3 ms·

Did you know there are folks out here arguing for an even stronger version of this position? The 'social model of disability' is the name for the wider notion t

Did you know there are folks out here arguing for an even stronger version of this position? The 'social model of disability' is the name for the wider notion that includes the neurodiversity argument/paradigm to which you refer, and applies to all other disabilities. On this view, all the problems you mention are only problems because society doesn't give affected people enough support (ETA; to clarify (or rather, to give my best interpretation of the position I don't actually hold): material support. Not just lack of 'societal preconception and bigotry'). It's an ethical/political (and maybe economic?) position. Edit: noticed SM is mentioned in the article.

JohnBooty 6y ago
On this view, all the problems you mention are only problems because society doesn't give affected people enough support Sure, it's possible to reductio ad absurdum the "social model", just like nearly anything else. "Being in a coma isn't a problem! It just makes you different. The problem is society's refusal to cater to the workplace needs of people in a vegetative coma state!" All the social model aims to do is think about a separation of the impairment itself and the ways in which society may make it worse. In some cases, sure. Lots of impairments will just be debilitating no matter what. Somebody in a coma is not going to be able to participate in society very much. Lots of counterexamples though. For example, imagine a skilled software developer. However, she needs a wheelchair and she can't work anywhere in town because none of the buildings have wheelchair access. A perfectly able developer has been rendered disabled (or at least, unable to work) by this fact. This is somebody who could be working, if we simply build wheelchair ramps or allowed her to work from home.
- aethertron 6y ago
  > All the social model aims to do is think about a separation of the impairment itself and the ways in which society may make it worse. The aim is merely a change in thinking? I'm pretty sure one aim is to get more resources to support disabled (or impaired) people. And that's fine. We live in a society. What's not fine is the rhetorical trickery (motivated redefinitions of words) deployed as part of the SM.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    It's a bleak, paranoid take to feel that people are attempting "trickery" when raising issues like these. It is not a redefinition of the word "disabled" -- it is a reexamination of what actually leads to a person being "disabled."

JohnBooty 6y ago

On this view, all the problems you mention are only problems because society doesn't give affected people enough support Sure, it's possible to reductio ad absurdum the "social model", just like nearly anything else. "Being in a coma isn't a problem! It just makes you different. The problem is society's refusal to cater to the workplace needs of people in a vegetative coma state!" All the social model aims to do is think about a separation of the impairment itself and the ways in which society may make it worse. In some cases, sure. Lots of impairments will just be debilitating no matter what. Somebody in a coma is not going to be able to participate in society very much. Lots of counterexamples though. For example, imagine a skilled software developer. However, she needs a wheelchair and she can't work anywhere in town because none of the buildings have wheelchair access. A perfectly able developer has been rendered disabled (or at least, unable to work) by this fact. This is somebody who could be working, if we simply build wheelchair ramps or allowed her to work from home.

aethertron 6y ago
> All the social model aims to do is think about a separation of the impairment itself and the ways in which society may make it worse. The aim is merely a change in thinking? I'm pretty sure one aim is to get more resources to support disabled (or impaired) people. And that's fine. We live in a society. What's not fine is the rhetorical trickery (motivated redefinitions of words) deployed as part of the SM.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  It's a bleak, paranoid take to feel that people are attempting "trickery" when raising issues like these. It is not a redefinition of the word "disabled" -- it is a reexamination of what actually leads to a person being "disabled."