1

Introduction

Colin Barnes, Mike 0/iver and Len Barton

Over recent years the re has been an unprecedented upsurge of interest

in the general area of disability amongst social scientists i n universities
and col l eges across the world . There a re now 'disa bility studies' courses
and spec ia l ist journal s in the United States and Canada ( Albrecht
et al., 2001 ) , Britain (Barton and Ol i ver 1997), and Australia and New
Zealand ( Sullivan and Muntford 1998). There are a lso networks of
scholars studying disa bility in the Nordic countries (Tideman 1999)
and throughout Europe ( van Oorschot and Hvinden 2001 ) . This has
been accompanied by an increasi ngly expansive l iteratu re from a variety
of perspectives. Recent examples include cultural studies ( Mitchell
and Snyder 2001 ), de v elo pment studies ( Stone 1999), geography (Glee­
son 1999), history (Longmore and Umansky 200 1 ) , philosophy (Wendell
1996), social policy ( D rake 1999), social psychology (Marks 1999)
and sociology ( Ba rnes et a l . , 1999). Perhaps i nevitably, with this
heightened interest a number of important chal l enges and debates have
eme rged which raise a number of important questions for all those
interested in this newl y e m e rgent and increasingl y important field of
enqu iry.
This Reader a i ms to p rov ide an i ntroduction to, and an overview of,
these concerns and controversies. Although the field is i n creasingl y inter­
dis c i pl i n a ry in nature, the emphasis is predominantly a sociological one,
as it is ou r contention that socio lo gica l theories and insights, whether
intentiona lly or otherw ise, ha v e and can continue to p l a y a crucial role in
the development of disabil ity studies. Altho ugh the focus is primari ly on
theoretica l innovation and advancement, the arguments p resented here
2 Colin Barnes, Mike 0/iver and Len Barton

have important politi c al and policy impl ications for both di s a h lcd a11d
non - di sa bled people.
Disa bil it y studies, like ethnic, women's, and gay and lesbian stud ies,
has developed from a position of engagement and a cti v i s m rather tha n
one of detachme nt . Thus, as editors, we have s o ught contributors who
cou l d write from such a position. This is because it is o ur fi rm (.;Onv iction
that this enhances, rather than detracts from , the q u al i ty o f the i r contr i­
butions, and that the dia logue within these chapters w i l l provide yer
fu rther stimulus fo r the future dev e l op m e n t of disabi lity stud ies.

Background

The incre a sed i nterest in d i sab il it y in the ac a demy should not be su rpris­
ing, given that there is now a growi ng recognition that it raises a n u m ber
of i mpo rta nt theoretica l a nd e m pirical questions at both the indi vidual
and the structural level that are not easi l y answered with reference to
est a bl i shed w i s d o m . D isabi l ity is b o t h a common p e r s on a l e x pe r ience
and a g lobal phen o m e non , with wi de s p read economic, cultural and
political implicati on s for society as a whole. Pe o ple with accredited
impai r me nt s have existed since the dawn of time, and have had a pres­
ence in all societies.
Recent esti mates suggest that the re are around 8.2 million d isa bled
people in B r i ta i n, 50 m i l l i o n i n the European Union and 5 00 m illion
wo rldw i d e . Moreover, these figures a re set to rise d ra m ati c a l ly over the
coming decades, both i n the rich, ' deve l oped ' nations of the m i n or ity
world and in the poorer, 'developi ng' c o u n t r i es of the m a j o r it y world
( IDF 1 99 8 ) . 1n rich an d poor countries alike, disabled people a re amongst
the poorest of t he poor ( Coleridge 1 993: Stone 1 9 99: WHO 2 00 1 ),
which r a i ses a number of issu es for politicians and pol i c y makers a t a l l
levels and in a l l states.
Since its politicization in the 1 960s by d i sa b i lity activists and d is a bil ity
organizations across the world, disability has beco m e a n i nc reas i ngly
i mportant issue for politicians and policy makers at b o t h the national
a n d the international levels. Many n a ti on a l governments now have some
form of anti-discrim ination law or policy to secure the equal rights of
disa bled pe opl e . Ea rl y examples i nclu de Britain's 1 970 Ch ron i ca l l y Sick
and Disabled Person 's Act a n d the American 1 973 Rehabilitation Act.
Although relati ve ly ineffective, both promoted i mp r ove d environmental
access and the developme nt of more c om pre h e n si ve services for disa bled
people. The latter incl uded the histo ri c Section 504 w hi c h prohi bited
discrimi nation against disabled people in fede ral l y funded program mes.
 Introduction 3

