Medical model thinking.

Ah, I disagree. On strictly the medical model, none of them are disabled. They are all perfect specimens.

Only on the social model are they disabled. They are disabled because of the social environment - the requirement to perform a task without any alterations to the environment.

Ah, I disagree. On strictly the medical model, none of them are disabled. They are all perfect specimens. — bert1

Then you seem to me to have missed something crucial here.

Suppose they are all perfect specimens. Then their inability to achieve is imposed purely by the choice of test put in place.

Yes, the social model is what shows the bias inherent in the test. While the medical model only sees the inability to climb trees. And the capabilities model looks to see what each might do, rather than imposing something they must do.

We may just have different concepts, I'm sure we agree on the ethics. Are any of the animals disabled in this scenario?

EDIT: I think the definition of disability is the same under the medical and social model, but maybe I'm just wrong. For me, P is disabled in relation to x if P can't do x. If that's not the definition, what is? The difference for me comes where we place the problem. Mr Medical must actually have a concept of the social model in order to even assent to the proposition that any of the animals are disabled, because only in the context of the task is a disability even possible. The difference comes in the solution/blame. Mr Medical says the animals are the wrong shape to climb the tree, and he tries to alter them, or to write them off as hopeless. Mr Social puts some concrete blocks for the elephant to climb, and a long sloping water run for the fish to swim up.

Good point about QR codes. They off-load various forms of labor (sign-making; menu-handling; in-person or point-of-sale information-providing, and so on) to a webpage . Of course, the organizations that use QR are not trying to disadvantage anyone. They are trying to be efficient and hip (up to date).

There are a lot of people for whom all sorts of barriers have to be navigated (if possible). Why is accommodation so hard to achieve? Well, money of course, the easiest excuse.

A 'deeper' problem is the dominant understanding of "embodiment" -- the manner in which human persons are physical beings. The preferred form of embodiment tends toward the ideal: (for men) tallness, athleticism, rugged features, deep voice, above average IQ, competitive drive, and so on. A real man; a man's man' etc. There is nothing wrong with having ideal embodiment; but not very many people actually meet the ideal, and it's perfectly possible for a person whose embodiment matches the ideal to be a total asshole.

The 'ideal' is a strong enough idea that even those whose embodiment involves missing limbs, poorly functioning sensory organs, failing hearts, degenerative diseases of various kinds, mental health issues, intellectual barriers, and so on have difficulty valuing their own and others' embodiment. They quite often feel not worth of acceptance and being valued, and they may view other persons like themselves in a negative way.

Persons who face barriers are sometimes viewed as "deficient people" rather than embodied beings like themselves and worthy of respect. Why spend so much money on all the accommodations needed? It's a waste of money, and able-bodied people have to put up with the ramps, large font signs, sign language, and so forth -- like the accommodations make their 'normal' lives living nightmares, or something,

First a parable.

The monkey - let's call him Amadeus - gets the job because of his obvious aptitude, and promptly sets up a fruit stall in a treehouse at the top of the tree, and for twenty years makes a comfortable living selling fruit to the birds and the other monkeys.

On his retirement the adjudicator returns and examines the books. He asks Amadeus why he only ever sells fruit to the birds and other monkeys, and never to the fish, elephants, seals, dogs or penguins that live thereabouts.

In a somewhat condescending voice, Amadeus intones: "We have never, in over 20 years (I've been here the entire time) had any fish, elephants, seals, dogs or penguins come in to the treehouse and express any interest in purchasing fruit"

"But..." begins the adjudicator...

"I gave you a fact. Suggesting we 'reconsider' our clientele is bizarre." retorts the monkey.

Are any of the animals disabled in this scenario? — bert1

Yes, against the test.

That's the point; the test is what does the disabling, literally, by deciding who's in and who is out. The social model is a tool that shows this aspect of the medical model. It works in contrast to the medical model.

If that's not the definition, what is? — bert1

Here's a social model definition from PWDA

The social model sees ‘disability’ is the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers. It therefore carries the implication that the physical, attitudinal, communication and social environment must change to enable people living with impairments to participate in society on an equal basis with others. — https://pwd.org.au/resources/models-of-disability/

The test is what creates the disability.

