1A. Models of Disability

In Brief

There are seven models: medical, social, biopsychosocial, social identity, functional, charity, and economic.

In the most brief terms, the seven models each answer the question, what are disabled people? These are my personal definitions before engaging with the supplemental sources referenced in the Body of Knowledge

Medical model
Disabled people are biologically disadvantaged.
Social model
Disabled people are would not be disadvantaged if society had the means to properly accomodate them.
Biopsychosocial
Disabled people suffer doubly from their biological reality and by society's construction.
Social Identity
Disabled people are a group that share a common past of resilience in the face of ableist eugenics and a common future creating a shared world where we can flourish within our medical realities.
Functional Solutions
Disabled people are clients that will buy devices that relieve symptoms and alleviate barriers.
Charity model
Disabled people are unfortunate dependents on the benevolence of holy non-disabled actors.
Economic model
Disabled people are unproductive leeches and an economic drain on the nation.

I am of the belief that the social identity model has the capacity to absorb other aspects of different models into it, and should be the starting point for any operation that seeks to influence our lives, including accessibility. It's the only definition that isn't ahistorical and centers self-determination.

Source: Disabled World Website

This has much more models than the seven we're supposed to memorize, but broadly, they can be presented as subtypes.

Into the medical model, we can add the 'Biomedical' model, which has more of a focus on the actual biology than the capacity of modern medicine to be the arbiter of disability itself. To the functional solutions model, we can add the 'Market Model' which views Disabled people with slightly more agency, as empowered consumers with a hand in shaping company and also national policy. The 'Empowering model' operates in this consumerist paradigm, but the focus is more on the actual benefit that this brings to the individual's life and the capacity they have to decide on the unique treatment plan that they will benefit best from. The 'Expert/Professional Model' straddles in between the medical and functional consumer models, and tasks experts with the work of 'solving' disability through treatment and research; the Disabled people themselves are passive in this paradigm.

The social identity model is manifested under a couple of subtypes with different concentrations: the 'Minority model' is much closer to my personal definition of the social identity model where the group consistutes a separate social category like any other forms of minoritization (gender, race, orientation). The 'Affirmation model's intervention is to view the Disabled identity as an overall positive one.

Four of the models are strategies to improve the lives of Disabled people through systems change. The "Relational model" emerged in the context of institutionalization and emphasizes integrated communites and social inclusion. The "Diversity model" speaks to idea that niche solutions are required and universal design is not sufficient or flexibile enough to achieve good outcomes for the entire Disabled population. The "Human Rights model" seeks to enshrine the equal participation of Disabled people into law, and using law as the basis of changing the system instead of targetting deficiency-based societal mindsets first. The 'Social Adapted model' puts the entire onus of 'negative' Disabled experiences onto society's failure to adapt and accomodate.

Three more subtypes either support or enhance the charity model. The 'Religious model' views the imposition of disability on an individual as an act of punishment by God that can be potentially alleviated through prayer. The 'Moral model' is a variation of this that believes that the Disabled person is to blame for their own disability. The reasons for this can be religious or spiritual like in the 'Religious' model, or through things like poor lifestyle choices. Whatever the cause, they are viewed as moral failings for which the Disabled person justly received the 'punishment.' The 'Sick Role model' prescribes that a Disabled person take on the social role of the 'sick individual' and perform behaviours in line with that role to access care. This compliments the charity model nicely, which assumes that all Disabled people are in desperate need of help and direction from people with priviledge.

Source: Ombudsman Introduction

In describing the social model, the Ombudsman distinguishes between 'impairement' which may have a basis in biological reality, and 'disability' which is viewed entirely within the Social Adapted model as due to lack of accomodation and non-inclusive societal structures. This feels a bit outdated for what my understanding of what the social model is now, but Ombudsman themselves is quick to offer that in practice, the medical and social model is more of a spectrum in its application.

One point that Ombudsman clarifies, is that the medical model is useful in setting criterion that must be met in order for a person to be protected under legislation.

It then provides a table of the two models in action. The 'social model' and 'medical model' provides solutions to various domains in life where Disabled people may experience barriers: solutions provided within the 'social model' are about integration of the Disabled people into mainstream settings as opposed to segregation, and creating accessible solutions for people and equivelant experiences. The medical model provides solutions that are segregated and highly specialized, and assume that the larger mainstream setting would not be appropriate.

Source: Four models of disability by YDAS

The most accessible of the sources. This source contextualizes the shift from the medical model to the social model within deinstitutionalization. This is a good addition, but it gives the false impression that deinstitutionalization is a one-and-done issue. The institutions continue. Even hear about group homes?

Another good addition that this source makes is saying that the charity model is derived from the fact that literal charities were once the only organizations capable of providing support, and that this system of organization "create[s] attitudinal barriers." It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Did the charity model emerge because of ableism, or did the charity model give birth to ableism?

YDAS's presentation of the human rights model contrasts frome Ombudsman's presentation. Instead of focusing on development of quality of life through litigation, YDAS presents the human rights model similarly to how other sources talk about the biopsychosocial model and also integrates aspects of the minority/affirmation/identity model.

Source: Disability in Public Health, Compare and Contrast Models

So this website's main menu is an h2 made clickable with Javascript but with no tabindex, so I can't actually tab to it. Fun. The main content that we're supposed to access is accessible, but the decorative image of text doesn't have alt text set to null so it can be ambiguous whether a person is missing out on information or not.

The most interesting tidbit this source offers is in contrasting a 'functional model' and 'medical model' where I think many sources would merge the 'functional model' as presented here into the 'medical model' itself.

The key distinction here is that the medical model focuses on biology and diagnosis, where the functional model is focused on symptoms and limits on functional activities. Another is distinction is made where (supposedly) the medical model sees Disability as a 'disruption' where the functional model sees it as a 'limitation.' I view this as a minimal semantic difference, but I suppose the authors are trying to emphasize that the functional model offers more room for a person to grow, where the medical model sees disability as a life sentence.

Source: Disability Australia Hub

Short and sweet resource, points out that the medical model of disability is highly specified to the individual. If someone's Disabled, that is a 'problem' only for them. Disability isn't viewed as a shaping force that needs to be reckoned with and accounted for in the way we structure our communities and relationships. It's just a problem.

Source: Deque University Notes

Medical Model

External links are provided for further study, I'm putting them aside for now.

Social Model

Biopsychosocial Model

Economic Model

Functional Solutions Model

Social Identity or Cultural Affiliation Model

I have so much I want to add here because this seems like such an inaccurate way to present this but I will fucking bite my tongue.

Charity/Tragedy Model

I also think that in leaving out economic and historical context, Deque fundamentally miscommunicates this but whatever.

Other Models