Government responsibility for securing equal rights for disabled

people was formally recognized at the international level by the United
Nations in 1 981, the UN's Inte rnational Yea r of Disa bled People . The
following year the UN General Assem bly adopted by consensus a 'World
Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons', outlining a globa l
strategy o n the prevention o f disability and the real ization o f the full
potential of disa bled people. The next ten years were designated 'The UN
Decade of Disabled Persons'. Between 1990 and 1993 member states
in close colla boration with i nternational disabled peoples' organizations
devel oped 'The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for
Person s with D i sa bilities'. There are twenty-nvo Standard Rules covering
medical and community- based services and facilities . The Rules were
formally adopted by the UN in 1993 (WHO, 2001 ).

The coming of disability studies

Prior to the 1980s, one or two notable exceptions a side, academic

interest in disabil ity was confined almost exclusively to conventional,
individual i stic medical explanations, and even where others had become
involved, they tended to reproduce disabi lity u ncritically within these
frameworks. A classic exemplar i s found in the work of the influential
American functionalist sociologist Talcott Pa rsons ( 1 951 ) , which centred
on medicine as a mechanism of socia l integrati on and control. Since then
various 'illness' perspectives have predominated in American sociology in
particular. Initi a l ly, Parsons's (1951) interpretation of sickness as a social
status and the rights and responsibilities assoc iated with the 'sick role'
exerted a considerable i nfluence within sociology throughout the world.
Subsequently, this work was supplemented by va rious interactionist and
interpretive perspectives.
For Parsons sickness, whether s hort or long term, is a deviation from
the norm . Consequently the sociological analysis of the social responses
to disab i l i ry became largely the preserve of soc iologists i nterested in the
reaction to and m anagement of asc ribed social deviance. One nota ble
exam ple is Erving Goffman's ( 1968) account of the i nteractions between
the 'normal' and 'abnormal' entitled Stigma. Duri n g the fol lowing
decade particular a ttention was pa id to the social construction of 'mental
i l lness'. Examples include Thomas Scheff (1966) and D. L. Rosenhan
( 1 9 75 ) . Around the same time a psychoanalyst, Thomas Szasz ( 1 96 1 ) ,
had denied the very existence of mental illness, the validity of psychiatry
as a legitimate medical discipl ine, and the reha bilitation potential of
psychiatric hospita ls. For Szasz, the term 'menta l i llness' was a substitute
4 Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver and Len Barton

for a multitude of problems of li ving. The idea that menta l i l l ness an d

other forms of ascri bed social deviance a re little more t h a n soci a l co n ­
structs gene rated by an i n c r easi n g l y dominant, mora listic soci a l o rde r
was given a further boost by the writi ngs of the French p h i loso p h e r
Michel Foucault ( 1 975, 1 979). Foucau lt's w ork was pa r ti ..:u l a r ly i nfluen­
tial on the development of postmodern thi n k i ng i n a varie ty of fie lds,
i nc ludin g d isabi lity s t u dies, during the 1 990s, a s we shall sec i n s e v e ra l of
the contri butions to this book.
However, within sociology interest in the genera l area of 'disa bi l ity'
inc r ease d during the late 1 960s and 1 970s with t h e p u h l i cat ion i n
the United States of Robert Sc ott s The Making o f Blind Men ( 1 96 9 )
'

and Gary Albrecht's edited collection Th e Sociology of Physica l D isab il­

ity and R ehabilitat ion ( 1 976 ) and in Brit a i n of Mildred Blaxtcr's
The Meaning of Disability ( 1 976 ) and Peter Townsend 's Pouerty in the
United K ingdom ( 1 979 ) . But whilst each of these studies drew a t te ntio n
to the va rious economic and social con se q uen c e s of the ascr i ption of a
conventional 'disabled' identity, none made an y seri o us a tte m p t t o q u es­
tion its ideo log ic a l underpinnings: what has variou sly been called the
'individual', 'medical' or ' pe r so n a l tragedy' model of disabil ity. In sum,
while this work recognized the significance of economic, socia l an d
cultural factors in the production of disability, the causes of the wide­
spread economic and soci al deprivation encountered by disa bled people
were located within the i n d i vid u a l and their i mpa i rment . The th eoretica l
insights that had been applied to the concept of men tal i l lness w ere n ever
extended to add ress other impairments, particularly p h ys i c a l di sa bi lity '.
'

