ArticlePDF Available

Generating a cultural model of disability

Authors:
Generating a cultural model of disability
Patrick J. Devlieger
University of Leuven and University of Illinois at Chicago
Presented at the 19th Congress of the European Federation of Associations of Teachers of
the Deaf (FEAPDA), October 14-16, 2005
2
Generating a cultural model of disability
Abstract
I will take this opportunity to reflect upon various existing models of disability, taking a
historical and cross-cultural perspective, and considering that contemporary societies are
being driven by information. In this I argue that although these models were presented as
having succeeded each other, it would be more correct to consider that they co-exist and
or become dominant in particular places. This matter comes more prominently to the
front in multi-cultural societies. I will take on this juxtaposition of existing modes of
thought on disability; this reflection will amount into a first argument for developing a
cultural model of disability as one that recognizes the existence of multiple rather than
one (dominant) model.
In the second part of the presentation, I will explore the possibilities of the cultural
model. First, I will look into the accomplishments but also the downfalls of the so-called
social model of disability. I argue that the political and ecological accomplishments of the
social model must be expanded but also that to the social model must be added the
creative components of disability that are reflected in identity, culture, and worldviews.
Then, I will review the lead of the Deaf in accomplishing the creative element of
disability. I also refer to existing but rather undeveloped elements of creative cultural
development in Blind and Visually Impaired People and in Physically Disabled People.
I conclude by considering “a disability dialectic”, this is a historic process of cultural
development in the course of which one can find one’s own voice.
3
Generating a cultural model of disability
Introduction
We live in a globalized world. This is a world in which old categories between Us-Them
as they could be established in colonial frameworks are blurred. Many of the large
differences remain or even become larger, for example economic differences between
North and South. But our world is also highly unique because of the vast possibilities of
exchange, travel, and especially of information. All of this has important consequences of
our understanding of disability.
In this presentation, I will in the first part lay the foundation of the possibility and the
contours of a cultural model of disability. In the second part, I will focus on the themes
and topics that are important in the development of such a cultural model.
Foundations and possibilities of the cultural model of disability
Globalization and the cultural Other
Globalization is impacting the disciplines. In the field of anthropology where I come
from but in many other disciplines, this has led to important reflections on the validity of
our categories of thought, the mixture between the real and the imaginary, the growing
importance of the imaginary, the impact of technology on our bodies, etc. Indeed, the fact
that the relationship between Us and the Other has changed, the fact that the relationship
between space and place is no longer an evidence, puts challenges to the discipline(s) and
indeed invites them to constantly reinvent themselves. Sometimes this is referred in
anthropology as “the end of the tribe”. There are no more natives that belong to a
particular place, with particular cultural customs, a particular language. Moreover the
idea exists that perhaps natives were never incarcerated in particular places but that rather
4
anthropology as a discipline invented these premises in order to be enable itself to do its
work (Appadurai 1988).
On the other hand, one anthropologist, namely Robert Murphy, has identified the
disabled as “the Other”. Disabled people are a reflection of their societies. In disabled
people, people who identify themselves as non-disabled read who they are not. Disabled
people however are not a new tribe. They live among us and the non-disabled are
becoming more and more conscious of the fact that they too can and probably will be
disabled for shorter or longer periods in their life times. The disabled are same and
different (Devlieger, Rusch, & Pfeiffer 2003)
I have started this presentation with a few remarks about anthropology because it offers a
good starting point on my topic today, which is basically a state of the art in our thinking
of some basic categories, such as for example “Disability” or “Deafness”. Whether
deafness is a disability or a linguistic minority has been at the heart of the Deaf
movement (see Foster 2003, Branson and Miller, 2002).
Moreover, we can reflect on what could be the impact of globalized contexts, understood
as the multi-cultural society. A concern is that members of ethnic minority groups do not
participate in the disability movement or even at a much more fundamental level that
persons from ethnic minority groups do not subscribe to the discourse of disability as
such. Hence a more general question, “How does identification in terms of ethnic
categories get blurred with identification in terms of disability?”
