Introduction                                                                                                                                     1

The Medical model                                                                                                                     2

Social model                                                                                                                                3

The human rights model                                                                                                              4

The cultural model                                                                                                                      5

Conclusion                                                                                                                                       5

Reference                                                                                                                                         6

Introduction

An overview of the research that has been done in the area of disability definitions, models, and theories. It is the purpose of this essay to analyse how these concepts and ideas related to disability studies, as well as to people with disabilities' social and political activities. They are also discussed in terms of how they may contribute to worldwide social health policy and research (Barnes,2019). Scholars must familiarise themselves with the numerous models of disability that impact the public's views and attitudes regarding people with disabilities (PWDs). According to SMART, such an initial evaluation is critical because, as Smart points out, such models have several vital functions: The medical model considers impairment a problem inside a person. The human rights model acknowledges the basic human rights of individuals with disabilities. The social model distinguishes between physical, mental, and sensory impairments and disabilities resulting from social injustice (Ziegler,2020). The cultural model raises concerns about the distinction between impairment and disability.

In the first scoping study, the medical model of impairment received the most significant attention. One may argue that this isn't a surprise, given how medicine has always treated disability. A "deviation" from "normal" bodily functioning, according to medical theories, is what causes impairment and has "undesirable" repercussions for the person who is experiencing it (Dixon,2021). A person's impairment is seen as a sign of an underlying physical abnormalities pathology inside their own body. Medical therapy should aim to rectify or avoid the abnormality by targeting the underlying pathology. Individuals argue this is an example of biological reductionism, which views disability as an individual shortcoming or issue that must be cured, corrected, or avoided rather than as a consequence of the social ramifications. This conflict has influenced the discussion on the medical model (Rembis,2019). For the most part, disability has been seen as a medical condition rather than a mental health issue. Debate exists concerning whether the medical paradigm should be considered transactional or systems-based. Rather than seeing development as a 'transaction' between people and their environments, the researchers contend that a systems perspective sees it as 'synergistic.' These early insights into ecological models have given technology and science studies in the sociology of health and illness more significance in recent years. Obesity, smoking, aggression, risky behaviour, and even global warming have all been studied using (bio)medical models in recent years (Breen and Forwell,2020). In spite of this, as we've seen, they're seldom linked to more inclusive theoretical discussions on disability. Health status instruments and normative reference cases are seldom mentioned in early health writings, and it is very unusual for early health writings to focus on these types of metrics. This is especially true for early publications on health. Defined assessment scales like "quality of life" were part of the first medical models (Arango Lasprilla and Force,2021). When assessing Quality of Life (QOL), researchers were uncommon to include environmental, opportunity, or a debilitating process in their analysis. There was no effort to study how disability may be socially created, emphasising individual conditions. Primary sociological research on disease and its function in society outlined the key features of people's "sick role" in every culture where the medical model is prevalent. People with disabilities (PWDs) who want to continue receiving assistance and support from healthcare providers that follow the medical model of disability should play the "sick role" appropriately (Brilmyer,2018).

The social model of disability

A reaction to the limitations of the medical model, influenced by British disability activism mostly in the era of 1960s and 1970s in the United Kingdom and worldwide, the social model of disability was born. Because society disables individuals with disabilities, according to the social model, also known as the minority model, any successful cure must concentrate on societal reform rather than individual accommodation and rehabilitation (Dirth and Branscombe,2018). According to social model scholars, the word "disabled people" is a better representation of the daily oppression that individuals with disabilities face since the term "individuals with impairments" is tied to the medical model's worldview. Disabled people have been shown to be hindered by the structures and attitudes of society. In order to establish the social model's claim about the appropriateness of the term disabled people, the researcher makes use of individuals with learning disabilities. Those who have a learning handicap are hindered by society's treatment of their condition (Schalk and Kim,2020). The 'barriers to participation that people with disabilities face due to numerous ableist societal and environmental circumstances are at the heart of the social model. Theological models of disability may be seen as variations on the social model in the subject of disability theology. Union Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) 1976 distinguishes between "impairment" and "disability," two words that are sometimes used interchangeably. A deficient limb, organ, or bodily system is considered impaired if it is missing all or part of one or more limbs (Symeonidou and Loizou,2018). People with disabilities (PWDs) are subjected to "a special sort of societal oppression," according to this understanding of disability. The word 'impairment' instead of 'physical impairment' has been used by many working in the disability community since the phrase 'physical impairment' might be interpreted as excluding sensory and cognitive disorders.

It seems that the social model of disability is under attack almost universally for its inclusion of embodied experiences in its social constructionist interpretation. This has resulted in political wins but at the price of disabled people's identities, who are 'gifting' their bodies to medical interpretation (Smith and Bundon,2018). It is also criticised for focusing on disability rather than diversity. Because it is not always feasible to change the social environment, the social model of disability may exclude persons with learning disabilities, leaving personal and social differences unaddressed and unequally accepted. UK social model of disability assumes that all disabled persons are oppressed and overlooks a wide range of actual experiences of impairment (Bickenbach,2019). Disabled people's experiences will illuminate their distinctions, such as those between those with learning disabilities and those with physical impairments, reinforcing the individual medical model. This complicates things even further since disability is so different, and there has been a lack of understanding of how it manifests itself. This has the potential to reduce tyranny to its most tangible manifestation (Shildrick,2019). Building consensus and solidarity may be easier if a shared theoretical framework is used, and recognising differences can help people understand why the agreement is so difficult to attain.