The challenge to orthodox views came not from w i t hi n th e aca d e m y

but from disabled people themsel ves. Although the origins of politic a l
activism amongst people with accredited impairments can be t r ac ed b a c k
to the ni neteenth century ( Campbell and Oliver 1 996; Lo ngm ore an d
Umansk y 200 1 ) , it escalated significantly during the 1 96 0 s and 1 9 7 0s .
Inspired by the pol itica l and soc ial upheavals of th e perio d, d i s a ble d
p eople b eg a n to organize c olle ct i vely in i ncreasi ngl y large n um bers to
protest against t he i r incarcera tion in re s iden t i a l institutions, the i r poverry
and the discrimination they encountered . The pattern is de m onstrated
across the United States, Canada and various cou ntri es throughou t
Eur ope Notable early examples i nc lude t he Am e r ica n In dependent
.

Living Movement and the Swedish Self Advocacy Movement, as well as

the formation of The D isablement Inc o m e G r ou p ( D I G ) a nd th e U nion of
the Physical ly Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) in Bri tain ( Camp­
bell and Oliver 1 9 96 ) .
But the British e xperience i s especially important, si nce i t g ene ra ted a
r a d ical and controver sial new a pp r oach to th e ory and p r ac ti ce now
 Introduction 5

generally referred to as 'the social model of disability'. Here the activities

of grass roots organizat ions controlled and run by disabled people, such
as the UPIAS and the Liberation Network of People with Disabilities, are
especially important. These and similar organizations provided the fertile
grou nd in which disa bled activists could explore and reconfigure the
whole notion of d isa bili t y. These 'organic intellectuals' (Gramsci 1971)
produced an i mpressive body of work, the impact of which is only now
being fully appreciated. Key texts include Paul Hunt's edited collection of
disabled people's narratives entitled Stigma: The Experience of Disability
(1966), UPIAS's Fundamental Principles of Disability ( 1976), Vie Finkel­
stein's Attitudes and D isa bled People (1980), Alan Sutherla nd's Disabled
We Stand (1981 ), Mike Oliver's Social Work with Disabled People
(1983) and The Politics of Disablement ( 1990).
Drawing im p lici tl y, if not explicitly, on bo th personal experience and
soc i olog ical insights, this l iterature con stitutes a direct challenge to con­
ventional thinking and practice on disabil i ty. For examp le , although not
a sociologist, Paul Hunt, a resident in a residential home for 'physically
d isabled people' during the 1950s and 1960s, 'read a lot to s upp le me nt
his curta iled education' and was 'especially interested in the social and
psychological aspects of disablement' (Hunt 1966: 144 ) . Moreover, Fin­
kelstein's early work is heavily i nfluenced by the writings of Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels (see Feuer 1969). As noted earlier, traditional ap·
proaches centred almost exclusively on individual li m it ations , whether
real or i magined, as the princ i pal cause of the m u l tiple deprivations
encountered by disabled people. By contrast, the social interpretation
of disability argues that peop le with accredited or perceived impa ir·
ments, regardless of cause, a re disa bled by society's fai l ure to accommo·
date their needs .
This approach does not deny the signi ficance of impairment in disabled
people's lives, but concentrates i nstead on the various ba rriers, economic,
political and social, constructed on top of impairment. Thus 'disability' is
not a product of individua l failings, but is socially created; explanations
of its c hanging cha racter are found in the organization and structures of
society. Rather than id en tif ying disability as a n individual li mitation, the
s ocial model identifies society as the problem, and looks to fundamental
pol itical and cultural changes to generate solutions.

