You're Here:
Home > My Essays > The Medical Model, Alternative Techniques, and Accepting Disability

A concept that is well-known among the disability comunity is the so-called "medical model", which identifies disability by how individuals deviate from the norm non-disabled (or "temporarily able-bodied") persons set. This model has in recent years been replaced by disabled persons with a cultural model, identifying disabled persons as a minority group. Disability was no longer something to be ashamed of, and tools and techniques like wheelchairs, sign language and Braille didn't need to be avoided anymore. Not all of these changes happened simultaneously, and they did not occur at the same time in every disability community - sign language, for example, had re-established itself in schools for the deaf - after its ban in the 1880s - at a time when, for visually impaired students, Braille as a preferred reading medium had just been replaced by print, and Braille has only recently taken over again.

A culture does not develop instantly, and neither did disability culture, if it even exists. Deaf culture is the most notable example of a subculture of the disabled. The most noticeable manifestations of deaf culture are deaf people's preference for sign language over speech and some deaf people's resistance to cochlear implants, which would enhance their hearing abilities. Deaf people have made interesting statements regarding society's attitudes towards the deaf. Angelique N. Wahlstedt writes in her article "Double Standards: Deafness vs. Other Disabilities" about the difference she perceives there to be in how non-disabled people treat the deaf versus other disabled communities. She supposes that no-one would force a blind person to read print or look at paintings, even though the rest of the world do this. The statement is incorrect: many people force print as a reading medium on blind children, even though Braille would be much more efficient. Consumer organisations of the blind have had to fight, and continue to fight, difficult battles to have Braille instruction added to the curriculum of legally blind children. Likewise, other disabled communities have fought the stigma that impacts the disabled by advocating the use of the most efficient tools and methods rather than those that are most "normal" or convenient to non-disabled persons. And this is where a concept I've not often heard of in other disability communities but which is extremely widely-used among the blind, fits in: that of "alternative techniques".

The word is used by Kenneth Jernigan, president emeritus of the National Federation of the Blind, in his definition of blindness, to assert that techniques like Braille and cane travel are not less valuable than conventional techniques, but are rather an efficient alternative for blind persons.

Many groups of disabled persons have advocated for the opportunity of disabled persons to live independently and to be valued contributors to society, with whatever alternative techniques or modifications necessary. They employ awareness projects, legal action campaigns, and other lobbying techniques to advocate equality and opportunity for individuals with disabilities. That is, of course, not to say that all disability advocacy organisations agree on every issue - the two major organisations of the blind in the United States disagree on many issues. Still, what most organisations in which the disabled speak for themselves have in common, is that they advocate inclusion and full participation of disabled persons in society.

A concept that has led to considerable debate among disability organisations and between disability organisations and the public at large, is that of "accepting" disability. Many disability organisations understand the concept differently from what is commonly believed: they do not accept disability in the sense that they gracefully contend to the confinement disability often imposes upon people. They fight to change public attitudes about disability, which largely contribute to this confinement. As people in the National Federation of the Blind point out: "The real problem of blindness is not the lack of eyesight. The real problem is the misunderstanding and lack of information which exist." Disability organisations try to raise awareness of the fact that, with the right training, opportunities and alternative techniques, disability doesn't need to confine people to nursing homes and a life of unproductivity.

An interesting development has emerged over the past couple of years among people with disabilities who not previously advocated for themselves - persons with autism. These people are usually excluded from "the autism community", which is still dominated by organisations aiming to eliminate or cure autism. These people are well aware of the disadvantaged position autistic persons have, due to the intolerance of their behavioural, communicative and social differences, and they use this fact to motivate the point that autism needs to be cured. This sheds an interesting light on the topic of acceptance of disability, alternative techniques and the medical model. Recently, autistic adults and some parents of autistic children have started to protest against the "cure autism now" movement, by pointing out that autistics (as autistic individuals are known among these people) need acceptance, not cure. Autistic persons have pointed out the unethical points in some methods of defeating autism, particularly Applied Behaviour Analysis, made clear that autism is an essential part of a person's identty that cannot be scratched off like a mask, and advocated for tolerance of alternative techniques and modifications for doing things autistic people have difficulty with, such as communication. Some autistics have, for example, learnt to communicate through typing. This, they argue, may not be as convenient to the non-autistic people as speech would be, but it is much more efective than the thoughtless repetition of what these people were told to say, which may be speech, but isn't communication. Autistic advocates advocate living in the community for autistic people with the necessary modifications, not a life in institutions until they have "recovered" through behaviour therapy.

If you look at what these people literally say, the movements would seem quite different from what we encounter among physically, visually and auditorily impaired people. For example, the National Federation of the Blind holds that blindness, with the right training and opportunity, can be reduced to a physical nuisance, while today's autistic advocates point out that autism is a core part of a person's identity. Still, the views these people hold may be seen as very similar, if you compare the intention of these statements: the autistic use the fact that autism is a core part of their identity to make clear that one cannot defeat the autism without defeating the person, but they also want to point out that autism is not a tragedy but a characteristic of persons that need to be valued as persons. Also, their attitudes towards cure are very similar to some blind and deaf people's. There is no reliable means of artificial vision yet, but if there is, I'm sure many blind people will resist it, just like deaf people resist cochlear implants and autistic people oppose cure. We all advocate for universal acceptance of alternative techniques, tools and modifications; we try to create opportunities for persons with disabilities to equal access to education, employment and living in the community; and some of us don't want to get rid of our disabilities, and most show pride in ourselves, including our disabilities, and try to empower others to be proud of themselves, and, in fact, to honour our disabilities as parts of our identities.