DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION,
3, 85-91
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
For personal use only.
1997; VOL. 19, NO.
REVIEW
Models of disability
DEBORAH MARKS
Accepted for publication : December 1996
Keywords disability models, social change
Summary
This paper critically reviews medical approaches to the
identification and treatment of disability. The medical model
locates disability within individuals. By contrast, this paper
argues that disability cannot be understood outside its social
context. As such, some of the assumptions about normality and
difference which underpin traditional approaches to the
diagnosis and treatment of disabled people are challenged. If it
is accepted that disability is located not solely within the mind
or body of an individual, but rather in the relationship between
people with particular bodily and intellectual differences and
their social environment. then greater focus may be placed on
ameliorating disability through changes in social policy, culture
and institutional practices.
Introduction : definitions of disability
Before addressing the question of definitions of
disability it is important to make a brief note on
terminology. Whilst ‘people with disabilities’ is the
preferred term in many academic and professional
journals, in the UK ‘disabled people’ is the term
preferred by most activists in the disability movement.’
The reasons for this will become clearer in the ensuing
discussion. For now, it is helpful merely to say that, if
disability is accorded the same status as other identities,
such as sexuality or ‘race’, then, just as we would not
talk about a ‘person with black skin’ or a ‘person with
homosexual desires’, we should not talk about a ‘person
with a disability’. For this reason (and at risk of
offending some of the readership) ‘disabled people’ is the
preferred term in this paper.
Estimates regarding the number of disabled people in
Britain and the USA vary enormously. Most official
estimates recognize that disabled people form one of the
largest minority groups, with around 6.5 million disabled
Author: Dr Deborah Marks, University of Sheffield, Centre for
Therapeutic Studies, 16 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield S 10
2TA. UK
0965-8288/97 $12.00 0 1997 Taylor & Francis Ltd
people in the UK and 35 million disabled people in the
USA.*v3Where do these figures come from? Who do
they refer to? Do we include those with learning
‘disabilities’, mental ‘illnesses’ and chronic illnesses? Do
we include only those people with functional impair-
ments, or do we include ‘aesthetic’ impairments such as
facial disfigurements? Where and how do we draw the
boundary around disability?
One problem in attempting to produce a clear
categorization of disablement is that the capacities and
values given to bodies, learning ‘abilities’ and emotional
experiences are not only contested but highly changeable.
It may only be possible to apply the label ‘disabled’ to a
particular individual on a temporary basis. This point is
particularly pertinent for those suffering from a chronic
illness such as ME or MS. Yet, in spite of this, our benefit
and employment systems expect disabled people to have
fixed functional capacities which can be reliably
measured. The nature and extent of impairments occur
on a continuum, rather than on one or other side of a
clear boundary distinguishing ability and disability.
Disabled people belonging to the same ‘ impairment
category’ as those who have visual, hearing or mobility
impairments vary enormously. Of those registered blind
people, only 4 YOhave no ~ i s i o nOnly
. ~ a small minority
of deaf people have no hearing at all. Many paralysed
people have some experience of temperature, pressure, or
muscle control. As Hockenberry writes: ‘the trace of
each paraplegic and quadriplegics sensory border zone is
as unique as a fingerprint. Each person has a different
answer to the question. What does paralysis feel like?’
(p. 97).5
Ability is a similarly unstable concept - which is why
many now favour the term ‘ temporarily able-bodied’.6
Unlike ‘race’ and sex, which are relatively fixed-
although even these categories are problematic given the
possibility for sex changes and cosmetic surgery’ - most
of us, if we live long enough, will experience some form
of disability. The average 75-year-old will experience
some form of limited functioning for 13 years of his or
her life.2Rather than seeing disability as a clear-cut, fixed
condition, it is more accurate to see disability as existing
along a continuum with blurred and changing bound-
 D. Marks
aries both between disabled and able-bodied people and
with those categorized as disabled.