Disability studies and the academy

None the less, although the emergence of the soc ial model of d isa bi li ty
provided the ' big idea ' (Hasler 1993) for the mobi lization of disa bled
6 Colin Barnes, Mike 0/iver and Len Barton
people across the UK duri ng the 1 9 80s and 1 9 90s, it was slow to find
acceptance in sociology departments in British un iversities. T h i s is espe­
cially surprising given sociology's traditional focus on soci a l inequality
and divisions associated with social class, gender and race. Studies of
disabi l i ty have been typical l y situated within the context of 111 ed ical
sociology and the sociology of health a nd illness courses where i nrerac­
tionist and phenomenological perspectives have preva iled. These have
documented the impact and meaning of the onset of spc<.:ific acute and
chronic i l l ness. This has been accompanied by a largely athcore tical
tradition of socio-medical research driven by practica l mcd 1 c a l and
hea lth service concerns. The outcome i s an extensive literatu re that
chronicles the extent and nature of chronic i llness, its conseq ue nc:es for
daily living, and its impact on social relationships, the sense of self and
identity (Williams 1 997) .
Consequently, despite the sociological insights of social model th inking,
Britain's first disability studies course was not developed within a sociology
department or even within a conventional university setting. It w a s con­
ceived and produced by an interdisciplinary team at the Open Uni versity
( O U ) in 1 9 75 . A key figure in the development of this course was a disa bled
South African clinical psychologist, Vie Finkelstein; he was also a n anti­
apartheid and disability activist, and a founder member of the U PIAS. The
OU provided an appropriate setting for this new course, as its e m e rgence
signalled a radical new approach to university ed ucation. lt began oper­
ations i n 1 9 7 1 , and had no formal entry qualifications apart from being
over 1 8 , resident in the UK, and competent in English. Pioneering a variety
of multi-media teaching strategies and distance learning techniques, the
OU provided unprecedented opportunities for all those disadvantaged by
Britain's education system, includi ng disabled people.
The course attracted more than 1 ,200 students in its first year. These
included professi onals, voluntary workers and disabled people from all
over the country. Entitled 'The Handicapped Person in the Community',
its stated aim was to help students improve thei r ' professional and s ocial
skills i n order to assist handicapped people to achieve maximum aottmt­
omy' ( Finkelstein 1 997: 4 1 ; emphasis added ) . From the outset the course
was criticized for its 'sociological bias' ( finkelstein 1 997: 46 ) . 1t was
updated twice before its abolition in 1 994, and each time more and more
disabled people were involved in the production of course materials. The
final version of the programme was re-titled 'The Disabling Societ:t ', to
reflect its wider content. Over the years the OU team generated a wealth
of material, which provided the basis for the development of a w hole
host of disability studies courses and professiona l training schcm� s a t
both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels in mainstream c oll eges
 Introduction 7

and uni versities across the UK. Nota ble examples include Handicap in a

Social World edited by An ne Brechin a nd Penny Liddiard ( 1981) and

Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments edited by John Swain, Vie
Finkelstein, Sally French and Mike O liver (1993 ).
By way of contrast, disability was introduced o n to the mainstream
academic agenda in the United States a nd Canada in the 1970s. Aga i n the
link between disability activism and the academy was i nstrumental i n this
process. D isability rights advocates and academics concerned with dis­
ability issues cam e together at numerous conferences and discovered that
they shared similar concerns . Several were both advocates and academ­
ics, 'much like the participants in numerous civil rights movements' . A
maj or catalyst i n bringing these two groups together was the 1977 'White
House Conference on H andicapped Individuals', which attracted o ver
3,000 delegates. In the same year the first disabi lity studies course was
offered. It was in the area of medical sociology, and focused on the
experience of li ving with a 'disability, a critica l life experience which
many persons avoid recognising' (Pfeiffer and Yoshida 1995: 476). The
main tutor was a disabled person. In 1 98 1 a disabled sociologist and the
chairperson of the Medical Sociology Section of the American Sociology
Association, lrving K. Zola, founded the Disability Studies Quarterly and
eo-founded the American- based Society for D i sability Studies. In the
same year twelve d isabi l ity studies courses were being taught in American
institutions. By 1986 the number had risen to 23 (Pfeiffer and Yoshida
1995).
As in the UK, these early activities generated a small but significant body
of work. Examples include Frank Bowe's Handicapping America (1978)
and Zola's Missing Pieces: A Chronicle of Living with a Disability ( 1982).
These and other studies drew attention to the disabl ing tendencies of
American reha bilitation programmes as well as in American society.
However, this literature, along with American approaches generally, fa iled
to recognize the significance of the distinction between impairment a nd
disability that characterized the British social model approach. In keeping
with the traditions of American pragmatism, the a rguments for civil rights
for disabled people were li nked with a minority group approach, rather
than providing a comprehensive theoretical explanation for disability and
the exclusion of disabled people from the mainstream of everyday life.
Moreover, it has recently been suggested that socio-political interpret­
ations of disabil ity have hitherto had relatively l ittle impact on American
sociology ( Gordon and Rosenblum 200 1 ) .
However, over the last few years, a contrary and more radical perspec­
tive has emerged, championed by a small but vocal band of predom in­
a ntly disabled scholars, many of whom are based in the humanities a nd
8 Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver and Len Barton

cultural studies fields, in universities in N orth America a n d A us t ra las i a .

