Disabled Non-disabled Differences

Disabled Non- change DifferencesEvaluate the companionable sham of deadening as an qualified account of the contraventions amid incapacitate and non handicapped messIt has been verbalize that the differences surrounded by incapacitate masses and non- disabled deal in western club is based on the ideology of normality, implying that disabled people atomic number 18 abnormal. Morris statesthat disabled people be non normal in the eyes of non-disabled people.(1991 16) twain different posers switch been coined to explain how lodge judges disabled people. Historically, the individual or aesculapian deterrent example was composed, which implies that it is the individual who is disabled, indeed it is the individual who necessarily to change and adapt to order of magnitude through with(predicate) medical examination methods, such as surgery or rehabilitation. Critics of this model such as Oliver (1990), conclude that it was non an adequate model, as it is conf ederacy who has created baulk, rather than a medical tally or physical attri alonee.Since the international damage movement in the tardy 1960s this traditional paradigm (Watson, 2002) of disability at that placefore became archaic, as society has evolved into modernity, and it was seen as an inadequate account of netherstanding disabled people, and why they be excluded from master(prenominal)stream society. Therefore expanding on the critique of the individual model a refreshing model, based on the Marxist foundation was shaped, kn feature as the hearty model, which stated that it is society who imposes the disability, by creating accessible barriers for people with irregularity. Developing on this idea that we should be able to distinguish onerousness that impaired people experience and the disabilitys they shake up, indeed rather than defining disability as an impairment, it is seen as a hearty expression. (Shakespeare, 2002)The sociable models key element, is t hat it distinguishes between impairment and disability implying that an impairment is class of the individuals identity it is nothing less than a commentary of the physical body (Oliver, 199635) but disability is something which is tenderly constructed It tends to relocate the trouble from the individual to society. deterioration can then be charmed as a social problem caused by social processes.(Priestley, 200313)This became an adequate account because disabled people stopped billeting themselves as the problem. It has been noted that the main progression in the research for the social model supports the idea that there is no causal relationship between impairment and disability (Crow, 1992). The social model states that the primary cause of disabled peoples marginalisation (Barnes, 1999 2) is the cultural and environmental structures of society. However as Crow (1992) and Shakespeare(1993) have argued that even if social barriers are removed, the impairment simmer d let re mains an important aspect of disabled people lives and identities and if we fail to recognise this then we are failing to recognise the inbred reality of disability. The social model has avoided the issue of impairment becauseit is much make better to say people are disabled by society but not their bodies, than to say people are disabled by society and their bodies(Shakespeare, 2002) Nevertheless the social model has had some positive outcomes, it has been one of the major catalyst for the increasing politicization of large numbers of disabled people and their affiliate throughout the world (Barnes, 1999 4). Thus giving disabled people a stance in the world of politics, with this brought about umpteen disability movements that assist towards equation within society. Supporting this model helped society dismantle many social barriers and introduce the stultification Discrimination Act (1995) to gain equality and consequently protect people with accredited impairments from unf air treatment. Barnes (1999) saw this social change a solution to extirpate discrimination and prejudices against disability. It helped explain handicap in terms of social conquering, similar to that of early(a) concepts within society sexism and racism.This led to less exploitation and to a greater extent(prenominal) inclusion a broad difference took place in the workplace and educational system. Schemes were set up, under Blairs reign, such welfare to work scheme. Introducing less demeaning bene lodges, this was the sequel of the administrative model of disability, which contained a rigid definition of disability affecting the benefits that were trustworthy meaning thatit would not be uncommon for a severely disabled person being denied benefits because their impairment or disability did not fit the criteria(French, 1994 6).This supports the sceptical view that societys response to disability is understood through the medical model, a cure or care possible action. Simila r to the reaction that created the 1995 balk Discrimination Act, using the medical model of disability to create its policies, in other words Society has accepted that it was the individual who had the problem, rather than a non-accommodating environment.French (1994) further argued that it was a depressing fact that structural impediments calm down remained a prominent part of a disabled person effortless