Defining disability: metaphysical not political

Area of Science:

• Disability Studies
• Sociology
• Philosophy
• Bioethics

Background:

• Disability Studies faces a theoretical stalemate between British sociological and philosophical perspectives.
• The dominant British social model views disability solely as social oppression, disregarding individual impairments.
• An Interactional Approach considers both individual and contextual factors in disability experience.

Purpose of the Study:

• To demonstrate that the limitations of the British social model now outweigh its benefits.
• To argue that the British social model's literal interpretation implies disabled individuals require no impairment-specific health resources.
• To clarify the flaws in British social model arguments and advocate for an interactional approach.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of the British social model of disability.
• Comparison between the British social model and the Interactional Approach.
• Examination of theoretical arguments within Disability Studies.

Main Results:

• The British social model's materialist tradition overlooks the significance of individual impairments.
• The social model, taken literally, suggests disabled people do not need impairment-specific healthcare resources.
• Existing interactional theories have not been refuted by British social model proponents.

Conclusions:

• The British social model fails to provide a realistic account of disability experience.
• An interactional approach is better suited for understanding disability and ensuring justice for disabled individuals.
• Rethinking disability conceptualization is crucial for academic advancement and effective advocacy.