Anxiety and the construction of fixed disability
categories
One way of dealing with such uncertainty about the
degree of impairment, and the unstable nature of
abilities, is to deploy medical categories as if they were
clear-cut and straightforward. We have all been to see
films in which the doctor, after examining the patient,
breaks the news to a relative that the patient will ‘never
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
walk again’ or has ‘six months to live’. People
(unrealistically) expect professionals in general, and
doctors in particular, to be able to make accurate
unerring diagnosis. When a condition does not fall
readily into pre-established categories, the authenticity
of the disability may be brought into question.’
Douglas’ has shown how many cultures create a taboo
around those phenomena which are difficult to cat-
egorise. Murphy et a1.” argue that disabled people may
become ‘taboo’ objects because they are difficult to
For personal use only.
categorize, and are thus positioned as ‘liminal’. By this
they mean that disabled people occupy a position at the
boundary between illness and health. This must surely
be, in part, a consequence of disability being con-
ceptualized as a medical problem. Disabled people
violate the norms of the ‘sick role’ by neither with-
drawing fully from social activities, as in the case of a
person who has an acute illness, nor in returning to
‘normality’ and full social activity. Many disabled people
do not ‘get better’. Similarly, some disabled people may
not be able to exercise full control over some bodily
functions (such as control over bowel movements and
saliva). This, according to Murphy et a1.” reinforces
their status as ‘liminal’.
Popular representation reproduces a sharp split be-
tween the able-bodied and the disabled. Disabled people
are presented as evil, bitter, and threatening, such as
Captain Hook” or dependent, such as the helpless child
in the charity advertisement.12 Disabled people are not
news-readers or TV presenters. They tend not to exist in
soap operas, movies or adverts, except as ‘issues’. They
appear in documentaries as victims, heroic and tragic
figures, freaks of nature or scientific pr0b1ems.l~Disabled
people are presented as ‘Other’. They are not seen as
having mundane, ordinary lives, with concerns about
relationships or work.14 Disabled people are reduced to
their irn~airment.’~
With such images it is hardly surprising that many
people feel disturbed in the presence of disability.
86
Disability has, for many in contemporary Western
society, come to represent failure. As Zola astutely
comments (p. 373);
To some, those with physical and mental dis-
abilities become objects, the permanent reminders
of a lost or losing struggle, the symbols of a past
and continuing failure. America likes winners. It
forgets, denies, rejects and neglects losers.16
Disabled people are excluded and marginalized in
contemporary Western mainstream society. This means
that the image of an able-bodied person becoming
disabled is particularly threatening. When Christopher
Reeve (the actor who played Superman) became para-
lysed in a riding accident, we were forced to recognize the
contingency of our bodily states.
Thus, while the categories of ability and disability are
complex and often uncertain, we continue to reproduce
a clear boundary between the two categories. This may
allow able-bodied people to keep anxieties about their
own vulnerabilities at bay, and point to ‘Others’ who
have a problem. It also makes interactions between
disabled and able-bodied people difficult. Many able-
bodied people patronize or avoid disabled people in
order to deal with the guilt, fear and uncertainty they feel
in the presence of disabled people. GoffmanL7refers to
these awkward interactions between .able-bodied and
disabled people as ‘sticky interactions’.
As shown in the introduction, impairment is a natural
and mundane fact of life for most people. Yet we live in
a world which denies this reality. Instead of organizing
our environment in such a way as to make social life
accessible to everyone, we focus on changing the minority
who cannot ‘fit’ into mainstream society. This is the
starting point for the medical model and psychological
perspectives on disability.
Individual ‘models’
The medical model focuses on individual pathology
and attempts to find ways of preventing, curing or
(failing these) caring for disabled people. Given that the
focus is on the individual, a central concern is to make an
accurate diagnosis of their ‘condition’. Policy-makers
tend to rely on medical definitions of disablement in
order to assess the prevalence of disability and provide
treatments, services and benefits. The most widely
utilized international definition of disability is the
International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities
and Handicaps (ICIDH), which is a supplement to the
 Models of disability
World Health Organization’s International Classijication
of Diseases. This classification has stimulated a great deal
of discussion about the process of categorization of
disability. Broadly, the ICIDH has developed a tripartite
definition of disablement. Impairment is defined as any
loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or
anatomical structure or function. Disability is defined as
any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of
ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the
range considered normal for a human being. Handicap
occurs out of the disadvantage to an individual resulting
from an impairment or disability, that limits or prevents
the fulfilment of a role that is normal (depending on age,
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
sex, social and cultural factors) for that individual. Thus,
impairment relates to the organic level ; disability relates
to the consequences of organic impairment ; and handi-
cap to the social consequences of deficient ability.