In our work with African Americans in Chicago we came to the conclusion that indeed
ethnicity and its historical ramifications are much more important instruments to give
meaning to experiences of disability (Devlieger and Albrecht, 2000). Subscription to the
discourse of disability may however differ in other ethnic minorities with differing
immigration histories. In this context, it may be useful to refer to John Ogbu’s distinction
between voluntary and involuntary minority groups. As opposed to the situation of
African Americans in general1, my hypothesis would be that minority groups that have
5
voluntarily migrated might yield power very readily to the dominant majority discourse
on disability. This does however not necessarily imply a subscription to the principles of
the disability movement.
In short, I would like to offer that in a context of globalization, the question arises how
disability is embedded?
Theoretical resources for the cultural model on disability
Before I go into the main topic of my presentation, I would like to refer to three main
theoretical resources. The first is the work of Michel Foucault whose contribution it has
been to show how our basic understanding of socially important phenomena such as
sickness, crime, sex and sexuality are discursively, i.e. through a language that is shared,
developed in a historical process. Foucault did not write about disability but others have
applied his ideas to disability (e.g., Stiker 1999). Perhaps one of the most challenging
aspects of Foucault’s work is that disability is discursively constructed, in other words the
work of human beings, and yet in which the impact of the individual players, both those
that construct and undergo the discourse, is downplayed. Applied to disability and
deafness as discursive constructions, this means that the makers of the discourse are
downplayed by the particular situation of the discourse, i.e. at a particular time and place,
and that those that are confronted with the discourse, such as professionals, teachers, and
persons with disabilities to a large extent undergo and apply the discourse.
The second theoretical resource that I would like to refer to is Jacques Derrida and his
concept of “differance”. Derrida was more concerned with the process of signification
and its never-ending sequence. In other words, differences create other differences.
Applied to disability and deafness as cultural constructions one could say that once
created they start to live a life of their own. Applied to disability and deafness, it becomes
clear that indeed these are not natural categories but cultural construction. According to
Branson and Miller, “the exploration of the concept of disability lays bare the contours of
6
our society because the construction of a pathological population is at the core of the
construction of every other person’s “normal” subjectivity, as they define, understand,
justify, and console themselves in relation to this embodied other” (2002:x). This
argument applies equally to our understanding of deafness (e.g., Baynton, 1996).
Third, I wish to briefly refer to Karl Marx’ ideas of the dialectical progression of society
and the transformation of nature into culture through the application of labor. Applied to
our topic at hand, it raises the question of how the relations between disabled and non-
disabled people and between majority and minority groups influence the development of
thinking of disability and deafness. For example, does the relation between disabled and
non-disabled permit us to ask questons about the boundarries of the normative and the
pathological, the limitations of our normative categories, and invite us to crossovers?
Equally, does the relation between minority and majority groups with regard to disability
emphasize or dilute existing categories and modes of thought?
The theoretical resources cited above make it clear that disability cannot be taken as a
given but that its meanings must be understood as inherently part of culture.
Models of disability
In Figure 1, several models that conceptualize disability are juxtaposed. This
juxtaposition is for analytic reasons. In real life, and in particular in the context of
globalized society, this juxtaposition does not reflect evolutionary stages. Nor does this
juxtaposition of models reflect the existence of these models in different places or times.
Rather, in globalized contexts, one should consider the existence of modes of thought as
sometimes juxtaposed, but more often intertwined. While one model may be dominant in
one context, snippets of our modes of thought intervene. For example, in a hospital,
disabled people, their family members, and professionals may be overwhelmed by the
contours of the medical model of disability, yet equally be confronted and engage with
parts of other models.
7
The coherency of the cultural construction of these models is based on particular model
characteristics that respond to basic questions, such as “what is the source of the
phenomenon?”, pointing to causal factors, “where is it localized”, indicating the
possibility of multiple locations in which disability can reside, “who or what is in
control”, pointing to an understanding of disability in power structures, “is it a problem?”
pointing to the fact that the construction of disability as a problem is not of a necessity
and indicating the possibility of historical and cultural variation. While these question
point to a basic in defining disability, the next two questions point respectively to
individual and/or social consequences and to the dominant approach of each mode of
thought.
