barriers to participation does not amount to abolishing disability as a whole." (Bury, 1997, 137)

Drawing together these weaknesses, a final and important distinction needs to be made. The disability movement has often drawn analogies with other forms of identity politics, as I have done in this paper. The disability rights struggle has even been called the "Last Liberation Movement" (Driedger, 1989). Yet while disabled people do face discrimination and prejudice, like women, gay and lesbian people, and minority ethnic communities, and while the disability rights movement does resemble in its forms and activities many of these other movements, there is a central and important difference. There is nothing intrinsically problematic about being female or having a different sexual orientation, or a different skin pigmentation or body shape.

These other experiences are about wrongful limitation of negative freedom. Remove the social discrimination, and women and people of colour and gay and lesbian people will be able to flourish and participate. But disabled people face both discrimination, but also intrinsic limitations. This claim has three implications. First, even if social barriers are removed as far as practically possible, it will remain disadvantageous to have many forms of impairment. Second, it is harder to celebrate disability than it is to celebrate Blackness, or Gay Pride, or being a woman. "Disability pride" is problematic, because disability is difficult to recuperate as a concept, as it refers either to limitation and incapacity, or else to oppression and exclusion, or else to both dimensions. Third, if disabled people are to be emancipated, then society will have to provide extra resources to meet the needs and overcome the disadvantage which arises from impairment, not just work to minimise discrimination (Bickenbach et al, 1999).

V. Beyond the social model?

In this chapter, I have tried to offer a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the British social model of disability. While acknowledging the benefits of the social model in launching the disability movement, promoting a positive disability identity, and mandating civil rights legislation and barrier removal, it is my belief that the social model has now become a barrier to further progress.

As a researcher, I find the social model unhelpful in understanding the complex interplay of individual and environmental factors in the lives of disabled people. In policy terms, it seems to me that the social model is a blunt instrument for explaining and combatting the social exclusion that disabled people face, and the complexity of our needs. Politically, the social model has generated a form of identity politics which has become inward looking and separatist.

A social approach to disability is indispensable. The medicalisation of disability is inappropriate and an obstacle to effective analysis and policy. But the social model is only one of the available options for theorising disability. More sophisticated and complex approaches are needed, perhaps building on the WHO initiative to create the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. One strength of this approach is the recognition that disability is a complex phenomenon, requiring different levels of analysis and intervention, ranging from the medical to the sociopolitical.

Another is the insight that disability is not a minority issue, affecting only those people defined as disabled people. As Irving Zola (1989) maintained, disability is a universal experience of humanity.

ϟ

Bibliography

Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination. London: Hurst and Co.

Bickenbach JE, Chatterji S, Badley EM, Ustun TB (1999) Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicapss, Social Science and Medicine 48, 1173-1187

Butler, J (1990) Gender Trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, Routledge.

Bury, M. (1997) Health and Illness in a Changing Society, Routledge, London.

Campbell, J. and Oliver, M. (1996). Disability Politics: understanding our past, changing our future. London, Routledge.

Charlton J (1998) Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability, Oppression and Empowerment University of California Press, Berkeley

Crow, L (1992) 'Renewing the Social Model of Disability', Coalition, July: 5-9 French, S. (1993)

Dreidger D (1989) The Last Civil Rights Movement, Hurst, London.

Finkelstein, V (1981). To deny or not to deny disability. In Brechin, A. et al (Eds.).

Handicap in a Social World. Sevenoaks, OUP/Hodder and Stoughton.

Finkelstein, V. (1998) Emancipating disability studies, in T.Shakespeare (ed) The Disability Reader: social science perspectives, Cassell, London.

French, S (1993) Disability, impairment or something in between, in John Swain et al (eds.) Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments. London: Sage, 17-25

Gustavsson, A, Sandvin, J., Traustadóttir, R, Tossebrø, J (2005) Resistance, Reflection and Change: Nordic disability research, Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination.

Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1) 39-47 Hasler, F. (1993) Developments in the disabled people's movement. In J.Swain et al. (Eds.), Disabling barriers, enabling environments. London: Sage.

Oakley, A (1972) Sex, Gender and Society, Maurice Temple Smith, London.

Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding disability: from theory to practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Oliver, M. (2004) The social model in action: if I had a hammer, in C.Barnes and G.Mercer (eds) Implementing the Social Model of Disability: theory and research, The Disability Press, Leeds Morris, J. (1991) Pride Against Prejudice, Women's Press, London.

Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: an outdated ideology? In Barnarrt, S. & Altman, B.M. (eds.). Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies: where are we and where do we need to go? Research in Social Science and Disability volume 2, Amsterdam: JAI.

Sherry, M. (2002) If only I had a brain, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Queensland.

Swain, J, Finkelstein, V., French, S. & Oliver, M. (Eds.) (1993) Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments. London, OUP/Sage.

Thomas, C. (1999) Female Forms, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Thomas, C. (2004) Developing the social relational in the social model of disability: a theoretical agenda, in C.Barnes and G.Mercer (eds) Implementing the Social Model of Disability: theory and research, The Disability Press, Leeds

Tremain, S. (2002) On the subject of impairment, in M.Corker & T.Shakespeare (eds) Disability/Postmodernity: embodying disability theory, Continuum: London, pp 32-47.

Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (1974/5) Policy Statement www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/archframe.htm (consulted August 10, 2005)

Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (1975) Fundamental Principles, www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/archframe.htm (consulted August 10, 2005)

Watson, N. (2002) Well, I know this is going to sound very strange to you,but I don't see myself as a disabled person: identity and disability, Disability and Society, 17, 5, pp 509-528

Williams, S.J. (1999) Is anybody there? Critical realism, chronic illness, and the disability debate, Sociology of Health and Illness, 21, 6, pp 797-819

Wolfensberger, W. (1972) The Principle of Normalization in Human Services, Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

Zola, I.K. (1989). Towards the necessary universalizing of a disability policy. The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 67, suppl.2, Pt. 2., 401-428

Δ

publicadopor
6.Nov.2017
MJA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Social Model of Disability - Tom Shakespeare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tom Shakespeare image: The Blind Leading the Blind - Seamus McKinlay I. Introduction In many countries of the world, disabled people and their allies have organised over the last three decades to challenge the historical oppression and exclusion of disabled people (Driedger, 1989; Campbell and Oliver, 1996; Charlton, 1998).

# data[].attributes.body
Recent research has highlighted the lack of representation of disabled people in the arts, more specifically the way disability is used as a plot device, a polarity in characterisation, and/or a foil to elevate the central protagonist.  As a disability equality training specialist and a accountability researcher, I wanted to share some thoughts on the subject. To sound more friendly, however, I’ve ditched the professional tone, and gone with the I’d like to read format:

# data[].attributes.body
Introduction

At the heart of new legislation is an imperative to understand the distinctive nature of

disabled people’s oppression. Only then can we tackle the discrimination they face. Disability equality will therefore be important to those faced with the job of challenging inequality

within our services. This book presents clear ideas and simple steps that will help you ensure that disabled people are fully respected and included in the

life of your organisation.

# data[].attributes.headline
A different perspective on respectful language 

# data[].attributes.subject
A different perspective on respectful language 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disability Equality - UK perspective.docx

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring accountability, human rights and legitimacy from a disability equality perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring accountability, human rights and legitimacy from a disability equality perspective

# data[].attributes.body
Matters of sustainability rarely deal with issues of disability from an equitable perspective - that is, putting disabled people’s voices within a wider conversation that informs mainstream debate. As a group, the disabled population are ignored; a silencing imposed on them as untrustworthy speakers, and thereby denied a role as authors of knowledge marginalises them.