The concept of ‘ handicap’ recognizes that the cause of
disablement may be social. Someone may be handi-
capped by discrimination in the workplace. However,
despite this partial move in the direction of a social
approach, the WHO still ultimately accords primacy to
biomedical concerns.’* This is reflected in the fact that
For personal use only.
the list which the WHO gives of impairments is far more
extensive and detailed than the list of disabilities, which
is again more elaborated than that of handicap^.'^ On a
policy level, the WHO (particularly in its work in the
developing world) is primarily concerned with instituting
programmes which prevent impairments, rather than
foster accommodations and social changes which bring
about social inclusion for disabled people.” As the
United States Executive Committee of the Committee on
a National Agenda for the Prevention of Disabilities
point out (p. 5);
the original intent of the ICIDH classification
system was to provide a framework to organise
information about the consequences of disease. As
such, it has been considered by some as an intrusion
of the medical profession into the social aspects of
life.’
Finally, the WHO’S reliance on contemporary and local
notions of ‘normality’ as the benchmark for defining
disability prevents cross-cultural and historical com-
parisons in defining disability. In pre-Revolutionary
China the ideal length of a woman’s foot was 3 inches.
Despite the crippling effects of foot binding, failure to
have one’s feet bound was far more ‘disabling’, serving
as a real barrier to finding a husband.
Similarly, where there is widespread poverty and
malnutrition, ‘society’s standards of “normal” func-
tioning might become so low as to mask the widespread
disability among its citizens that starvation is causing’
(p. 14).*
Those involved with rehabilitation have criticized a
narrow medical approach which may not assess the
potential for improving function, by collaborating with
other professionals.” Psychologists have criticized the
medical model for failing to recognize the extent to which
‘deficits in performance of activities ’” are the result of
psychological experiences of disability. Medicine focuses
purely on the body, and fails to acknowledge the
cognitive and emotional factors shaping illness and
disability. Like the medical model, however, psychology
also tends to locate disability within an individual person
who has failed to adjust to, and ‘overcome’, an
impairment. However, psychological approaches have
been challenged by many as ‘victim blaming ’. The social-
psychological concept of ‘ learned helplessness’, for
example, suggests that the experience of failure under-
mines the initiative required to change. The concept of
adjustment to loss has been applied to those who have
failed to mourn the losses experienced as a result of
im~airrnent.’~ Such work suggests that problems arise
from individual coping strategies rather than social
change. LennyZ4argues that disabled people have no
more need of counselling than anyone else. Many
disabled people relate experiences of counselling and
therapy where the able-bodied professional focused
purely on their impairment as if that automatically and
inevitably produced trauma. When one reads disabled
people’s accounts,“ 25-28 one quickly discovers that it is
more often the attitudes of others and the frustrations of
discrimination, rather than the intrinsic effects of
impairment, which produce trauma. Society needs to
adjust to impaired people rather than disabled people
needing to adjust to their impairment.
Both the medical and psychological models of dis-
ability have been criticized by activists and academics
allied to the disability movement.2g31They have argued
that, by focusing on the defects in intellectual and bodily
functions, these approaches have failed to acknowledge
the defects in the environment. Factors shaping the
degree of disability experienced include the nature of the
built e n ~ i r o n m e n t , ~ social
’ , ~ ~ hierarchy,’* l e g i s l a t i ~ n , ~ ~
attitudes and images,35technol~gies,~~. 37 aesthetics,s. 3833g
and language and c ~ l t u r e . ~4 1 . ~The ~ ’ scientific claims
made by the medical and psychological models can be
relativized; that is, it is possible to show that the claims
made about the ‘normal’ individual are historically and
culturally contingent rather than universally
generalizable. By examining a much wider frame the
social model seems to represent a logical extension of the
87
 D. Marks
rehabilitation tradition which looks beyond the hospital
ward to the context in which recovery takes place. The
question then shifts from how do we identify ‘the
disabled’ to how is that category of disability produced
by society?
