Editing Social model of disability (section)

=== Limitations and criticisms ===
Oliver did not intend the social model of disability to be an all-encompassing theory of disability, but rather a starting point in reframing how society views disability.<ref name=":0" /> This model was conceived of as a tool that could be used to improve the lives of disabled people, rather than a complete explanation for every experience and circumstance.<ref name=":0" /> An unintended consequence Oliver foresaw of the adoption of the social model of disability in politics was the undermining of the efforts of disabled people seeking social justice. <ref name=":1" /> Similarly, Tom Shakespeare has argued that the strong social model fails to correspond to the everyday experience of disabled people, many of whom experience physical and mental difficulties, as well as social barriers and exclusion. <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shakespeare |first=Tom |date=2004 |title=Social Model of disability and other life strategies |url=https://sjdr.se/articles/151/files/submission/proof/151-1-526-1-10-20171113.pdf |journal=[[Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research]] |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=8-21}}</ref> 

A primary criticism of the social model is its centring of the experiences of individuals with physical impairments, which has resulted in overlooking other forms of disability, such as mental health conditions.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Morgan |first=Hannah |title=The Routledge International Handbook of Mad Studies |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2021 |isbn=978-0-429-46544-4 |editor-last=Beresford |editor-first=Peter |pages=108–118 |language=English |chapter=Mad Studies and disability studies |doi=10.4324/9780429465444-16 |chapter-url=https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/161614/1/Morgan_2020_Mad_Studies_and_Disability_Studies_AAM.pdf |editor-last2=Russo |editor-first2=Jasna}}</ref>  

A secondary criticism relates to how the social model underplays impairments' impacts.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> That is, the focus on how the social environment can cause disablement may ignore the fact that impairments "can be restrictive, painful and unpleasant".<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|page=111}}

Conversely, some argue against the language of impairment, indicating that some disabilities are purely social and that no impairment exists, such as within the Deaf community.<ref name=":1" /> This relates to a critique regarding the belief of a species norm, wherein there is a "normal" human body, and all variations to the norm may be considered "impairments".<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Chapman |first1=Robert |last2=Carel |first2=Havi |date=2022 |title=Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life |journal=[[Journal of Social Philosophy]] |language=en |volume=53 |issue=4 |pages=614–631 |doi=10.1111/josp.12456 |issn=0047-2786 |doi-access=free |hdl=1983/74fb2e49-bc7a-4009-a42e-528ae77ff267 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Some activists and academic argue that this reliance on a species norm still implies that impairments are deficits, meaning this model is still strongly connected to [[Medical model of disability|deficit models of disability]].<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> That is, to be considered disabled, an individual must state they have an impairment, which implies, to some degree, that they are damaged.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> To an extent can have impacts on how government can distribute benefits on ground of impairments that may be more significant and those that are not. Thus, some needs are not met on the basis of not having an impairment significant enough to receive aid, which can be a negative application of the social model within government policy.<ref name=":0" /> Newer paradigms, such as [[Mad studies]] and [[neurodiversity]] studies, recognize a broad spectrum of human experience without a focus on a species norm and thus, deviances from that norm that may be considered impairments or deficits.<ref name=":2" /> 

The social model has also been criticized for not promoting the normal differences between disabled people, who can be any age, gender, race, and sexual orientation, and instead presenting them as a monolithic, [[Individuation|insufficiently individuated]] group of people.<ref name=":0" />

Despite these criticisms, academics whose work involves disability indicate that the social model is still beneficial in helping people begin to rethink disability beyond deficit.<ref name=":1" /> As Finkelstein states: "A good model can enable us to see something which we do not understand because in the model it can be seen from different viewpoints [...] that can trigger insights that we might not otherwise develop."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Finkelstein |first=Vic |date=2001-12-01 |title=The Social Model of Disability Repossessed |url=https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/finkelstein-soc-mod-repossessed.pdf |journal=Manchester Coalition of Disabled People |pages=1–5 |access-date=19 July 2023 |archive-date=30 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230130095652/https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/finkelstein-soc-mod-repossessed.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Rp|page=3}}