Let me now briefly present the different models, especially by pointing to the strength of
each mode of thought and starting with the currently most dominant model, the medical
model. The medical model thanks its dominance to its technical superiority and its
insistence on asking questions that point to understanding the mechanics of the
phenomenon of disability and its continuous feeding of the illusion that a medical
solution can be found. However, throughout its existence the medical model has never
proven to “resolve” disability, its solutions remaining partial, feeding into the real but
sometimes also illusory promise of enhancing quality of life. The cultural coherency of
the medical model is derived from its placing the source of disability in the natural world,
localizing disability in the individual, pointing to human experts as being in control,
operationalization as a measurable defect as perhaps its most distinctive characteristic2,
The medical model of disability is the result of a long history in which a human-centered
cosmology replaced one that placed God at the center. It benefited from an increased
rationality and the development of modern societies. This view on the world has spread
to all parts of the world. And while it was successful in diminishing the power of the so-
called religious or moral model of disability, the latter survived and took on new
dimensions. The question could be asked whether globalization also not paradoxically
leads to a resurgence of moral/religious modes of thought on disability? Pointing
8
insistently to an outside and ultimate source, God, supports the cultural coherency of the
moral model. It is based on the never ending competition between good and evil and
locates unfortunate events as the working of evil (in people, witches, or the emanation of
evil, the Devil). While one would think that the moral model would point to a definition
of disability as a punishment, this is not always the case. In some instances, disability as a
problem is positively defined as a gift, a challenge given to special people (Landsman
1999; Ingstad 1997).
In the same way as the medical model defined itself in contradiction to the moral model,
so did the social model in contradiction to the medical model. Perhaps the strength of the
social model laid and lays in its possibility of reconceptualizing disability as the resultant
of social relations and between people and their material conditions and environments.
The cultural model of disability differs in three major ways from previous efforts. First, it
does not emphasize upon the existing juxtaposition but on the intertwinement of modes
of thought depending on particular situations and circumstances. Therefore, it does seem
congenial to define it in recognition of existing modes of thought. Such a tolerance
however should not imply a non-critical practice but rather inclusive modes of thought
that confirm the complexity of disability as both an existential, technical, and social
phenomenon, in other words defined and reflected by culture! Secondly, the location of
disability is situated in meaning itself, information, and communication. From the social
model of disability, the lack of access, inadequacy or misrepresentation of information
presents the core of understanding disability as cultural. In its approach, the cultural
model is characterized by the critical ability of obtaining, dissecting, and applying of
information. But perhaps even more important is that a cultural model of disability points
to culturally determined behavior in which one develops and excells in an identity,
community and worldview that embraces disability rather than rejecting it. The cultural
model emphasizes the potential of disability as a state of being.
The cultural model benefits from the varying definitions of disability as stigmatizing,
liminal, and interstitial. As a stigma, in the understanding of the concept as it was
9
developed by Erving Goffman (1963), the identity of disabled people is shaped by efforts
to pass as normal. While the disability studies scholarly community has a long standing
in fighting the identification as solely stigmatizing, there have also been recognitions that
passing-as-normal is a part of being disabled. In defining disability as a position that
emphasizes the liminal, this is the being neither here nor there, Murphy (1987) has
pointed to the fact that disability is a symbolic reflection of dominant categories in
society, a mirror. Other have pointed to the way in which disabled people serve the non-
disabled to define themselves as normal. (e.g., Thomson 1997). The liminal status of
disabled people, as one being suspended between recognized categories, points to the
challenge that disabled people hold out to their environments, both physical and social.
Disabled people hold out a challenge to societies to reflect on itself. The notion of the
interstitial brings out other aspects of contemporary identification, in which the person
with a disability belongs to multiple worlds, creating each their own differences.
Reflecting on those differences sets in motion a process that never ends. This seems to be
particularly true for people who live in the globalized world.
