#social model

"Neurdivergencies ARE inherently all disorders and ARE all illnesses and we DO need a cure for ALL of them and disorder IS an objective biological category and not a social construct AT ALL" ok so it's apparent that while you are well meaning you do not actually believe in neurodiversity (yet) and may not have even read its Wikipedia page. If you operate under the medical model of disability you cannot operate under the neurodiversity model. The whole point of neurodiversity is that it is an explicit refutation of the medical model and the pathologisation of neurodivergence.

That being said, please join the fight for liberating neurodivergent people and mentally disabled people in general, please do familiarize yourself with the basics of the theory behind it (preferably not by social media, that's done enough damage) we want you here fighting alongside us. The medical model won't liberate you from the system that oppresses you and denies you your rights because it is the system. The master's tools cannot dismantle the master's house.

In a hypothetical world where mech suits existed, were cheap and comfortable and accessible and worked well, and were normalised such that people didn't even notice, even quadreplegics wouldn't be considered disabled (although of course that's distant science fiction).

That's what "disability is a social construct" means. In the same way gender being a social construct doesn't mean boobs aren't real, or money being a social construct doesn't mean physical cash doesn't exist.

I don’t agree with this analysis at all.

What hypothetical disabled people might be able to do in the future holds no meaning in the current reality I occupy

You say that quadriplegics will be “considered” abled with exoskeletons - but then you fail to elaborate on the relationship between these devices, their users, and the people who supply them

My father has had type 1 diabetes for 30 years. 30 years is an entire lifetime for some people. The cost of his insulin increased literally that ENTIRE TIME until last year when the Biden admin put caps on insulin prices

Furthermore, his insulin pump retails for 4,600$, and if it breaks, he is still diabetic at the end of the day and will slowly and terribly die without it.

I noticed a lot of people on here have lots of ideas and hypotheticals about how disabled people should and could navigate the world, but their arguments fall flat and topple so easily because you’re not connecting these ideas to anyone’s intrinsic reality

Heyyyy it’s me. Wanted to write about this following my post about Writing Deaf Characters.

Please note - this post is intended for people writing about disabled characters, not a nuanced, in-depth discussion of disability and the idea of cures. I’m happy to discuss that too, if anyone wants, but I’m not going to make a big long post about it because my thoughts and feelings are too complex to be summarized in that way. Anyway -

Conceptions of Disability

There are many, many ways of looking at disability. I’m going to highlight two here that are extremely common today in America. They each have upsides, and they each have downsides.

The medical model of disability treats disability as an individual medical problem to be solved. In this framework, disability is a bodily impairment that should be solved through medical means and medical interventions.

The upsides of the medical model include the fact that it acknowledges that disability or its consequences can be uncomfortable, inconvenient, and undesirable in themselves. Someone who experiences chronic pain saying they wish that they weren’t in pain is not ableist, nor is it self-hating, in the view of the medical model. This mode also prompts progress in seeking ways to medically alleviate symptoms.

The downsides of the medical model are that it does not acknowledge inaccessibility or ableism, nor does it allow for joy and identification with disability. The problems associated with disability are located firmly within the disabled individual - the problem is not with the world, but with the disabled person themselves. Disability is always something to be fixed or cured, and choosing to identify with one’s disability or feel proud of it is bizarre at best.

The social model of disability views disability as a social condition, wherein disabled people are impaired by ableism and an inaccessible world. In this framework, disabled bodyminds do not need to change, rather, it is the world and neurotypical, able-bodied people who must adjust.

The upsides of the social model of disability range from encouraging disabled pride to centering the massive harm that ableism and inaccessibility do to disabled people. It recognizes and promotes human diversity, and asks that the world adapt to the people in it, rather than adapting people to the world.

The major downside of the social model of disability is that in many cases, it ignores very real impairments that do affect people’s lives and treats bodily difference as irrelevant. Even if every set of stairs had a ramp beside it, a person in a wheelchair still cannot walk, though they will have the same access to places that people who are able to walk do. This difference matters to many disabled people, and acknowledgement or mourning of that does not mean that the disabled people in question are not liberated, or are experiencing self-directed ableism.

There are many other models of looking at disability! I may do a write up about that later if people are interested. If you want to do your own research, I would advise understanding the charity model, as it can be easy to slip into and is not a good thing. More positive models to explore are Discrit. Alison Kafer’s political relational model, and the general concepts guiding disability justice.

In Whump

Adding this because I’m in the whump community, and it feels very relevant, so -

It is super tempting to inflict serious injuries on an OC for pain and suffering, and then have them recover very quickly with little to no lasting repercussions. Whump is imaginary, and people should do what they want in their writing, however, I would urge people to think about what messages they’re sending with these fast, flawless recoveries.

