perhaps a more real-life simple medical-model example:
If a student is short-sighted, society could accommodate them to make it not-a-disability by employing someone to sit with shortsighted students to take notes for them, employing someone to dictate all material too far away for them to see, providing a navigator so they don’t need to read distant signs....
Or society could just expect them to wear glasses or get lasik.
Society seems to fall so far on the side of the latter that it seems like pure medical-model.
If a student is short-sighted, society could accommodate them to make it not-a-disability by employing someone to sit with shortsighted students to take notes for them, employing someone to dictate all material too far away for them to see, providing a navigator so they don’t need to read distant signs....
… and yet this would do nothing for the person’s ability to enjoy a painting or a movie, to go bird-watching, to drive a car (as distinct from “to get where they need to go”!), to play darts or hockey or video games, to cook or bake, to work in visual design, to play catch with their child, etc., etc.
The idea that shortsightedness / visual impairment can be fully mitigated by society providing accommodations is manifestly false.
Society seems to fall so far on the side of the latter that it seems like pure medical-model.
This is, quite frankly, an absurd claim given how many accommodations for the nearsight and the blind we have, and the extent to which the requirements to have these things are written into law.
There are more and more accommodations for physical disabilities where a medical intervention is readily available, such as glasses. There are still lots of barriers, but it is often seen as a moral right to make things easier for them, especially if it’s in such a way that they can maintain their autonomy.
I have ASD and ADHD, and in many societies, there is still a big lack of understanding. People could try being accommodating, but they don’t have enough practice with that that it ends up being very, very hard/exhausting to do it even partially.
You’re getting at the point about where we draw the line between a reasonable and unreasonable accommodation. The Social Model as defined by the linked articles doesn’t intrinsically say where that ought to be, though many people who understand the Social Model will also have opinions on line-drawing.
Most of the Social Model examples are about things like wheelchair ramps in buildings or not discriminating against people for jobs they’re able to do. One from the articles was extreme (teach sign language to everyone).
I think it is a mistake to criticize the Social Model on grounds that it is too expansive in what accommodations it demands, because it doesn’t demand any. But I also think it’s a mistake to use it as a justification for specific accommodations, because it doesn’t demand any.
It’s true that a demand for “reasonable accommodations” doesn’t literally demand anything specific, but this isn’t some random bit of logic made by guys who like pointless debates. It’s a live political issue, so it has an implied ”… and some accommodations are reasonable, but people following the standard model refuse to make them”. The only reason to make this argument in the real world is that you want to change how we deal with accommodations.
I don’t think society could accommodate short-sightedness in the way you describe. A full-time carer for every short-sighted student is a massive human cost. We are not rich enough to afford that type of intensive intervention for every similar impairment, and prioritizing short-sighted students over others with needs would be unjustified.
A reasonable accommodation that society can provide in this case is to ensure that people have the financial resources to pay for corrective lenses.
Is anyone asking for a full time carer when they could just wear glasses? I’m sure people draw the line in different places and ask for more when they’re not paying the costs, but humans value autonomy pretty highly so if they’re asking for accommodations (that are focused on the impairment and not generally useful to everyone) I assume it’s because the individual fix isn’t good enough.
perhaps a more real-life simple medical-model example:
If a student is short-sighted, society could accommodate them to make it not-a-disability by employing someone to sit with shortsighted students to take notes for them, employing someone to dictate all material too far away for them to see, providing a navigator so they don’t need to read distant signs....
Or society could just expect them to wear glasses or get lasik.
Society seems to fall so far on the side of the latter that it seems like pure medical-model.
… and yet this would do nothing for the person’s ability to enjoy a painting or a movie, to go bird-watching, to drive a car (as distinct from “to get where they need to go”!), to play darts or hockey or video games, to cook or bake, to work in visual design, to play catch with their child, etc., etc.
The idea that shortsightedness / visual impairment can be fully mitigated by society providing accommodations is manifestly false.
This is, quite frankly, an absurd claim given how many accommodations for the nearsight and the blind we have, and the extent to which the requirements to have these things are written into law.
There are more and more accommodations for physical disabilities where a medical intervention is readily available, such as glasses. There are still lots of barriers, but it is often seen as a moral right to make things easier for them, especially if it’s in such a way that they can maintain their autonomy.
I have ASD and ADHD, and in many societies, there is still a big lack of understanding. People could try being accommodating, but they don’t have enough practice with that that it ends up being very, very hard/exhausting to do it even partially.
You’re getting at the point about where we draw the line between a reasonable and unreasonable accommodation. The Social Model as defined by the linked articles doesn’t intrinsically say where that ought to be, though many people who understand the Social Model will also have opinions on line-drawing.
Most of the Social Model examples are about things like wheelchair ramps in buildings or not discriminating against people for jobs they’re able to do. One from the articles was extreme (teach sign language to everyone).
I think it is a mistake to criticize the Social Model on grounds that it is too expansive in what accommodations it demands, because it doesn’t demand any. But I also think it’s a mistake to use it as a justification for specific accommodations, because it doesn’t demand any.
It’s true that a demand for “reasonable accommodations” doesn’t literally demand anything specific, but this isn’t some random bit of logic made by guys who like pointless debates. It’s a live political issue, so it has an implied ”… and some accommodations are reasonable, but people following the standard model refuse to make them”. The only reason to make this argument in the real world is that you want to change how we deal with accommodations.
I don’t think society could accommodate short-sightedness in the way you describe. A full-time carer for every short-sighted student is a massive human cost. We are not rich enough to afford that type of intensive intervention for every similar impairment, and prioritizing short-sighted students over others with needs would be unjustified.
A reasonable accommodation that society can provide in this case is to ensure that people have the financial resources to pay for corrective lenses.
Is anyone asking for a full time carer when they could just wear glasses? I’m sure people draw the line in different places and ask for more when they’re not paying the costs, but humans value autonomy pretty highly so if they’re asking for accommodations (that are focused on the impairment and not generally useful to everyone) I assume it’s because the individual fix isn’t good enough.
I don’t think so, I was responding to a hypothetical from HungryHobo.