Four avenues for further developing the cultural model of disability
There are four avenues that I would like to explore in the remainder of this presentation
in which I would like to further develop an understanding of the cultural model. First, I
would like to reflect more clearly on the ways in which the social model of disability can
assist in the development of the cultural model. Second, I will look into impairment-
based leadership. Third, I wish to consider information and communication as important
tools in developing the cultural model. Last, I will look into an approach of working and
experimenting with the cultural model of disability in what I would like to call ‘disability
dialectics’.
Incorporating the critique of the social model of disability
In figure 1, I pointed out how the moral/religious, medical, and social model of disability
reflect shifts in thinking. With Kuhn, one could speak of paradigmatic shifts. These shifts
10
are real but also illusory. They present real breaks in the sense that real progress is being
made in our thinking in progress when we consider a historical perspective. But thinking
that one mode of thought has totally replaced another mode of thought is illusory. It is
always a matter of dominance, of situational context, and in particular of time, i.e. of not
yet having achieved a particular mode of thinking and the fact that older dominant modes
of thinking never leave us. In other words, while the medical model may still be a
dominant, it is at least juxtaposed with other ways of thinking. I have witnessed that in
the United States, the religious model of disability is at times very dominantly present,
e.g. within particular groups of people such as African-Americans, in particular situations
in which knowledge is not available or insufficient. In European countries, who are
challenged by the multi-cultural society, religious thinking on disability enters the scene.
The social model of disability has launched a revolution, both in theory and practice.
Theoretically, a shift in locating disability as the result of an interaction between
environment and person, has made possible to place the emphasis on the environment and
on communication. These have created a new potential in the physical environment, in
adapted technology, and in alternative modes of communication. Bringing in practice in
the adaptation of the physical environment, in creating new technology, and in
developing ways of communicating have usually resulted not only in improving the
quality of life of disabled people but also in injecting additional dimensions into the
living environment that have an impact on many people that are not disabled. In other
words, the implementation of the social model created cultural growth and renewal. It is
my contention that these have been insufficiently recognized and studied.
I would therefore propose to add another level of study, besides the level of the individual
and that of the society and community: the cultural level, in which worldviews, cultural
processes, are accounted for. A study in the context of the cultural model would therefore
incorporate three levels, that of the individual in which the notions of identity, narrative,
and individual voice are central, that of community and society in which the notion of
discourse, as the sedimented historically-situated truth of a group of people, is central,
and that of the worldview in which the worldmaking, i.e. both conceptually, practically
11
and ethically, is worked out. The latter incorporates different types of knowledge:
epistemic (rational-analytic knowledge), techne (practical knowledge) and phronesis
(ethical knowledge). Figure 2 summarizes my proposal.
Impairment based leadership
The Deaf as no other group and the scholarship on the Deaf have shown that culture can
emergence and sustain itself based on impairment. People with other sensorial disabilities
(such as blind and visually impaired), physical disabilities, and intellectual disabilities
(including people with autism and mental retardation) have too claimed that the
emergence and sustenance of disability culture based on impairment is possible.
With Tom Shakespeare (2005), I would like to advocate for new and empirical studies on
disability culture in particular context to examine the conditions under which disability
culture can emerge. Moreover, it seems necessary to study disability culture as it relates
to major categories of difference, such as gender and ethnic differences.
With my colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in particular Gary Albrecht
and Miriam Hertz, I was able to study the conditions under which disability culture
emerged in a group of violently disabled young African-American men. We concluded
that while in the African American community in Chicago disability is of less or no
importance in comparison to ethnicity, the condition under which the violently disabled
young men became disabled facilitated the emergence of a disability culture. These
conditions include: the development of discourse, the physical and social environment in
which disability culture can emerge, and social alienation.
Communication as the central tool in a cultural model
Human rights and the social model of disability have produced what we now know as
politically correct language. Add to this the increasing importance of images and the
recognition that has emerged that representation is a historically and politically situated.
12
We have rather been slow to recognize that language (in word and image) is not only a
corrective but also can be generative.