routine built environment, transportation and the communication system. This is reiterating the theory that social barriers result in social oppression.Thus it is not disability that non-disabled people maintenance but impairment, as disabled people remind non-disabled people of their own mortality (Barton, 199711) This gives evidence that oppression is not only a continual debate with the built environment, but also a relentless struggle to gain inclusion within mainstream society. Due to discrimination and prejudices that have been formed, in large part due to the medical model, it has resulted in the personal tragedy theory, which gives the notion the non-disabled people feel those with impairment should be pitied as they have not got a fulfilling life. It is important to note here that the social oppression stance does not believe that disability is the result of limitation caused by chronic illness, impairment or trauma, but the way in which we as a society categorise individuals into such groups (Barnes, 1996). A debated argument states that the difference between disabled people and non disabled people is not that we are impaired, but that we are a minority oppressed by a disabling society. (Shakespeare, 2002)The labelling theory, or social reaction theory as it is sometimes known (1960), is closely united as it stated that as a society we categorise individuals into legitimate groups and treat them accordingly. Therefore as a result to these labels, disabled people depart self-prophesise to the non-disabled peoples prejudices and it will b ecome part of their identity. This was an important issue for disabled people, as a main obstacle for both(prenominal) disabled and non-disabled people is inclusion within society. Our society Barnes (1996) states, seems pre-occupied with peoples abilities, and consequently we tend to segregate both disabled and non-disabled people. This theory has a spacious impact on disabled peoples life, as it has appeared to be the case that historically they are excluded from the workplace and education.With the disabled peoples movement, emerged the independent aliment era. Normality is linked with the perception of independence and thus binary to this, abnormality must be connected to dependence (Barnes, 1999). However Barnes (1999) continues to state that even by basal necessities we are all interdependent, that is we need to rely on each other in some form, for our society to function positively. There is no soft difference between disabled and non-disabled people with respect to bas ic man require (Barnes, 1999 20).The social model was widely accepted amongst disabled people as an adequate account that identified the differences between disabled and non-disabled people. employ the social model, Finkelstein, 1981 argued that if non-disabled people were to be confronted with social barriers then they would become evenly disabled, as society is not accommodating to their needs. Plus another view of this is that it is impractical to remove of social barriers from society to accommodate all, as removing obstacles for certain(p) impairment may create more than obstacles for others. Furthermore it is not call backable to dismantle all barriers created, as some of them are inextricable aspects of impairments and thus were not constructed by the environment. A question asked by Tom Shakespeare if individual has an impairment which causes constant pain, how can the social environment be interested? (2002)An issue that has been raised is even if we take away the social obstacles to disability, the impairment and the pain still remains dominant as the social model does not attempt to deal with the personal restrictions of impairment but the social barriers of disability (Oliver, 1996 39).Crow (1996) explained how the model lacks the personal experience of pain which is intrinsic with certain types of impairments. Thus from this stance society, and the environment cannot be blamed for imposing difficulties on all impaired people, because some impairment contain difficulties in their own right and these should not be ignored. For if they are, it may in fact, do more harm than good, and cause more problems for the individual.This critique of the social model does not make it an inadequate account or invalidate the paradigm, but artless states that there is need for improvement. It is not possible for our society to ignore impairments, the alike(p) as we should not be causing more problems through social barriers Crow (1992) debates that full integration of experiences of impairment, with the experiences of disability is the way forward for the social model. The fact that the model did not address the issue of multiple oppression was also as a critique of the social model, other social groups such as feminist have argued that the social model does not take in to account other forms of oppression sexism or racism, and thus cannot be generalised, as it does not reflect the experiences of all disabled people. Cashling (1993) seems to think that postmodernist thinkers will explain the concept of oppression within disability simply as a manifestation of societys hatred however this has to that extent to be seen.Some sociologist has explained that the social model needs to be refined, noting that both social disability and medical impairments coexist thus noting that people are disabled by both social barriers and their bodies. Oliver has argued that an adequate social theory model of disability must contain a theory of impai rment (Oliver. 