Download literature and disability

The statement "One can be impaired, yet not disabled" encapsulates a foundational distinction in the
social model of disability, as articulated by scholars like Simi Linton and Lennard J. Davis. This model
separates **impairment**—a physical, sensory, or cognitive condition such as paralysis, blindness, or
chronic illness—from **disability**, which arises from societal barriers like inaccessible infrastructure,
discriminatory attitudes, or exclusionary policies. Linton, in *Disability Studies/Not Disability Studies*,
emphasizes that disability is not an inherent trait of the individual but a product of social and
environmental structures (pp. 527, 535). For example, a wheelchair user is only "disabled" if buildings
lack ramps or public transport is inaccessible; in an inclusive society, the impairment would not translate
into disability.
Linton critiques traditional academic and medical approaches for conflating impairment and disability,
treating disability as an individual medical problem rather than a societal issue (p. 527). She highlights
how fields like rehabilitation and special education focus on "fixing" the person rather than transforming
the environment, perpetuating the idea that disability is an inevitable consequence of impairment. In
contrast, Disability Studies examines disability as a social, political, and cultural phenomenon,
challenging systemic ableism. This perspective is exemplified in her discussion of Deaf culture (pp. 535–
536), where she distinguishes between the medical condition of deafness (lowercase *deaf*) and the
cultural identity of Deaf people (uppercase *Deaf*), who share a language (ASL) and community. Here,
societal recognition and accommodation negate disability despite the impairment, proving that
exclusion—not the impairment itself—creates disability.
Linton acknowledges nuances in this distinction, noting that some impairments, such as chronic pain or
progressive conditions, involve inherent challenges that cannot be entirely eliminated by social change
(p. 529). Yet, even these experiences are mediated by societal factors—for instance, inadequate
healthcare access or stigmatizing narratives can worsen suffering. She cites Morris (1991) to argue that
pain is not just a biological event but a culturally shaped experience (p. 529), reinforcing the need for a
socio-political lens. Additionally, Linton points out the lack of language to describe impairment outside a
deficit model (p. 530), making it difficult to articulate non-tragic or empowering aspects of embodied
difference. This gap underscores the importance of Disability Studies in reframing discourse.
Lennard J. Davis, in *Constructing Normalcy*, expands on this idea by examining how the concept of
"normalcy," rooted in 19th-century statistical measures, has created rigid societal standards. Disability,
Davis argues, is not solely a result of impairment but is shaped by societal expectations and barriers. In
societies with rigid norms, individuals with impairments are marginalized because they deviate from the
constructed standard of normal functioning. Conversely, in inclusive environments designed to
accommodate diverse needs, the same individuals might not experience significant challenges.
Historically, pre-industrial societies focused on ideals rather than norms, and impairment was not
equated with disability because there was no expectation to conform to statistical averages. Davis's
critique aligns with Linton's, illustrating that disability arises when societal barriers prevent full
participation.
The political implications of this distinction are profound. By separating impairment from disability, the
social model shifts responsibility from individuals to society, advocating for systemic change (e.g., antidiscrimination laws, universal design) rather than individual adaptation. Linton stresses the need for
disabled leadership in research, policy, and media (pp. 534, 538–539), critiquing non-disabled scholars
who tokenize disabled voices while retaining control over narratives. She condemns practices like
"inspiration porn" (p. 532) and paternalistic research (e.g., Oliver Sacks' work, p. 530), which objectify
disabled people instead of amplifying their agency.
However, the social model has limitations. Some impairments may always involve functional limitations,
regardless of social adaptation, and intersectional factors (e.g., race, class) shape how disability is
experienced. A wealthy person with paraplegia may face fewer barriers than a poor person with the
same impairment due to unequal access to resources. Linton addresses this by calling for an
**"epistemology of inclusion"** (p. 539) that centers disabled perspectives in knowledge production
and policy, ensuring diversity within the disability community is recognized.
In conclusion, the statement "One can be impaired, yet not disabled" holds true within the social model:
disability is socially constructed, not an inevitable result of impairment. Linton's and Davis's work
demonstrates that impairment only becomes disabling in exclusionary environments, and the mission of
Disability Studies is to dismantle those barriers. This requires structural change, disabled leadership, and
a rejection of medicalized, individualistic frameworks. As Linton asserts, Disability Studies is "the sociopolitical-cultural model of disability incarnate" (p. 526), redefining disability not as a personal tragedy
but as a site of political struggle and cultural identity. By challenging the "tyranny of the norm" and
embracing diversity, society can reduce the disabling effects of impairments and foster greater
inclusivity.