I would like to propose that the study of language, in terminology, sentence use, and
discursive language take a more central role in disability studies. In addition, studies of
communication campaigns on disability, disability humor, etc. should be taken on.
An experimental approach: disability dialectics
I wish to conclude with a fourth proposal that I would like to launch in the development
of a cultural model of disability. This is a research practices that involves the exploration
of the disabled and non-disabled divide. This can occur by inviting disabled and non-
disabled people to enter into a relationship that is task-oriented and in which a disability
critique can be generated. I would like to offer two examples.
In the framework of the 2003 European Year of Disabled People in which access and the
collaboration between disabled and non-disabled people was placed central, we invited
blind and visually impaired people and architects to work together in a task oriented
relationship: to know each better in the context of the understanding of the use and design
of public spaces. The exercise appeared fruitful in the way architects were forced to
diminish their ocular centered approach to public spaces and rethink public spaces from
other, non visual angles. The exercise was also repeated in the area of tourism where
other dimensions of exploring and understanding historical places can be approached
through touching and hearing.
A second example is in the area of participative action research. In a study of the access
of public places in Chicago, disabled people identified places that they would like to use
more often, entered into a relationship with owners of these places (e.g. shopkeepers,
owners of movie theaters, etc.) and both inquired and proposed changes in the physical
environment. When they followed up their visit in a six month period of time with
another visit, they found that changes has taken place in about 30% of the cases.
13
The examples above show research in a mutually beneficial relationship, a going back
and forth to find a win-win result, a positive dialectic. Thank you.
Notes
Acknowledgements. My thanks go to colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
in particular Carol Gill, Pamela Block, and Gary Albrecht for stimulating discussions on
culture and disability and to collaborators in the 2003 European Year of Persons with
Disabilities, Kristel Wildiers and Hubert Froyen. For the invitation to deliver this address
at the Mini-symposium Disability Studies at the University of Antwerp on October 7th,
2005, I thank Jo Lebeer, and for the invitation to present this paper as a keynote at the
19th Congress of the European Federation of Associations of Teachers of the Deaf
(FEAPDA), October 14-16, 2005, I thank Guido Lichtert.
1. There are exceptions. In a study of violently disabled young African Americans, there
was much evidence that a disability culture emerged, which involved both the generation
of a unique discourse and an involvement with dominant discourses of disability in
American society.
2. The late identification of certain disabilities is immediately connected to the possibility
of testing. This is in particular the case for cognitive (e.g. dylexia), behavioral and
emotional (e.g., autism, hyperactivity syndromes, depression) disabilities. In a few
remarkable studies, it has been shown that the medicalization of certain phenomena (such
as child abuse) is difficult or even impossible (e.g. the attempts to define and measure
‘fugitive syndrome’).
14
Literature Cited
Appadurai, Arjun
1988 Putting Hierarchy in Its Place. Cultural Anthropology 3(1):36-49.
Branson, Jan and Don Miller
2002 Damned for Their Difference: The Cultural Construction of Deaf People as
Disabled. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Devlieger, Patrick & Albrecht, Gary
2000 Your Experience Is Not My Experience: The Concept and Experience of Disability
on Chicago’s Near West Side. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 11(1), 51-60.
Devlieger, Patrick; Frank Rusch & David Pfeiffer
2003 Rethinking disability as same and different! Towards a cultural model of disability.
In Patrick Devlieger, Frank Rusch & David Pfeiffer, eds. Rethinking Disability: The
Emergence of New Definitions, Concepts and Communities. Pp. 9-16. Garant:
Antwerpen.
Foster, Susan
2003 Examining the Fit Between Deafness and Disability. In Patrick Devlieger, Frank
Rusch, & David Pfeiffer, eds. Rethinking Disability: The Emergence of New Definitions,
Concepts and Communities. Pp. 111-1429.
Goffman, Erving
1963 Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Penguin.
Ingstad, Benedicte
1997 Community-Based Rehabilitation in Botswana: The Myth of the Hidden Disabled.
Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
15
Landsman, Gail
1999 Does God Give Special Kids to Special Parents? Personhood and the Child with
Disabilities as Gift and as Giver. In Transformative Motherhood: On Giving and Getting
in a Consumer Culture. Linda L. Layne, ed. Pp. 133-165. New York: New York
University Press.