This h a s led to a grow i ng demand for t h e development o f a m o re crit ic a l ,
interdisciplinary field of enq u i ry more in keeping w i t h the soc i o - pol i ti c a l
position associated with t h e soci a l model approach ( R ioux and B a ch
1 994; Davis 1 995; Meekoshe and Dowse 1 997; L inton l 99 H ; A lbrcc ht
et al. 200 1 ) . These initiatives provide increasingly common g ro u nd be ­
tween academics a n d resea rchers in the disabi lity studies field, a n(.l sig ni fy
a growing i nterest in the social-political approach pi onee red by Briti s h
writers. All of which has stimulated lively debates a bout the best way s
forward for the future development of the social model of disa b i l ity an d
the relations between disa bility activists and academ ics. It is t hese d e­
bates which form the starting point for the collection of pa pers th at
follow.

What is disability studies, and

how is it reflected in this book ?

In many w a ys this collection charts the changing nature of disability

studies: that is the transition from a rel atively stra ightforward dem an d
by d isa bled people for a s h i ft in emphasis away from the individ u a l an d
on to the structural and cultural forces that shape their l ives into a n
increasingly complex body of knowledge . For t h e originators of the O U
course, disabil ity studies concerned the 'study of disabled peopl e's l i fe­
styles and aspirations' ( Fi n kelstein 1 997: 3 7 ) . As a conseq uence, th e
content of the OU course, and the few others that were deve loped from
it i n Britain during the 1 980s, was concerned primari l y with soc i a l po lic y
concerns a nd the practica l ities of coming to terms with a di s a bled l i fe­
style in a world designed a l most exclusively for non-disa bled l i ving. The
esta blishment in 1 986 of the first international journal devoted exclu­
sively to disability issues, Disability, Handicap a nd Society, rename d
Disability and Society in 1 99 3 , by two of the co-editors of this book,
Len Barton and Mike Oliver, provided a n appropriate forum for the
further development of a truly comprehensive ' disa bility theory ' .
This was forthcoming i n 1 990 with the publication o f O l i ver 's Th e
Politics of Disablement. D rawing on a variety of influences including
personal experience, the writings of disabled people such as Finkelstei n
and Hunt, and the sociologica l insights of Marx, Auguste Comte ( Len ze r
1 975 ) and Antonio Gramsc i ( 1 97 1 ) amongst others, the book p rovides a
theoretical explanation of the material ist and ideological foundati ons
upon which contemporary responses to disabil ity are based. Generally
associated with the social model of d isability, this book has h ad a
 Introduction 9

considerable i nfluence both within and without universities and colleges

across the world .
As well as prov i d i ng a much -nee ded theoretical d imension to the
disa bil ity studies agenda, the book gener ated considerable d eba te
amongst both activists and academics al ike, not least concerning
the role of non-disabled academics and previous studies of the experience
of impairment. Other concerns have been expressed rega rding the social
model's apparent neglect of the experience of impairment, the body, and
questions of difference in relation to gender, ethnicity, sexuality and
social class. Equally i mportan t is the contention that the largely materi­
alist interpretation of h isto ry genera ll y associated with social model
writings is overly s i mplis ti c. This is said to undermine the importance
of cultur a l factors in the oppre ssion of disabled people and to over­
emphasize the roles of paid work and the disabled people's movement
in the s tr uggle for equality. More recently, questions have been raised
regarding the social model's Anglo-American leani ngs and its potential
inapplicability within a majority world context in terms of both policy
and pol i tics . All of which raises further issues regarding the social model's
use va l ue as a mea ningful theoretical base upon which to conduct soc io ­
logic al research. It is these issues and concerns t hat und e rlie th e ch apters
for this b ook.

