First, try reading [the below quotes] with the conventional definition of “disability” in mind, where “disability” is a synonym for “impairment” and primarily means “physical impediment, such as being paraplegic or blind.” Under this definition, which we’ve just seen is not the one they use, they sound ridiculous.[1]
Then, see how the meaning changes using the definition of “disability” these articles actually use, where “disability” specifically means “the things society does to restrict or discriminate against impaired people, or its omissions in enabling impaired people to participate in society.” Under this definition, they sound like ways of helping us understand exactly what they mean when they use the term “disability” in this new, more specific way.
But the problem is that if we try to read the quotes that way, they become incoherent or tautological.
Take the first quote:
Individual limitations are not the cause of disability. Rather, it is society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in societal organization.
So, “society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in societal organization”… is the cause of… “the things society does to restrict or discriminate against impaired people, or its omissions in enabling impaired people to participate in society”? That’s neither a factual claim nor a definition; it’s a tautology.
Likewise:
The model says that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference.
People are what by barriers in society? “Disabled”? What does that mean, if “disability” already means “barriers in society”?
(And it’s interesting to note the phrase “impairment or difference”—well, are we talking about impairments or aren’t we? It does, actually, matter whether the “difference” is, in fact, in any way bad for the person in question! Indeed it’s the crux of the whole question!)
And again:
It is [the] environment that creates the handicaps and barriers, not the disability.
From this perspective, the way to address disability is to change the environment and society, rather than people with disabilities.
It’s the environment that creates the handicaps and barriers, not… “the things society does to restrict or discriminate against impaired people, or its omissions in enabling impaired people to participate in society”…?
The bottom line is: there just isn’t any way of getting around the fact that these are language games being played by people who are trying to push their agenda without having to convince people of their claims (which they know they can’t do, because their claims are manifest nonsense).
FYI, I had accidentally banned you and two other users in my personal posts only some time ago, but realized when you commented that I hadn’t banned you in all my posts as I’d intended. The ban I enacted today isn’t specifically in response to your most recent comments. Since you took the time to post them and then were cut off, which I feel bad about, I’ll make sure to take the time to read them. I fully support you cross posting them here.
A comment I wrote in response to “Contra Contra the Social Model of Disability” but couldn’t post because @DirectedEvolution seems to have banned me from commenting on his posts.
You say:
But the problem is that if we try to read the quotes that way, they become incoherent or tautological.
Take the first quote:
So, “society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in societal organization”… is the cause of… “the things society does to restrict or discriminate against impaired people, or its omissions in enabling impaired people to participate in society”? That’s neither a factual claim nor a definition; it’s a tautology.
Likewise:
People are what by barriers in society? “Disabled”? What does that mean, if “disability” already means “barriers in society”?
(And it’s interesting to note the phrase “impairment or difference”—well, are we talking about impairments or aren’t we? It does, actually, matter whether the “difference” is, in fact, in any way bad for the person in question! Indeed it’s the crux of the whole question!)
And again:
It’s the environment that creates the handicaps and barriers, not… “the things society does to restrict or discriminate against impaired people, or its omissions in enabling impaired people to participate in society”…?
The bottom line is: there just isn’t any way of getting around the fact that these are language games being played by people who are trying to push their agenda without having to convince people of their claims (which they know they can’t do, because their claims are manifest nonsense).
FYI, I had accidentally banned you and two other users in my personal posts only some time ago, but realized when you commented that I hadn’t banned you in all my posts as I’d intended. The ban I enacted today isn’t specifically in response to your most recent comments. Since you took the time to post them and then were cut off, which I feel bad about, I’ll make sure to take the time to read them. I fully support you cross posting them here.