Murphy, Robert F.
1987 The Body Silent. London: Phoenix House.
Shakespeare, Tom
2005 Review article: Disability studies today and tomorrow. Sociology of Health and
Illness, 27(1), 138-148.
Thomson, Rosemarie Garland
1997 Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and
Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
... Por tanto, lo anteriormente descrito nos conmina a plantearnos la necesidad de hacer un análisis de carácter crítico aportando una perspectiva situada y contextualizada política, geográfica y socialmente. Por esta razón, decidimos enmarcar nuestra investigación en el campo de los estudios culturales en discapacidad, así como en el modelo cultural de la discapacidad, esto es debido a que, como fenómeno sociocultural, la discapacidad no es un hecho dado, su construcción estará en función de la discursividad y su circulación (Lawson, 2001;Devlieger, 2005;Angelino, 2009;Vallejos, 2009;Waldschmidt, 2017). ...
... Diversos autores como Peters (2000); Barnes & Mercer (2001; Devlieger (2005); Garland- Thomson (2005); Mitchell & Snyder (2006; McRuer (2006); Davis (2006); Waldschmidt (2017), entre otros, coinciden en que la discapacidad en tanto cultura es un punto de encuentro entre 'sujetos', 'instituciones', 'posturas' y 'disposiciones' muchas veces divergentes, así como un espacio de reflexión considerablemente prolífico. ...
... Es así como, el modelo cultural emerge como un artefacto que posee la particularidad de cuestionar aquello que se nos presenta como natural -la normalidad-en relación con la discapacidad y que no es otra cosa que el producto de la construcción de interacciones materiales y simbólicas históricamente situadas (Lawson, 2001;Devlieger, 2005;Angelino, 2009;Vallejos, 2009;Waldschmidt, 2017). ...
Thesis
La tesis se enmarca tanto en el campo de los estudios culturales en discapacidad, así como en el modelo cultural de la discapacidad, todo lo cual permitirá ampliar la perspectiva analítica para poner en claro las relaciones que se establecen entre los sistemas simbólicos (imaginarios), los procesos de categorización (normalidad, anormalidad, incompletitud, etcétera) y las prácticas discursivas, así como sus consecuencias e implicaciones socioculturales para las personas con y sin discapacidad. A su vez, esta aproximación es de naturaleza crítica debido a que se cuestiona la comúnmente incuestionable 'normalidad' e indaga cómo las prácticas capacitistas que privilegian la funcionalidad y la completitud fundan la categoría sociocultural de la 'discapacidad' (Ingstad & Whyte, 1995; Davis, 1995, 2006; Garland-Thomson, 2006; McRuer, 2006; Siebers, 2006; Waldschmidt, Berressem & Ingwersen, 2017). Particularmente, nos interesa propiciar un acercamiento con los estudios críticos en discapacidad (ECD) debido a que éstos se anclan a lugares de enunciación políticamente críticos y activamente transformadores, capaces de alterar, desestabilizar y remover los fundamentos normativos de la cultura y de la sociedad (McRuer, 2006). Así entonces, teniendo en cuenta estos argumentos, nos proponemos develar la construcción socioimaginaria de la discapacidad presente en los discursos parlamentarios del Estado chileno que pueden orientar de manera decisiva la definición y representación del fenómeno de la discapacidad a nivel sociopolítico y sociocultural. De manera concreta, para lograr desarrollar esta propuesta de investigación, nos concentraremos en analizar el discurso político de los parlamentarios que participan en la discusión de los proyectos de Ley N.º 20.422 que establece las normas sobre igualdad de oportunidades e inclusión social de personas con discapacidad en Chile; Ley N.º 21.015 que incentiva la inclusión de personas con discapacidad al mundo laboral y, finalmente, Ley N.º 21.091 sobre educación superior; esto en virtud de que en las discusiones de los proyectos de ley antes mencionados se podrá obtener y configurar un corpus, el cuál será estudiado por medio del análisis del discurso, lo cual nos permitirá identificar, primero, la descripción de los imaginarios en torno a la discapacidad como fenómeno socio- cultural a partir de identificar los argumentos y objetos del discurso que se asientan durante la discusión de las leyes por parte de los/as diputados/as y senadores/as de la República de Chile. En segundo lugar, este análisis permitirá evidenciar cuál/es son los valores y creencias que subyacen a las relaciones de poder que se estructuran en el discurso político sobre la discapacidad en Chile. Finalmente, se pretende que esta investigación ayude a la construcción de una serie de tipologías socioimaginarias para la comprensión situada del fenómeno sociopolítico y sociocultural de la discapacidad en Chile.