Of course, the organizations that use QR are not trying to disadvantage anyone. They are trying to be efficient and hip (up to date). — BC

Yep. And all that is needed is an awareness of the assumptions underpinning the use of QR codes.

And money is so often an excuse rather than a grounds.

At it's heart disabilities advocacy is another push for recognising the variety of ways of being human.

I do think there is a difference between a straightforward concept of disability (or definition of 'disability') which is model-neutral, and the various 'models' of disability. The concept of disability is simple - someone can't do something, usually in comparison to others who can. The elephant can't get up the tree in comparison to the monkey who can. This is true whether you place the cause of that inability within the individual or within the environment. The elephant can't get up the tree because it has the wrong kind of body (medical), vs the elephant can't get up the tree because there are no concrete steps next to it (social), vs we shouldn't be expecting the elephant to get up the tree in the first place (capabilities model? But what if it wants to, on an equal basis with the monkey?) The models are approaches/attitudes to disability, suggestive of where the problem exists, and the appropriate way to respond to disability.

The distinction between definition and model is important. It is really important for a disabled person to be able to say "I can't do that, that's what being disabled means, that is our starting point" without that prejudicing the response from others. Sometimes a disabled person will want a pill or a prosthetic limb to fix the disability (medical). Sometimes they will want reasonable adjustments to their environment (social). Sometimes they will want to do something else instead that they can do, and challenge any absences of such opportunities in society (capabilities).

Here's a social model definition from PWDA — Banno

This is not a definition of 'disability'. It's a description of the social model of disability. It's the difference between theory and definition. The sun is that yellow disc in the sky up there (definition). It goes round the Earth (theory). The Earth goes round it (theory).

But

The test is what creates the disability. — Banno

So

The elephant can't get up the tree in comparison to the monkey who can. — bert1

It's that the test is getting up the tree that is disabling. If the test were instead pushing the tree over...

Sometimes a disabled person will want... — bert1

...and stop there. The frame has moved from social expectation to what the person with a disability wants. That's already a step in the right direction. Should we always give them what they want? No - but notice that now we are asking a different question to "how do we fix this broken body?" That's the point.

The sun is that yellow disc in the sky up there — bert1

...looks to be a description. The difference between definitions and descriptions may not be as hard-and-fast as some think. Those advocating the social model don't much care about platonic realism, so much as about the way stairs and QR codes disempower some folk more than others. They differentiate the medical and social models in order to question assumptions about what a human body can do.

Is there a coherent way to define disability at all? — Banno

Yes. P is disabled in relation to task x if and only if P cannot do x.

Are we disagreeing about anything?

P is disabled in relation to task x if and only if P cannot do x. — bert1

So the next step is to see if you can find something that P cannot do, that would not seem to count as a disability in our offhand use of the term - flying, writing a great novel, putting their foot behind their head.

And then ask, does this wayward example show some great misunderstanding in the casual notion of disability? Or does it just show the definition to be somewhat inadequate?

So the next step is to see if you can find something that P cannot do, that would not seem to count as a disability in our offhand use of the term - flying, writing a great novel, putting their foot behind their head. — Banno

Sure, to capture typical usage, we need to add some standard of typicality or normality, so that the disability is noteworthy, or in need of some kind of adaptation or intervention or whatever. As you say, I wouldn't normally characterise my inability to fly as a 'disability', even though I am unable to do it. But while it would be eccentric to characterise my inability (as a human) to fly as a disability, it would not be incorrect. Especially if I were a bird, where most birds can fly most of the time. So, I'll modify the definition to:

P is disabled in relation to task x if and only if P cannot do x, and x is a task most people can do most of the time.

...and x is a task most people can do most of the time. — bert1

...and there it is, again.

Can you spell out the problem with that? Does it capture people who are not disabled, and leave out people who are?

Let's consider an example: inertia. Many autistic people have extreme difficulty in getting started with something, or changing from one activity to another without external help. Most people don't have this problem most of the time and can get themselves to do stuff without external help. It seems to me that this person, without help, is disabled, and they are disabled because they can't do something that most other people can do most of the time.

I don't see how to help here. If you don't see what is remiss in delimiting people in this fashion, I doubt I can show you more.

Please try. I really don't get it, and this is important to me. How am I delimiting someone? It's very distressing to think that I am. I work with autistic people all the time.

