Compare And Contrast The Medical And Social Model Of Disability

The most interesting topic discussed in chapter seven is the sections concerning the medical and social models of disability. I find the difference of the focus of the two models very interesting because one leads to a very different perspective of disability than the other. I find myself aligning more with the thought that both models have to exist in order for the full understanding of disability to come into view. In other words, I do not completely agree nor disagree with either model. To explain, as the medical model is based off of the ideology of normality, which suggests that being in a normal state of good health is the standard for which to base off any deviance or sickness, a definition of normal is required. A definition of good

Because of the ambiguity of the definition, there is a requirement to have the social model to help to provide the answers. As the social model illustrates how the social institutions, labels, and stereotypes impact the perceived abilities of a disabled person, it is shown that the definitions of what is “normal”, “good”, and “functional” all come from the current society in which the person lives. Additionally, as culture and these definitions change with time and new ideologies and technological advances, what defines a disabled person will also change with time. This is also true across cultures as there may be different requirements to be considered “functional” or in good health in other cultures. For instance, a man unable to walk may not be as hindered in his freedom of movement if he is only required to stay in a small local area, such as a village, in comparison to a large city. However, it is also important to point out that the social model requires the medical model as well because the social model fails to focus on the individual at a more micro level. A person may see others in a similar circumstance and react in a different