For instance: What fears do your whumpees have around acquiring disabilities? How does your whumper feel about their target acquiring disabilities? What are your caregiver’s goal’s in helping your whumpee, and what do they believe that “recovery” means?

What About the Idea of Cure?

The idea of cure is deeply complicated, deeply political, and ultimately, deeply personal. Everyone’s perspective on cure is different. For some people, being cured of their disability is a positive thing. For others, it constitutes an erasure of their identity and community.

For some, cures are not possible in their lifetime, or maybe ever. This can be a painful idea or a reassuring one.

Some communities more than others have a majority opinion about the idea of being cured. Most people know that Autistic people reject the idea of being cured, or even the idea that there is something to “cure.” Deaf communities tend to feel similarly. On the other hand, people with cancer, Alzheimer’s, cystic fibrosis, or degenerative muscular diseases may welcome the idea of being cured and the progress being made to cure them.

Some ideas of “cure” center on aborting fetuses that present with the disability in question. This is massively controversial, deeply painful for some, and personal to all. Some communities have public stances condemning the practice of aborting affected fetuses. Notably, this includes the Down Syndrome community and Dwarf community.

What Does This Mean For You And Your Writing?

As I have hopefully made clear, I am not in the business of telling people what to write. Many disabled people feel that it is not appropriate to ever write stories in which disabled characters are cured. My feelings are more complicated than that, but I won’t say that those people are wrong. I also won’t say that they’re right.

The following are some ways to think about disability and cure that might help deepen your characters. I am not commanding anyone to do anything; you can write whatever you want. Hopefully you find this interesting and very hopefully you find it helpful.

If you are writing a story in which a disabled person is not cured: Think about what that really means for them in terms of impact on identity, ability, and their life more broadly. How does their community react to the decision to avoid, or the lack of, medical solutions?

If you are writing a story in which a disabled person is cured: Think about your motivations for writing this particular story. How does this cure take place, and how does the character feel about it? What impact does the loss of their disability have on their life? How would a real-life person with that disability feel, reading your story?

Lastly, if you are writing about a diagnosis and the idea of cure comes up, please do some research into how that community feels about cures/medical intervention. Individuals in your writing may have different feelings about cure than their real life community, but it is worth thinking about why that would be.

If you are writing about a diagnosis and the idea of aborting affected fetuses comes up, please do some research into how that community feels about it. Please also understand that whatever your intentions, what you are writing about is a form of eugenics. 

I promise you that real life opinions exist about all of these things and all of these diagnoses, and I promise you that these opinions are valuable and worth reading. Please think about what you are saying about those communities when you write.

By @deannazandt / Posted with permission via Medium

Full text and image descriptions:

This is very cool

I corrected something about disability he said on another video and he made this 

The WHO Calls for Radical Change in Global Mental Health

On June 10, the World Health Organization released a 300-page document titled “Guidance on Community Mental Health Services: Promoting Person-Centred and Rights-Based Approaches.” The document and its authors call for wholesale change and a revolution in mental health:

Although some countries have taken critical steps towards closing psychiatric and social care institutions, simply moving mental health services out of these settings has not automatically led to dramatic improvements in care. The predominant focus of care in many contexts continues to be on diagnosis, medication and symptom reduction.

Critical social determinants that impact on people’s mental health such as violence, discrimination, poverty, exclusion, isolation, job insecurity or unemployment, lack of access to housing, social safety nets, and health services, are often overlooked or excluded from mental health concepts and practice. This leads to an over-diagnosis of human distress and over-reliance on psychotropic drugs to the detriment of psychosocial interventions – a phenomenon which has been well documented, particularly in high-income countries. It also creates a situation where a person’s mental health is predominantly addressed within health systems, without sufficient interface with the necessary social services and structures to address the above mentioned determinants.

The biomedical model of mental health is an “illness” model, and thus the notion of recovery is associated with a reduction of symptoms. The individual is in recovery from a disease, and psychiatric drugs are understood to be a first-line treatment to help people recover in this way.

The WHO guidance doesn’t spend much energy criticizing the biomedical model of care, but there is an implicit message in all of its pages: that model of care has failed, and what is needed now is a fundamental rethinking of what is possible. The authors write:

A fundamental shift within the mental health field is required, in order to end this current situation. This means rethinking policies, laws, systems, services and practices across the different sectors which negatively affect people with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, ensuring that human rights underpin all actions in the field of mental health. In the mental health service context specifically, this means a move towards more balanced, person-centered, holistic, and recovery-oriented practices that consider people in the context of their whole lives, respecting their will and preferences in treatment, implementing alternatives to coercion, and promoting people’s right to participation and community inclusion.