Defining Impairment within the Social Model of Disability
Pam Thomas, Lorraine Gradwell, Natalie Markham
(This is article appeared in GMCDP’S Coalition Magazine
July 1997)
The social model of disability has been with us for a while now
and we are pleased that it is thriving and gaining ground. We
believe that even though we may be making some progress
with the acceptance of the social model of disability, whereby
disabled people define disability, non-disabled professionals
are controlling the definition of impairment and will continue to
do so, and this threatens the development of the social model
of disability.
There have been earlier debates questioning whether the
social model takes account of issues relating to impairment.
We believe that while the social model defines disability as a
social oppression, impairment is a different issue which the
social model does not ignore, but does not define either. This
difference must be emphasised: disability is social oppression;
impairment is a part of the individual.
We share concerns that giving impairment too much attention
will move the focus away from disability as a social
oppression. The problem is that at the moment non-disabled
professionals in ‘disability’ services may accept the social
model in principle, but do not understand a definition of
impairment with says ‘impairment is impairment’, and this
contributes to their confusion as to the difference.
So we are not writing abut the experience of impairment or a
theory of impairment within the social model. This in no way
changes the definition of disability. This is important because:
