A Brief Introduction to Disability Theory: The Social and Anti-Social Models
- Sam Shepherd
- Aug 11
- 7 min read
By Fiona Candland
Introduction
The social, political, and economic study of people with disabilities has circled academic conversation for years, however, it wasn’t until the 1980s that disability studies was established as a specific field [1]. Prior to the creation of a Disabilities Studies department at Syracuse University [2], the field had been predominantly interdisciplinary with conversations about disability appearing in Sociology, History, and literature classes, as well as more scientific fields like Biology. Before the field emerged as its own unique area of study, both physical and intellectual disabilities were thought of in a medical sense, following what is now referred to as the Medical Model of Disability [3]. This model looks at disability as a treatable impairment that requires medical support to help patients achieve functional and intellectual capabilities as close to ‘normal’ as possible. While medical support is important for many disabilities, the Medical Model tends to erase the social experiences of disabled individuals, labeling them as inherently different and in need of a cure. Since then, the field has expanded greatly, engaging in disability theory, assistive technology rhetoric, other holistic models, and so much more.
The Social Model of Disability
Running parallel with the creation of Disability Studies was literature that outlined the Social Model of Disability. The Social Model of Disability is perhaps the leading theory of how disability functions in society. The model posits that disability is not a personal impairment, but rather a result of societal barriers that prevent people with impairments from fully participating in society [4]. Examples of societal exclusion that the model points to are stairs, which are extremely difficult for wheelchair users, a lack of ASL in restaurants, making it difficult for deaf individuals to go out to eat, and a general negative attitude towards disabled individuals that fuels a culture of exclusion. The model was created by the political and intellectual group called the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS), a small, hardcore group of disabled people who were inspired by Marxism. The group rejected liberal and reformist campaigns of more mainstream disability organisations such as the Disablement Income Group [5] and the Disability Alliance [6]. This network of UPIAS 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 organization 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 [7].
From there, the group wrote about its ideology of disability, which happened to compile into the now well known Social Model of Disability. In their writings, the group expressed a distinction between disability (social exclusion) and impairment (physical limitation) and claimed that disabled people were an oppressed group. Due to their writings and pressure on society's oppressive systems, disability is now defined 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. Disability is therefore a form of oppression” [8]. Their definitions and many ideological writings outline disability as a socially constructed idea; yes, an individual may require a wheelchair to get around due to an impairment to the spinal cord, however, their access and ability would not be limited if society didn’t rely on stairs, small entry ways, and different leveled surfaces to architect buildings.
While the psychology of the Social Model has improved self esteem and confidence of many disabled people, building a collective identity and positive attitudes towards those with bodily differences, the model is not without its faults [9]. One such fault is the lack of diversity among the creators. UPIAS, although radical in its desire to improve the lives and understanding of disabled people, was a group of white heterosexual men with similar physical disabilities. Had UPIAS included people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD), more severe physical impairments, women, or people of color, the Social Model may not have produced such a narrow window into disability [10]. Many such critiques exist, such that contrary models emerged to offer nuance and opposition; one such model, perhaps the most well known of the Social Model oppositions, is the Anti-Social Model of Disability.
The Anti-Social Model of Disability
The Anti-Social Model of Disability is a theoretical model of disability that complements the Social Model of Disability by questioning its principles and oversimplification of disability. The Anti-Social Model is heavily influenced by Queer Theory, rather than Marxism, to critique the notion of normalcy and what that means for the lives of those with disabilities [11]. The rebuttal was published in 2004 based on the ethnographic field work of Guy Dewsbury, Karen Clarke, Dave Randall, Mark Rouncefield, and Ian Sommerville, and its aim was to condemn the desire for normalcy, bliss, and internal numbness the Social Model both overtly and inadvertently strives for.
In response to the original social model, the Anti-Social Model of Disability rejects the notion that those with disabilities can–or should–with enough positivity and societal inclusion, live lives that mirror that of an able bodied individual. Instead, the model argues that disability is just generally a different experience to live with and wonders if societal inclusion is the only way to enhance disabled lives. The notion of a “Good Life” is rooted in normalcy and qualified based on a standard that was not built to include disabled people. Additionally, the Social Model asks those with disabilities to diminish their pain and suffering, and instead, turn it into inspiration and confidence. While disabled people have a right to feel hopeful for the future, take pride in themselves, and inspire others to embrace themselves, it also aims to erase the disabled experience which is inherently non-normative (by mainstream social standards) and just as valid as is [12]. While the Social Model is rooted in action and physical change, the Anti-Social Model, in addition to seeking visible change, takes a more philosophical and theoretical approach to thinking about disability.
While shedding light on these shortcomings, the Anti-Social model offers refusal to succumb to these normative standards as political resistance. Yes, making accessible entry ways for all buildings is inclusive and necessary, however, asking a person to erase their alienation and emotional experience so they can fit your mold of a normal person is actively ableist. Yes, creating positive and emotionally inclusive environments for disabled people is necessary and expected, however, forcing them to desire the idea of normalcy that was not meant to include them is ableist. At its core, the Anti-Social Model asks us as a society to reshape our ideas and wishes for normalcy by resisting the standards used today. In the Social Model, USIAP writes about all the different aids and additions disabled people require when making the world more accessible. They write:
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 investments 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 that 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 [13].
Instead of making awkward additions to an ableist society in the effort to make it somewhat accessible, what if we start from scratch and reshape our idea of society, abolishing the concept of normalcy all together.
Conclusion
While both of these models have their own ideas for the future and individual strengths, like many things, they are in all likelihood at their strongest together. As both models turn their heads from the Medical Model of disability, the Social Model looks to society as the culprit of the very idea of disability, seeking inclusion by removing societal barriers, while the Anti-Social Model questions the very value of inclusion, asking society to embrace the complex and sometimes painful aspects of disability, rejecting the concept of complete assimilation. At the very root of these philosophical and ideological theories is the desire to eradicate the stigma, shame, and systemic oppression that disabled people have been burdened by since early civilization.
Works Cited
[1] Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. "Disability studies: A field emerged." American Quarterly 65, no. 4 (2013): 915-926.
[2] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33854#:~:text=The%20first%20US%20disabilities%20studies,a% 20general%20education%20knowledge%20base.
[3] Brisenden, Simon. "Independent living and the medical model of disability." Disability, Handicap & Society 1, no. 2 (1986): 173-178.
[4], [6], [7], [13] Shakespeare, Tom. "The social model of disability." In The disability studies reader, pp. 16-24. Routledge, 2006.
[8] Priestley, Michael, V. Finkelstein, and K. Davis. The Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation and the Disability Alliance discuss fundamental principles of disability. 1997.
[9], [10], [11], [12] Dewsbury∗, Guy, Karen Clarke, Dave Randall, Mark Rouncefield, and Ian Sommerville. "The anti‐social model of disability." Disability & society 19, no. 2 (2004): 145-158.