... It is a much better solution for both the efficient majority and the disabled minority to develop common solutions while maintaining and respecting cultural differences between them without assuming that one of the parties is to adapt to the other. Two examples of cooperation to develop the best forms of coexistence of majority and minority cultures can be found in the work of Patric Devlieger (2005). In the first example, the task of the group of architects and blind and visually impaired people was to discuss how they perceive public and private facilities and how they use them. ...
... The term was first used by PatrickDevlieger (2005). The author spoke in favor of a creation of a cultural model of disability as a multiple model, i.e., allowing research on disability on three levels -the individual, society and culture. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article aims to describe the cultural model of disability. In contrast to the social model of disability, which is strongly coherent, the cultural model of disability has not yet been specified, despite ongoing discussions on cultural determinants of understanding disability. In the first part of the article, the origins and essence of the cultural model are presented. Next, the four main assumptions underlying the model are characterised: 1) people perceive reality through the prism of their culture and experience acquired with it, 2) disability can have different meanings depending on what kind of discourse constitutes its meaning, 3) disability does not mean a feature of an individual, but a category of human differentiation, which can be embodied and thus materialised, 4) instead of just “looking” at people with disabilities and asking what problems they are struggling with, and what support from the society they need, the current perspective should be broadened and include the entire society and its culture. The final part of the article highlights the most important advantages of the cultural model of disability.
... The cultural approach doesn't define disability but considers how several notions of non-disability and disability work in specific cultural contexts. Devlieger (2005) goes even a step further by stating that the cultural model confirms the complexity of disability as a social and existential phenomenon. "In its approach, the cultural model is characterized by the critical ability of obtaining, dissecting, and applying of information. ...
Book
Full-text available
This book is the first part of the education program on inclusive playgrounds for future teachers, the Pinc Erasmus project. Inclusion is defined as the ‘idea that everyone should be able to use the same facilities, take part in the same activities, and enjoy the same experiences, including people who have a disability or other disadvantage’ At least that is what the Cambridge dictionary says. Actually quite logical as you look into it. But then why is it the subject of this guide? Does it not come naturally? Isn’t it that logical that it is a reality? Unfortunately, we need to give a negative response to these questions. The PINC project was born for promoting inclusion through playing together. ` “Promoting inclusive play opportunities is an important step towards inclusion of children with disabilities in schools, sports clubs and associations. So far, the accessibility of ludic moments during school breaks and of leisure activities after school has received limited attention. The PINC project addresses this gap and develops a targeted education program on inclusive playgrounds for future teachers”
... Alternatively, Devlieger (2005) proposed another theoretical underpinning of the cultural model of disability which stems from Foucault's theory of discourse, Derrida's differance and Marx's idea on the dialectical progression of society and the transformation of nature into culture through the application of labour (p.6). All in all, Devlieger emphasises that disability should not be assumed as a fixed concept; instead, its significance should be recognised as an integral component of culture. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This study aims to describe how disabled characters are depicted within Indonesian children’s picturebooks. A selection of nineteen Indonesian picturebooks spanning from 2015 to the present has been identified, with a focus of analysing five titles chosen based on distinct criteria. Grounded on the cultural model of disability understanding, the picturebooks are examined through critical content analysis focused on six aspects, which are narrative, reality, agency, equality, challenge and language and visual. This categories are based on the frameworks and criteria from preceding research. The analysis highlights a discovery that, out of the six stories investigated, they generally possess a high quality of plot and story development. This is evidenced in their non-mainstream “happy ending” or tragic storylines. However, when it comes to portraying the disabled character within these stories, there exist opportunities for enhancement. For instance, improvements could be made in areas such as disability labelling, delving deeper into the portrayal of the disability within the narrative, and presenting challenges faced by the disabled character. Furthermore, there remains a need for Indonesian picture books focusing on disability that prominently feature the assertive voice of disabled characters themselves, rather than relying solely on perspectives from their caregivers or family members. These elements hold significance in nurturing a more profound comprehension of disability among children. This goes beyond mere recognition of the character's disability, extending to fostering awareness in non-disabled children about how they can contribute to enhancing the environment for disabled individuals.
... They launched the Independent Living Movement and opened mutual aid centers across the country (Crewe and Zola 2001;McDonald and Oxford 1995). Though these and other endeavors are in essence social model-inspired activities, sometimes these efforts are collectively referred to as the cultural model of disability because the goal is to change cultural beliefs (Conyers 2003;Devlieger 2005). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the article is to present the cultural model of disability and its consequences for special education. I will start by presenting the origins and essence of the cultural model of disability. Next, I will characterize the four main assumptions underlying this model: 1) disability can be understood differently in different cultures, 2) people perceive disability through the prism of the experiences they have acquired in their culture, 3) the understanding of disability depends on the type of discourse that constitutes its meaning, 4) the commonly unquestionable “efficiency” usually referred to as “normality” should be questioned. In the second part of the article, I will discuss the most important implications of the cultural model of disability for the theory and practice of special education.
Article
Full-text available
Until the recent recognition of Deaf culture and the legitimacy of signed languages, majority societies around the world have classified Deaf people as “disabled,� a term that separates all persons so designated from the mainstream in a disparaging way. Damned for Their Difference offers a well-founded explanation of how this discrimination came to be through a discursive exploration of the cultural, social, and historical contexts of these attitudes and behavior toward deaf people, especially in Great Britain. Authors Jan Branson and Don Miller examine the orientation toward and treatment of deaf people as it developed from the seventeenth century through the twentieth century. Their wide-ranging study explores the varied constructions of the definition of “disabled,� a term whose meaning hinges upon constant negotiation between parties, ensuring that no finite meaning is ever established. Damned for Their Difference provides a sociological understanding of disabling practices in a way that has never been seen before. Jan Branson is Director of the National Institute for Deaf Studies and Sign Language Research at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Don Miller is Head of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Article
Preface and AcknowledgmentsPart 1. Politicizing Bodily Differences1. Disability, Identity, and Representation: An Introduction2. Theorizing DisabilityPart 2. Constructing Disabled Figures: Cultural and Literary Sites3. The Cultural Work of American Freak Shows, 1835-19404. Benevolent Maternalism and the Disabled Women in Stowe, Davis and Phelps5. Disabled Women as Powerful Women in Petry, Morrison, and LordeConclusion: From Pathology to IdentityNotesBibliographyIndex
Article
Community-Based Rehabilitation in Botswana: The Myth of the Hidden Disabled. Benedicte lngstad. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997. xi. 384 pp.
Does God Give Special Kids to Special Parents? Personhood and the Child with Disabilities as Gift and as Giver
  • Gail Landsman
Landsman, Gail 1999 Does God Give Special Kids to Special Parents? Personhood and the Child with Disabilities as Gift and as Giver. In Transformative Motherhood: On Giving and Getting in a Consumer Culture. Linda L. Layne, ed. Pp. 133-165. New York: New York University Press.
Erving 1963 Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Penguin. Ingstad, Benedicte 1997 Community-Based Rehabilitation in Botswana: The Myth of the Hidden Disabled
  • Goffman
Goffman, Erving 1963 Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Penguin. Ingstad, Benedicte 1997 Community-Based Rehabilitation in Botswana: The Myth of the Hidden Disabled.