I quite appreciate the post’s laying things out, but it’s not convincing regarding Scott’s post (it’s not bad either, just not convincing!) because it doesn’t offer much more than “no, you’re wrong.” The crux of the argument presented here is taking the word disability, which to most speakers means X and implies Y, and breaking it into an impairment, which means X, and a disability, which is Y. Scott says this is wrong and explains why he thinks so. DirectedEvolution says Scott is wrong “because the definitions say...” but that’s exactly what Scott is complaining about.
For example, if you’re short-sighted, normally we’d say “you have a disability (or impairment or handicap, etc., they’re interchangeable) of your vision so that means you will struggle with reading road signs.” Instead, the social model entails saying “you have an impairment of your vision so that means, because of society, you will be disabled when it comes to reading road signs.”
We can debate which view is more useful (and for what purposes). Scott thinks the social model is useful to promote accommodations since it separates the physical condition from the consequences (whether it produces negative consequences depends on society). He thinks the Szaz-Caplan model is useful to deny accommodations since it separates the mental condition (i.e., preferences, in that model) from the consequences (whether it produces negative consequences depends on will). More importantly, he thinks the social model is “slightly wrong about some empirical facts” (what empirical facts? DirectedEvolution is correct that Scott’s argumentation is a bit soft...he benefits greatly from arguing the layperson side) in that in some cases it feels absurd to pin blame on society for the consequences of some impairments (e.g., Mt. Everest). And on that your layperson (and I) would agree with him. DirectedEvolution offers no counterpoint on that (which is the primary argument), but the post DOES provide a key benefit:
Adopting separate definitions for impairment and disability IS NOT strictly equivalent to adopting the social model. One could restate short-sightedness: “you have an impairment of your vision so that means you will be disabled when it comes to reading road signs.” This drops the blame game and allows for impairments to disable people outside of societies. In fact, Scott accidentally endorsed it [added by me]: “the blind person’s inability to drive [disability] remains due to their blindness [impairment], not society.” So perhaps the crux of Scott’s argument is not about using two definitions but about whether disability ought to be defined as stemming from society! And in fact that’s evident in Scott’s post. However, Scott’s post DID also, at times, imply that one definition would suffice.
This post made me update toward two definitions potentially being useful, but it did not make me update away from endorsing Scott’s main point, that disability ought not be defined as stemming from society.
As an aside: the two definitions are still debatable though. Suppose someone has an impairment that has not nor ever will generate a disability. How is this not the same as “there exists variability”? If someone has perfect vision and I am short-sighted but we live in a dome with a 5 foot diameter such that I can see just fine, and no one tells me my lived experience could be better, how could you even call that an impairment? Is it an impairment if I realize that my vision could be better? Is that other person impaired if they realize their vision could be improved above “normal”? “Impairment” could just refer to being low on the spectrum of natural human variability in some capability, but how low is low enough? “So low that it starts to interfere...” is bringing disability into the mix. What capabilities count? Certainly not “reading road signs” as that would be in the realm of disability, but what level of specificity is appropriate? Short-sightedness is not an impairment of seeing near objects, it’s an impairment of seeing far objects, so that is to say, not vision generally. But once you get specific enough, it’s back to sounding like a disability—“your far object vision is impaired so you are disabled at seeing far objects.”
I quite appreciate the post’s laying things out, but it’s not convincing regarding Scott’s post (it’s not bad either, just not convincing!) because it doesn’t offer much more than “no, you’re wrong.” The crux of the argument presented here is taking the word disability, which to most speakers means X and implies Y, and breaking it into an impairment, which means X, and a disability, which is Y. Scott says this is wrong and explains why he thinks so. DirectedEvolution says Scott is wrong “because the definitions say...” but that’s exactly what Scott is complaining about.
For example, if you’re short-sighted, normally we’d say “you have a disability (or impairment or handicap, etc., they’re interchangeable) of your vision so that means you will struggle with reading road signs.” Instead, the social model entails saying “you have an impairment of your vision so that means, because of society, you will be disabled when it comes to reading road signs.”
We can debate which view is more useful (and for what purposes). Scott thinks the social model is useful to promote accommodations since it separates the physical condition from the consequences (whether it produces negative consequences depends on society). He thinks the Szaz-Caplan model is useful to deny accommodations since it separates the mental condition (i.e., preferences, in that model) from the consequences (whether it produces negative consequences depends on will). More importantly, he thinks the social model is “slightly wrong about some empirical facts” (what empirical facts? DirectedEvolution is correct that Scott’s argumentation is a bit soft...he benefits greatly from arguing the layperson side) in that in some cases it feels absurd to pin blame on society for the consequences of some impairments (e.g., Mt. Everest). And on that your layperson (and I) would agree with him. DirectedEvolution offers no counterpoint on that (which is the primary argument), but the post DOES provide a key benefit:
Adopting separate definitions for impairment and disability IS NOT strictly equivalent to adopting the social model. One could restate short-sightedness: “you have an impairment of your vision so that means you will be disabled when it comes to reading road signs.” This drops the blame game and allows for impairments to disable people outside of societies. In fact, Scott accidentally endorsed it [added by me]: “the blind person’s inability to drive [disability] remains due to their blindness [impairment], not society.” So perhaps the crux of Scott’s argument is not about using two definitions but about whether disability ought to be defined as stemming from society! And in fact that’s evident in Scott’s post. However, Scott’s post DID also, at times, imply that one definition would suffice.
This post made me update toward two definitions potentially being useful, but it did not make me update away from endorsing Scott’s main point, that disability ought not be defined as stemming from society.
As an aside: the two definitions are still debatable though. Suppose someone has an impairment that has not nor ever will generate a disability. How is this not the same as “there exists variability”? If someone has perfect vision and I am short-sighted but we live in a dome with a 5 foot diameter such that I can see just fine, and no one tells me my lived experience could be better, how could you even call that an impairment? Is it an impairment if I realize that my vision could be better? Is that other person impaired if they realize their vision could be improved above “normal”? “Impairment” could just refer to being low on the spectrum of natural human variability in some capability, but how low is low enough? “So low that it starts to interfere...” is bringing disability into the mix. What capabilities count? Certainly not “reading road signs” as that would be in the realm of disability, but what level of specificity is appropriate? Short-sightedness is not an impairment of seeing near objects, it’s an impairment of seeing far objects, so that is to say, not vision generally. But once you get specific enough, it’s back to sounding like a disability—“your far object vision is impaired so you are disabled at seeing far objects.”