Disability and Society in Scotland: Theoretical Perspectives

Introduction: Normality, Difference, and Disability in British Culture

Corbett (1991) argues that the idea of "normality" present in British culture contains an inherent contradiction. He observes that it generally creates a fear of being different, while simultaneously placing great stress on retaining one's individuality. To achieve this individuality, people try to stand out in areas of life valued by others in society — areas which may include sport. As a result, they do not tend to pursue things that are very different or unlikely to be accepted by the society around them. According to Corbett, this approach results in conformity and prevents experimentation with new ways of being. The public responds to difference through amelioration, punitive treatment, or rehabilitation.

This essentially means that in a society where sport is held in great admiration, a disabled person using a wheelchair faces an obvious disadvantage. These norms are problematic and difficult to alter, since it is rarely the case that disabled people hold enough power to challenge or reshape them. The disabled may respond to these limitations either by quietly accepting them and adopting whatever role society assigns, or, if they refuse entirely, by bearing the consequences for what is labelled "pathogenic" behaviour (Kemshall, 2009).

Ideas of hegemony are clearly applicable in explaining disablement. In advanced Western societies, disability is largely understood as defined by the field of medicine, according to which individuals are considered disabled if they have some form of physical or mental impairment.

The Medical Model of Disability

Medicine responds to this by seeking treatments that would eliminate the condition or assist disabled people in adjusting to their environment. These techniques are aimed at helping individuals function as well as possible within an environment labelled as normal. Finkelstein (1980), however, argues that such developments foster further dependence of disabled people on those helping them: the presence of the bond between helper and helped gives rise to the notion that if people had not relinquished something, they would not have required help at all. Because society acts as the helper, it is society that lays down the norms for finding a solution to the problem (Kemshall, 2009).

Barton (1986) holds the field of medicine largely responsible for forming this societal perception of disabled individuals. He further argues that this has not only affected the perceived need of society to control the disabled population in the UK, but has also played a part in the creation of institutions designed to manage these issues. Oliver (1990) and Barnes (1990) offer a comprehensive account of the history and nature of the medical model in the UK, with the significant point being that the majority of social welfare institutions rely on the definition supplied by medicine (see, for example, Drake 1994:465, cited in Kemshall, 2009).

Many disabled sociologists and disabled individuals reject the medical definition and have developed an alternative framework — the social model of disability. This model highlights the fact that people are disabled by the structure of their society, which has been constructed by non-disabled people and does not account for the full range of human physical and mental difference. Brisenden (1986) argues that individuals:

The Social Model of Disability

"…are disabled by buildings that are constructed in ways that prevent us from entering; this in turn creates further difficulties for our participation. Problems may arise in accessing education, entering a worthwhile profession, building a network of friends, and so on. The argument cannot simply be dismissed, because accepting it implies recognition of the degree to which we are disadvantaged and are victims of the oppressive nature of the social environment" (Brisenden 1986:176).

The main focus of the social model, therefore, is on the oppressive aspects of the economic, social, and political environment in which disabled people live, rather than on improving or rehabilitating the disabled individual themselves.

Conclusion

Assertive outreach (Ryan 1999, as cited in Kemshall, 2009; Ryan et al. 1999, as cited in Kemshall, 2009); and RAMAS, also known as "risk assessment, management and audit systems" (O'Rourke and Hammond 2000, as cited in Kemshall, 2009).

Hughes asserts that "the growing fascination with the body in disability studies can be traced to the mid to late 1990s, when disabled feminists and the sociology of the body met with the social model distinction between impairment and disability and found it wanting (see Hughes 2002a). The linguistic, cultural and somatic turns in Western thought have made it difficult for the social model of disability to continue to ignore or be indifferent to the body and impairment. The effort to sustain such an agnostic position has fragmented, particularly as the embodied differences among and between disabled people have become manifest in new social and political aspirations. Bodies matter, most importantly, in our somatic society (Turner 1996:1), because they no longer function 'outside the internally referential systems of modernity' but have themselves become 'reflexively mobilized' (Giddens 1991:8). The body became an inadmissible subject in social model discourse because the medical model was impairment-driven and, thus, represented the terrain of the oppressor" (Hughes, 2009).

The social model of disability has made substantial progress in shifting attention away from individual impairment and towards the structural barriers that disable people. Yet, as the discussion of mental health policy and risk management throughout this paper demonstrates, the full realisation of disabled people's rights, citizenship, and civic participation remains an ongoing challenge in Scotland and the broader UK. Bridging the gap between theoretical frameworks and lived experience continues to be the central task of disability studies and social policy alike.