The social model
In contrast to individualizing approaches, the social
model locates disability not in an impaired or mal-
functioning body, but in an excluding and oppressive
social environment. The social model is a theoretical
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
elaboration which developed out of substantive struggles
for independent living and citizenship or civil rights for
disabled people. A number of disabled activists and
academics in the UK36. 43 and the
423 argued that
many restrictions imposed on disabled people are not a
natural consequence of their impairment, but are a
product of a social environment which fails to take
account of their differences. For example, our post office
counters and letterboxes are built for the comfort of
people over 5 feet tall, rather than short people,
For personal use only.
wheelchair users or children. Barnes thus defines dis-
ability as ‘the loss or limitation of opportunities to take
part in the normal life of the community on an equal
level with others due to physical and social barriers’.34
The social model sees the oppression of disabled people
as being institutionally based, rather than a product of
the actions of individual ‘prejudiced’ people. The social
model is therefore quite critical of those professionals
whose aim is to change disabled people.45 Too much
attention has been given to therapy, corrective surgery,
and elaborate prosthetic devices to make disabled people
‘normal’. Far less attention is paid to disabled people’s
priorities.
One central concern of such challenges is that
dependency does not emerge out of intrinsic incapacity,
but rather out of the way in which needs are met. In
addition to treating disabled people, professionals act as
gatekeepers in the administration and distribution of
benefits and services for disabled people. As such the
relationship between disabled people and professionals
can be an uneasy one. The critique of professionals takes
place against a background in which they have come
under increasing criticism. Until the 1960s, professionals
were commonly regarded as being simply the service
providers to the community, governed by ethical codes
and committed to the principles of their profession.
However, this unquestioning acceptance of the service
ideology has come to be increasingly challenged.
Professionals are no longer seen as neutral. Inter-
88
professional conflicts between, for example, the medical
and psychological professions, documented so effectively
by revolve around territory and power, rather
than abstract questions of t r ~ t h . Hugman4’
~ ~ , ~ ~ has
taken professionals to task for misappropriating and
monopolizing knowledge, disregarding social injustice
and mystifying their expertise. User groups have
increasingly challenged professional authority and de-
manded changes in practice.48Some, such as the Hearing
Voices have gone as far as to resist
professional (psychiatric) interventions completely, and
foster the development of self-help groups.
Given the complex nature of contemporary society,
with its highly specialized work force, everyone is
dependent on a range of services to meet their needs. All
human societies are characterized by interdependence.
No person is completely self-reliant, since we all (unless
we are Robinson Crusoe) live in communities charac-
terized by the exchange of goods and services. The
concept of needs is socially constructed. By this, I mean
that what comes to be identified as a need depends
greatly on social organization. When we talk about
someone’s ‘needs’ we tend to suggest something
timeless. The discourse of needs connotes ‘helplessness
and passivity of any individual who is ‘in need’.50Those
people who are identified as being particularly dependent
are made this way, because of the distribution of
resources in such a way that discriminates against people
with ‘impairments’. For example, if steps rather than
ramps are built at the entrance of buildings, then
wheelchair users are made dependent on assistance to
gain access to the building. By contrast, if people need to
catch a train in order to gain access to their place of
work, they are not (until there is a strike) considered to
be dependent on public transport. Some ‘needs’ are met
automatically, while other must be achieved by making a
special plea for charitable assistance. This is why many in
the disability movement are calling for ‘rights’, not
charity.’ It is also why so many disabled people want to
receive direct payments to employ their own personal
assistants, rather than depend on state provision, over
which they have little control. Many disability activists
define independence as autonomy over decision-making
rather than the capacity to carry out mundane tasks such
as dressing.”
