Editing Disability studies (section)

==Criticism==

===Questioning the social model===
{{further|Models of disability}}
The [[International Association of Accessibility Professionals]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies|url=http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certificationprofoutline|website=International Association of Accessibility Professionals|access-date=23 July 2016}}</ref> recognizes six different models for conceptualizing disability: social, medical, cultural affiliation, economic, charity, and functional solutions. Once universally accepted in the field,<ref name=Models1999 /> there has been a developing counter-argument to the [[social model of disability|'''social''' model of disability]] since at least 2009.<ref name="anti-social" /> In a 2014 ''Disability Studies Quarterly'' article, students involved in campus disability groups note that they actively seek cures for their chronic illnesses and "question the rejection of the '''medical''' model" of disability.<ref name=StudentGroups/> The '''cultural affiliation''' model accepts the person's disability completely and uses it a point of pride in being associated with other people in a similar condition.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Shapiro|first1=J|title=No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement|date=1994|publisher=Broadway Books.}}</ref> The '''economic''' model recognizes the effect of bodily limitations on a person's ability to work, and there may be a need for economic support or accommodations for the person's disability<ref>{{cite book|last1=Strnadová|first1=I|last2=Cumming|first2=Therese|title=Lifespan transitions and disability: A holistic perspective|date=2015|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> while the '''charity''' model regards people with disabilities as unfortunate and in need of assistance from the outside, with those providing charity viewed as benevolent contributors to a needy population. The '''functional solutions''' model of disability is a practical perspective that identifies the limitations (or "functional impairments") due to disability, with the intent to create and promote solutions to overcome those limitations. The primary task is to eliminate, or at least reduce, the impact of the functional limitations of the body through technological or methodological innovation. The pragmatism of the functional solution model deemphasizes the sociopolitical aspects of disability, and instead prioritizes inventiveness and entrepreneurship. This is the prevailing opinion behind compliance literature that promotes [[self-efficacy]] and self-advocacy skills for people with disabilities preparing for transition to independent living.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transitionguide.html |title=Transition of Students With Disabilities To Postsecondary Education: A Guide for High School Educators |publisher=U.S. Department of Education |date= 2018-09-25 |orig-date=March 2011 |first1= Arne |last1=Duncan |first2= Russlynn |last2=Ali |access-date=2016-08-25}}</ref>

The social model has also been challenged for creating a false separation between disability and impairment as impairment, not just disability, is socially constructed.<ref name=Withers12 /> This critique draws on feminist arguments that the assertion that sex is biological but gender is social is a [[false dichotomy]] because sex is also socially constructed.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Buttler|first=Judith|title=Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity|publisher=Routledge|year=1999|location=New York}}{{page?|date=January 2025}}{{ISBN?}}</ref> This is not a rejection of physical reality but draws attention to the social value put on some values, needs and accommodations and the denigration of others.<ref name=Withers12 />

===Exclusion of cognitive and mental disabilities===
There is discourse within disability studies to analyze the construction of ''mental illness.'' However, few post-structuralist disability scholars have focused their attention to impairments of the mind.<ref name="Thomas">{{harvnb|Thomas|2007|p=131}}</ref> According to Carol Thomas, a reader in sociology at the Institute for Health Research, [[Lancaster University]], this may be because disability scholars have in the past considered only the barriers confronted by people with physical disabilities. The experience of impairment, cognitive disability, and mental illness had been absent from the discussion.

It is unclear exactly which perspective of disability scholarship "psychological impairment" can fall under, and this has led to a hesitation on the part of scholars.<ref name="Thomas" /> Scholars such as [[Peter Beresford]] (2002) suggest "the development of a 'social model of madness and distress{{'"}} which would consider impairments of the mind.<ref name="Thomas" /> Yet others may recommend the "embodied approach" to the study of mental illnesses.<ref name="Thomas" />

=== Term "crip" ===
Although many activists with disabilities find empowerment in appropriating the term crip, not all people with disabilities feel comfortable using that identity.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V3GPb2obU0gC&q=Crip+Theory:+Cultural+Signs+of+Queerness+and+Disability&pg=PR5|title=Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability|last=McRuer|first=Robert|date=2006|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-0-8147-6109-0 }}</ref> There are many different terms used as an alternative to disability, for example Melwood, a nonprofit who uses the term "differing abilities", describes the label disability as "a limitation in the ability to pursue an occupation because of a physical or mental impairment; a disqualification, restriction or disadvantage and a lack of legal qualification to do something, was an inadequate or limiting 'label' for a cross section of people".<ref>{{cite web|title='Disabilities' vs. 'Differing Abilities' |url=https://www.melwood.org/disabilities-vs-differing-abilities|website=Melwood|access-date=5 May 2017}}</ref> Because the term disability has a history of inferiority, it is believed by many that substituting the term will help eliminate the [[ableism]] that is embedded within it. Susan Wendell describes ableism in society "as a structure for people who have no weakness".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wendell |first=Susan |title=Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability |journal=Hypatia |volume=4 |number=2 |year=1989 |pages=104–124 |jstor=3809809 |doi=10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00576.x|pmid=11787505 |s2cid=31915298 }}</ref> This also applies to anyone who has any intersectional disadvantages. Feminism identifies these disadvantages and strategizes how to deconstruct the system that supports marginalizing specific groups of people.