I work with autistic people all the time. — bert1

And is what more important: what they can't do; or what they might do?

what they can't do; or what they might do? — Banno

They're both the same. An inert autistic person can't get off the sofa. That 'can't' is real, and reality is important. However they might get off the sofa with help. So they both can't do it (without help), and might do it (with help). Relevantly, they want to do it. But motivation isn't enough to overcome their inertia. So they use me to supply them with the initiative. How have I delimited them in this account? It seems to me that I have helped.

They're both the same. — bert1

Well, no. The list of things they can't do is not the same as the list of things they are capable of doing.

Well, no. The list of things they can't do is not the same as the list of things they are capable of doing. — Banno

Okay, P wants to do x, but they can't without help. P can do x with help. x is the same in both instances. The difference is not in P. The difference is not in x. The difference is in the presence of help.

...and why is it so important to do whatever "P" is? And for whom is it important?

...and why is it so important to do whatever "P" is? And for whom is it important? — Banno

'P' is the person, not the action. x is the action. It's important for P. Much of my work is helping autistic people do the things they want to do, but can't do without help. They make the decisions, but they depend on me to carry them out much of the time. It is well established in the autistic community I am a part of that autonomy is much more important than independence, indeed the two are often in tension.

...autonomy is much more important than independence.. — bert1

Now go back to your definition:
Indeed.

P is disabled in relation to task x if and only if P cannot do x. — bert1

Does it help achieve autonomy? Hence, what is more important: what they can't do; or what they might do?

Does it help achieve autonomy? — Banno

Yes, it is essential - it's the concept of disability. If someone isn't disabled, they don't need help. We have to able to recognise disability for what it is in order to be able to help. Regarding autonomy specifically, a person cannot make decisions if they do not understand information relevant to that decision, or if they cannot weigh the pros and cons of an option, or if they can't remember relevant information, or if they can't communicate their decision. If they could do all of these things, they would have autonomy and not need support with these functions. By recognising that they can't do these things on their own, we are in a position to put support in place that enables them to do these things and to gain some control over their lives.

what is more important: what they can't do; or what they might do? — Banno

Again I reject this opposition. A disabled person who can't do x might be able to with help. Not being able to do it is important to recognise so help can be put in place.

EDIT: I should probably add there is of course a danger in focusing on what someone can't do - there is the risk of talking someone into being more disabled than they are. People sometimes talk themselves into being more disabled than they are, and you can get into a bit of a negative spiral. That can happen with any kind of negative self-concept I suppose. There is also the converse trap - denying real disability. This can lead to self-hatred, self-blame, 'if only I tired harder', isolation and frustration. I see more of this latter trap than the former.

If someone isn't disabled, they don't need help. — bert1

This is somewhat tone deaf. It depends on making a hard distinction between the disabled and abled.

Autonomy is not the absence of the need for support. This can be seen in the difference between supporting someone and doing stuff for them.

Again, what is more important: what they can't do; or what they might do?

This is somewhat tone deaf. It depends on making a hard distinction between the disabled and abled. — Banno

Well OK, I was just going for conceptual simplicity, but sure, the more disabled someone is in a particular context, the more help they probably need, the less disabled they are, the less help. Now we have a continuum. Is that OK?

Autonomy is not the absence of the need for support. — Banno

I know. Often autonomy is only achievable with a great deal of support. That's the point I was making. Wasn't that clear?

Again, what is more important: what they can't do; or what they might do? — Banno

Again, I reject the distinction. Would you like to try a different sentence perhaps, if there is a point you are making that you think I am not grasping?

Hmm.

So if I've understood, the method you propose is that incapacity is identified first, then support is implemented, and capability appears only as a downstream effect.

A "deficit first" model.

So if I've understood, the method you propose is that incapacity is identified first, then support is implemented, and capability appears only as a downstream effect. — Banno

Practically speaking, that's what happens, yes. It would be odd to put in place supports before one identified a need for them, no?

EDIT: Consider Sadie. She can dance, climb, is really good at maths, loves painting, and has a job at the local supermarket that she does really well. What support does she need?

Consider Sadie. What support does she need? — bert1

What does she want to do?

And that 's the question to ask first, not what she can't do.

It would be odd to put in place supports before one identified a need for them, no? — bert1

How do you identify the need without knowing what Sadie wants.