In order to acknowledge the interdependent nature of
human relationships the disability activists in Derbyshire
named their independent living centre ‘The Centre For
Interdependent Living’. If we can begin to acknowledge
the possibility that relationships may be far more
reciprocal than initially imagined, then we can begin to
recognize the extent to which able-bodied people are
 Models of disability
dependent on disabled people. Disabled people support
spouses, children, parents and friends, in numerous and
unacknowledged ways.j2 Davis‘ argues that if depen-
dency operates at all between professionals and disabled
people, the former are dependent on the latter for their
li~elihood.~~
The implications of this are quite important for our
concept of integration or ‘normalization’. The focus for
change becomes social rather than individual. We need
to rethink our culture, institutions and relationships in
order to create a more inclusive society which can
tolerate a higher degree of differences. Disability studies
becomes the analysis not of disabled people, but the
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
study of the way in which we think and live in society.
This claim can be supported by cultural and historical
analysis. Groce’s study40of Martha’s Vineyard from the
eighteenth century showed the large numbers of deaf
people in some parts of the community (due to a
hereditary condition) meant that everyone knew sign
language. Under such circumstances being Deaf was
considered no more of a disability than being a French
speaker in bilingual parts of Canada. It is noteworthy
that I am spelling Deaf with a capital D. The convention
For personal use only.
of referring to sign language users as ‘Deaf’ signifies
their membership of a cultural group rather than just
being a category of impaired individual^.^^ Deafness
becomes disabling in a community which does not
recognize signing.
Similarly, F i n k e l ~ t e i n identifies
~~ three phases of
historical development which have had specific
ramifications for ‘disabled’ people (I use quotation
marks here to indicate the historicism involved in using
the term to apply to previous eras). He shows how it was
possible in small feudal and agricultural communities
prior to industrialization to make accommodations so
that the proverbial ‘village idiot’54 or ‘cripple’ could
make a contribution to economic production and village
life. With industrialization, new requirements for a
standardized ‘normal ’ workforce engaged in regulated
factory production. This led to the need for segregated
provision for those who could not be accommodated in
the workforce. Finkelstein suggests that current tech-
nological changes may offer promising new opportunities
for those excluded in industrial society.
Recent technological changes in post-industrial society
indicate there is much to support Finkelstein’s optimism.
Markets are becoming increasingly geographically
dispersed through electronic communication. This makes
one’s physical mobility less significant in navigating
environments. One only needs to use two muscles to
operate a computer. Similarly, consensus about ‘ normal ’
bodies and minds has begun to break down. For example,
we can transplant organs and produce prosthetic body
parts.55 If the concept of wholeness is less clear in
contemporary society, then the concept of the broken
body and damaged mind is also less clear.
Conclusion
This review has argued that a balanced analysis of
disability looks not only at the disabled individual, but
also at the disabling environment. Ultimately it is not
possible to examine impairments outside of social
relationships, representations and built environments.
Because much research and rehabilitative work in
disability engages with individual problems, it fails to see
the inextricably intertwined nature of what the WHO
refers to as ‘impairment, disability and handicap’. We
should not see impairment as ‘fundamental’, but rather
as one factor in the social construction of disability.
It is important to add that a social analysis does not
rule out medical or prosthetic interventions which may
be appropriate and desirable. However, it does reject the
notion that prevention or cure of disability is a panacea.
We need to think about living with a broader range of
differences, and adapting our environment in creative
ways which may be beneficial to the whole community. If
planners are required to think about the needs of people
with learning difficulties, sensory impairments or mo-
bility problems, our social environment may well be
more sensibly organized for everyone. For example,
instructions are likely to be clearer, and buildings are
likely to be more accessible for parents with strollers.
Given that we are experiencing an enormous expansion
in the numbers of older people, who form the largest
group of disabled people, the need to remove the barriers
which exclude disabled people become more urgent.
The social model is open to a number of criticisms. It
could, justifiably, be accused of merely propounding the
other side of the medical individualistic coin, with a form
of social reductionism. Environmental adaptations may
work in the interests of some disabled people and not
others. Curb cuts, for example, may help wheelchair
users, but cause difficulties for blind people in recognizing
when the pavement ends. Just as there is no such thing as
the ideal, perfect body, there is also no such thing as the
perfect environment. The social model may also be
challenged for failing to discuss the significance of
emotional and bodily experience^^^ or linking the social
world and lived, embodied experience.