The human rights model of disability

Disabilities and human rights go hand in hand in many respects. The human rights and social models are often seen as being almost similar by academics, yet one researcher has found some significant differences between the two. There are two separate approaches to disability policy: one that emphasises the human dignity of people with disabilities and one that emphasises how society shapes our understanding of disability (Mitra,2018). First- and second-generation human rights are both included in the model of human rights, in the sense that 'it encompasses both kinds of human rights. Some PWDs have difficult living conditions, and the human rights model acknowledges this and believes that these issues should be considered in the formulation of applicable social justice theories. When it comes to minority and cultural identification, the human rights model is more inclusive than the social model, which doesn't pay sufficient attention to political correctness (Gomes et al,2019). The human rights perspective, on the other hand, acknowledges that properly formulated public health policies that embrace disability preventative measures may be an example of protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities as well. Despite the fact that socioeconomic models may explain why people with disabilities live in poverty, the human rights model offers specific recommendations for improving the lives of those with disabilities (Whitburn and Michalko,2019).

The cultural model of disability

Disability studies in the social sciences and humanities have been handled in an interdisciplinary fashion by several researchers in the North American setting, where the cultural model of disability evolved. Another researcher describes the key differences between the cultural model and the medical model and the social model in the context of the cultural model. Unlike the medical and social models, the cultural model focuses on various cultural issues regarding disability (Barnes,2020). Such considerations include, but are not limited. This means that rather than defining disability, the cultural approach aims to understand how various conceptions of disability and non-disability interact within a given cultural setting. For the cultural approach to understanding disability, Researchers name Snyder and Mitchell's (2006) work has been significant in defining its theoretical outlines. People with disabilities "find themselves placed, frequently against their choice," they contend, in "cultural places of disability (Retief and Letšosa,2018). The primary issue with these artificial settings is the modernist concepts that underlie them, notably the technique of 'classifying and pathologising human characteristics recognised today as impairments and then managing them via different institutional sites' (Rembis,2019). A comparison should be made between more authentic cultural modes of disability knowledge, such as "disability culture," "living independently," and other theoretical constructs focused on associations of handicapped persons," and more historical and cultural models of disability knowledge, which are useful techniques for understanding disability. This model of disability is becoming more widely accepted in the disability world, particularly among deaf culture theorists (Ziegler,2020).

Conclusion

The four primary models of disability described in this essay influence how persons with disabilities (PWDs) are seen. Even though these are not the only models of disability that may be found today, they are the most prevalent types now. Whether a theologian wants to participate in disability theology, they should first do critical self-examination to see if any of the above models of disability impact their thinking on persons with disabilities (Arango Lasprilla and Force,2021). A theologian needs to know which models of disability affect their thinking before beginning the process of creating a Christ-centered, biblically anchored, and relevant to the lives of people with disabilities (PWDs) theology. The research found that theories and models are never applied in a "discrete" manner but instead produce a wide-ranging and frequently polarising discussion without a single point of reference (Breen and Forwell,2020).

First and foremost, connecting public health research with more inclusive perspectives on disability is a difficult task. A deliberate decision was made to make the models more approachable and emphasise their primary themes (Brilmyer,2018). However, this may have been done in a more idealistic or static manner than is the case. Consider how the medical model has evolved and been improved over the years due to the constant scrutiny it has received. Therefore, debates are dynamic and multidisciplinary (Schalk and Kim,2020). They interact with one another to create a fluidity that is sensitive to both theory and the development of practical applications. Current theory has grown increasingly sensitive to the existence as various parts of identity, belief systems, and classifications of disability compete for supremacy.

Reference

Barnes, C., 2019. Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future. In Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 14-31). Routledge.

Ziegler, M.E., 2020. Disabling language: Why legal terminology should comport with a social model of disability. BCL Rev., 61, p.1183.

Dixon, H., 2021. Immersive performance and inclusion through a lens of the social model of disability. Interactions, 28(3), pp.70-72.

Rembis, M., 2019. Challenging the impairment/disability divide: Disability history and the social model of disability. In Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies (pp. 377-390). Routledge.

Breen, J.S. and Forwell, S., 2020. The difference model of disability: A change in direction for vocational rehabilitation practice. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 26(1), pp.12-17.

Arango Lasprilla, J.C. and Force, R.E.T., 2021. PREparedness, REsponse and SySTemic transformation (PRE-RE-SyST): a model for disability-inclusive pandemic responses and systemic disparities reduction derived from a scoping review and thematic analysis.

Brilmyer, G., 2018. Archival assemblages: applying disability studies’ political/relational model to archival description. Archival Science, 18(2), pp.95-118.

Dirth, T.P. and Branscombe, N.R., 2018. The social identity approach to disability: Bridging disability studies and psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), p.1300.

Schalk, S. and Kim, J.B., 2020. Integrating race, transforming feminist disability studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 46(1), pp.31-55.

Symeonidou, S. and Loizou, E., 2018. Disability studies as a framework to design disability awareness programs: no need for ‘magic’to facilitate children’s understanding. Disability & Society, 33(8), pp.1234-1258.

Smith, B. and Bundon, A., 2018. Disability models: Explaining and understanding disability sport in different ways. In The Palgrave handbook of paralympic studies (pp. 15-34). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Bickenbach, J.E., 2019. The ICF and its relationship to disability studies. In Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 55-71). Routledge.

Shildrick, M., 2019. Critical disability studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 32-44). Routledge.

Mitra, S., 2018. The human development model of disability, health and wellbeing. In Disability, health and human development (pp. 9-32). Palgrave Pivot, New York.

Gomes, R.B., Lopes, P.H., Gesser, M. and Toneli, M.J.F., 2019. New dialogues in feminist disability studies. Estudos Feministas, 27(1), pp.1-13.

Whitburn, B. and Michalko, R., 2019. Blindness/sightedness: Disability studies and the defiance of di-vision. In Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 219-233). Routledge.