1996 42)Others have stated that the British social model is outdated and is no longer useful within our society and instead of redeveloping the idea planning alternatives to compensate for the inadequacies of the social model (Shakespeare, 2002) it should be abolished creating space to begin again. The primer coat for this radical show up Shakespeare (2002) continues to state that the social model is causing more problems than it is solving and he wishes to construct a more adequate approach to disability politics, based on materialist ontology of embodiment (Shakespeare, 2002) . By more adequate it meant that it needs to take into account every aspect of a disabled person to truly understand and begin to eradicate discrimination and oppression, which is still an important issue for society in all aspects of social categories. For this to materialize as Crow (1992) has previously stated, an understanding of pain needs to be produced and not ignored considering tha t physical attributes of impairment and social construction of disability can coexist and that for the fight towards equality to be successful it needs to be explain that normality should not be classified as the majority.In conclusion it has been noted that the social model of disability has increase awareness and introduced many positive aspects to society. Such as the explanation of oppression for disabled people, giving them a stance within the political society, alter them to create policies which help ease the problems of certain issues that have been social constructed, through previous models such as the medical model. However neither the medical nor social model creates a complete adequate account of the differences between disabled and non-disabled people because they both have flaws. Thus it would not be a positive direction for society to abolish both models, it would be more successful if they conjoined the important aspects of both models, to form a model that is able to evaluate and explain disability, impairment, and oppression in terms of discrimination, prejudices and structural characteristics of society. Creating a model that makes it possible and plausible to eliminate as much inequality for disabled people as possible. However as Shakespeare (2002) states it is evermore difficult to achieve a complete model of disability, in the first place because there is no clear cut definition of disability. Shakespeare (2002) argues that we should focus more on the relationship between impairment and embodiment, rather than the definitional link between impairment and disability.Therefore our main focus for the future should be to eradicate the dichotomies, and encourage more integration within society through ever-changing architecture or benefits. It is an illusion to imply that in post modernity the possibility for all impairments to be barrier free, however if we take the view that no one can do everything, everyone, even non-disabled people ha ve flaws, but if we take into account all impairments and try to eradicate as many barriers as possible, both economically and socially, then we will be heading in the right direction for an equal society, and thus will be able to create an adequate account of disability.ReferencesBarnes, C (1999). constipation at Work in the 21st Century. In journal of lively Social Policy (Vol 20, No. 4 Pp 441-457)Barton, L and Oliver, M (eds.) (1997). Disability Studies Past Present and Future. (Pp 3-24). London FultonCrow, L (1996). Renewing the Social pattern of Disability. In Barnes, C and Mercer, G (eds) Exploring the Divide.(Pp 55-72). Leeds Disability PressDarring, T, et al (1981). A life Together The distribution of Attitudes around the Disabled. London TavistockFrench, S (1983). Disability, stultification or something In-between?. In Swain, J Finelstein, V French, S and Oliver, M (eds) Disabling Barriers Enabling Environments (Ch 1.2). London SageFrench, S (1991). What is Disability? In French, S (ed), On Equal Terms Working with Disabled People(Ch 1). Oxford Butterworth-HeinemannFinkelstein, V (1981). To Deny or not to Deny Disability. In Brechin, A Liddiard, P and Swan, J (eds), Handicap in a Social World. Sevenoaks Hodder and StoughtonMorris, J (1991). experience against Prejudice Transforming Attitudes to Disability. London Womens PressOliver, M (1996). Understanding Disability from scheme to Practice. London Macmillan Oliver, M (1996). Defining Impairment and Disability Issues and Stake . In Barnes, C and Mercer, G (eds) Exploring the Divide (Ch 3, Pp 29-54). Leeds Disability PressPriestly, M (2003). Disability a life course approach. Cornwall Blackwell Silburn, L (1983). A social model in a medical world the development of the integrated living team as part of the strategy for younger physically disabled people in North Derbyshire. In Swain, J Finelstein, V French, S and Oliver, M (eds) Disabling Barriers Enabling Environments (Ch 1.2). London SageShakes peare, T(2002). The social model of disability an outdated ideology?. In journal of Research in Social Science andDisability.(Vol 2 pp. 9-28) Stone, D (1984). The Disabling State. London tabernacle