There is not space here to develop these criticisms. In
any event, the purpose of this review has been to
introduce some of the main arguments in favour of a
social perspective towards disability. If a social per-
89
 D.Marks
spective of disability is taken seriously by researchers and
rehabilitation professionals, then new possibilities for
alliances with the disability movement may O C C U ~ . ~Such
’ Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963.
alliances present the opportunity of improving the
quality of provision and research. A critical analysis of
the social context and meanings of disability can help
bridge the sharp gulf between disabled and able-bodied
people.
Such a rethinking of our understanding of disability is
urgently required. We are still struggling with the
implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(1990) in the USA, the drive towards care in the
community and the ending of segregated education. We
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
are currently faced with new legislation in the UK
(Disability Discrimination Act), which came into effect
in December 1996. Demographic changes, such as a
growing population of older people, add to the enormous
social transformations taking place in levels of disability.
Disability is not a marginal issue affecting a minority,
but one of the key social and policy issues that face
Western society.
Acknowledgements
For personal use only.
The author thanks Gabriella and Maurice Marks for comments on
an earlier draft of this paper.
References
I Campbell J, Oliver M. Disability Politics: Understanding our Past,
Changing Our Future. London : Routledge, 1996.
2 Pope AM, Tarlov AR. (eds) Disability in America: Toward a
National Agenda for Prevention. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1991.
3 Shapiro J. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil
Rights Movement. New York: Times Books, 1994.
4 Bruce 1, McKennell A, Walker E. Blindand Partially Sighted Adults
in Britain. RNIB Survey, Vol. 1. London: HMSO and RNIB, 1991.
5 Hockenberry J. Declarations of Independence: War Zones and
Wheelchairs. London: Viking, 1996.
6 Davis LJ. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness and the Body.
London: Verso, 1995.
7 Butler J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
London: Routledge, 1990.
8 Wendell S. The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections of
Disability. London: Routledge, 1996.
9 Douglas M. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1966.
10 Murphy RF, Scheer J, Murphy Y, Mack R. Physical disability and
social liminality: a study in the rituals of adversity. Social Science
and Medicine 1988; 26: 235-242.
11 Longmore P. Screening stereotypes. In: Gartner A & Joe T. (eds)
Images of the Disabled: Disabling Images. New York : Praeger,
1987.
12 Evans J . The iron cage. Ten. 8, no. 29, 1988.
13 Cumberbatch G, Negrine R. Images of Disability on Television.
London: Routledge, 1992.
14 Barnes C. Disabling Imagery and the Media. Halifax: Ryburn 1992.
15 Zola IK. Self identity and the naming question: reflections on the
language of disability. Socinl Science ofMedicine 1993; 2: 167-173.
90
16 Zola IK. Ageing and disability: toward a unifying agenda.
Educational Gerontology 1988; 14: 365-387.
17 Goffman E . Stigma: Some Notes on the Management of Spoiled
18 Oliver M. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice.
London: Macmillan, 1996.
19 Ingstad B, Whyte SR. (eds) Disability and Culture. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1995.
20 Groce N. Disability in international health and development work:
the need for policy development. Society for Disability Studies
Annual Meeting, Washington, 16 June 1996.
21 Goodwill CJ, Chamberlain MA (eds) Aims of rehabilitation. In
Rehabilitation of the Physically Disabled Adult. London : Chapman
& Hall Medical, 1981.
22 Johnstone M. Models of disability, Psychologist 1966; May,
205-210.
23 Szivos S, Griffiths E. Coming to terms with learning difficulties: the
effects of group work and group processes on stigmatised identity:
In: Waitman A & Conboy-Hill S (eds), Psychotherapy and Mental
Handicap. London: Sage, 1992.
24 Lenny J. Do disabled people need counselling? In Swain J,
Finkelstein V, French S & Oliver M (eds) Disabling Barriers-
Enabling Environments. London: Sage in Association with the Open
University Press, 1996.
25 Keith L. Mustn’t Grumble. London: Women’s Press, 1996.
26 Morris J. Able Lives: Women’s Experiences of Paralysis. London:
Women’s Press, 1989.
27 Finger A. First Due. London: Women’s Press, 1991.
28 Partridge J. Changing Faces: The Challenge of Facial Disfigurement.
London: Penguin, 1990.
29 Abberley P. The concept of oppression and the development of a
social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap and Society 1987; 2 :
5-19.
30 Abberley P. The significance of the OPCS disability survey. In:
Oliver M. (ed.) Social Work: Disabled People and Disabling
Environments. London : Jessica Kingsley, 199I.
3 1 Hevey D. The Creatures Time Forgot: Photography and Disability
Imagery. London: Routledge, 1992.
32 lmrie R. Disability and the City: International Perspectives.
London: Paul Chapman, 1996.
33 Sibley D. Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge, 1996.
34 Barnes C. Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Casefor
Anti-Discrimination Legislation, 2nd edn. London: Hurst and
Company in Association with the British Council of Organizations
of Disabled People, 1994.
35 Morris J. Pride Against Prejudice : Transforming Attitudes to
Disability. London: Women’s Press, 1991.
36 Finkelstein V . (ed.) Attitudes and Disabled People. New York:
commissioned and published by the World Rehabilitation Fund,
1980.
37 Roulstone A. Access to new technology in the employment of
disabled people. In: Swain J, Finkelstein V, French S and Oliver M
(eds) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London: Sage in
Association with the Open University Press; 1994; 241-249.
38 Bogdan R. Freak Show: Presenting human oddities for amusement
and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
39 Mirzoeff N. BodyScape: Art, Modernity and the Ideal Figure.
London: Routledge, 1995.
40 Groce N. Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Heredity Deafness
on Martha’s Vineyard. London: Harvard University Press, 1985.
41 Shakespeare T. Cultural representations of disabled people.
Disability and Society 1994; 9 : 283-299.
42 Hunt P. (ed.) Stigma. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.
43 Oliver M. The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan, 1990.
44 Zola IK. ‘Depiction’s of disability - metaphor, message, and
medium in the media: a research and political agenda. Social
Science Journal 1985; 22.
45 French S. ‘The attitudes of health professionals towards disabled
people’. In: Hales G fed.)
 Models of disability
46 Rose N. The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and
Society in England 1869-1930. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1985.
47 Hugman R. Power in Caring Professions. London : Macmillan,
1991.
48 Beresford P, Campbell J. Disabled people, service users, user
involvement and representation. Disability and Society 1994; 9.
49 Parker I, Georgaca G, Harper D, Mclaughlin T, Stowell-Smith M.
Deconstructing Psychopathology. London: Sage, 1995.
50 Woodhead M. Psychology and the cultural construction of
children’s needs: In: James A & Prout A (eds) Constructing and
Reconstructing Childhood. London : Falmer Press, 1990; 6G78.
51 Morris J. Independent Lives: Community Care and Disabled People.
London: Macmillan, 1993.
52 Barton L. Disability and Dependency. Lewes: Falmer Press, 1989.
Disabil Rehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of North Texas on 12/02/14
For personal use only.
53 Padden C, Humphries T. Deaf in America: Voicesjrom a culture.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.
54 Groce N. ‘The town fool’: an oral history of a mentally retarded
individual in a small town society. In: Ferguson PM, Ferguson DL
& Taylor SJ (eds) Interpreting Disability: A Qualitative Reader.
New Y o r k : Teachers College Press, 1992.
55 Haraway DJ. A cyborg manifesto: science, technology and socialist-
feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Simians, Cyborgs and
Women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association
Books, 1991.
56 Crow L. Renewing the social model. In: Morns J (ed.) Encounters
with Strangers. London: Women’s Press, 1996.
57 Bewley C, Glendinning C. Involving Disabled People in Community
Care Planning. Community Care in Practice Series. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 1994.
91