In chapter 2 Gary Albrecht argues that the development of disability

studies should be examined and understood in context. He d isc usses how
Amer i can pragmatism and soc iology influenced its develop ment in the
United States and d i rectly or i nd irectly addresses a n um be r of important
q uestions. These include the c on ten tion that t hose involved in disa bi lity
studies share a common discourse, that leaders and spokespeople in the
field represe n t all disa bled people, and that only disabled people can
effect iv e ly understand disability and con tr i bu te to th e development of
the disc i p l ine . Other conce rns include whether disa bility studies share a
common h istory and intel lectual traditi on ac ross countr i es a nd th rough ­
out h istory, and whether a d is ab i l i ty stud ies perspective can generate an
agreed agenda for health and welfare p ol icy.
In response Al brecht a rgues that pragm atism had a pr ofo und influence
on American thinking, social pol icy and world-view. When combined
with the e a rl y devel opment of Amer i can sociology - n ota bly inc l uding
survey research and the interactionism of the Ch icago school - it pro­
vided a broad framework and m ethodology for a d dressing disability
issues. He also shows how the American Independent Living Move ment
exerted politica l pressu re in the American context, an d shaped disa bility
studies a s a field. He concludes by suggesting t hat disability studies in the
10 Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver and Len Barton
United States have been characterized by a historica l insen s i b i l i t y ,wd a
disconcerting insularity. He mainta i n s that a respectfu l dialo�uc bet w een
scholars, pol icy makers a nd activi sts might address these conce rns.
A similar theme emerges in the third cha pter, by Carol Thoma s . She
focuses on the reconceptualization of disa bil ity by main ly British w r i te rs.
In her review of the emergence of disabi lity studies as a n a l·a demic
discipline, she centres on various developments surrounding the soc i al
model . She maintains that in the early stages the flesh that was added to
the bones of the model had a materialist cast. Here the roots of rhe
socially engendered restrictions on activity experienced by people with
impairments are sought i n the social relations of the capita list system of
commodity production. Contemporary exclusion is located in the oper­
ation of socially created ' socia l barriers' . More recently, she argues, and
as disability studies has gathered strength, other theoretical perspectives,
much influenced by social constructionist thought, have also made thei r
presence felt in disability studies.
The social m odel itsel f has been criticized and vigorously defended.
Ensuing debates about disability have demanded an engagement w i r h the
significance of culture in the creation of disability and with the m.mer of
impairment itself. The intersection of disability with other forms of
oppression - gender, race, sexual orientation and to a lesser extent social
class and age - has been placed on the agenda by disabled femi n i sts and
those who are of a more postmodernist persuasion. This has dema nded
that the lived experiences of categories of d isabled people ( men, women,
straight, gay, and impairment-specific groups such as people with ' le a rn ­
ing difficulties' or 'mental health' system users and survivors) be better
understood, and, in a postmodernist sense, that these categories are
themselves deconstructed because they are essentialist a nd discursively
constructed.
She argues that debates within disa bility studies and between disabil­
ity studies writers and those in other disciplines, and especially medical
sociologists, are engines for the formulation of an even more sophisti­
cated materialist sociology of disability. For Thomas this must encom­
pass the furthe r recognition and theorization of the psycho-emotional
dimensions of d isability: namely, those disablist practices that undermine
the psychological and emotional well-being of people with impai rments
- what disabled activists have referred to as 'internalised oppression'
(Rieser 1 990).
Bill Hughes takes up the question of impairment in the fourth chapter.
He argues that the sociology of the body offers an opportunity for
drawing disabi lity studies i nto ma instream sociology, but suggests that
it has so far failed to do s o . He maintains that the problem for the l arter is
 Introduction 11
that the accusations of disablism are warra nted, since it has ignored the
question of disability. Conversely, the problem for disability studies is
that it has all but cut itself off from the possibility of developing a
meaningful sociology of impairment. [n traci ng the development of
orthodox, 'medical' sociological approaches to the study of the body,
he maintains that, despite the partial advances offered by labelling theory
and Goffman's study Stigma ( 1968), sociology has reinforced the physi­
cian's view that disability is a sickness . It is the a ntithesis of the concep­
tion of disability as a corporeal essence provided by disability studies, as
it emerged from the social model of disability, that makes sociology a
truly valuable frame of reference for reflections on disability. However,
the social model pushed the study of impa irment to the fringes of disabil­
ity studies, and it is only recently that it and the sociology o f the body
ha ve combined to try to map out the case for a sociology of i mpairment.
D rawing on research that examines the multiple oppressio n encoun­
tered by disabled women from minority ethnic communities, Ayesha
Vernon and John Swain remi nd us in chapter 5 that disabled people
will not judge disabi lity theory by its contribution to academic or re­
search d iscourses, but ultimately by its role in initiating social change. It
is in these terms that they a rgue that a consideration of socia l divisions
needs to i n form the development of disability theory. Agai n feminist and
postmodern insights are pertinent: in particular, the recogni tion of the
contradiction that women are simultaneously united through the imbal­
ance of power relations between women and men in the economic and
social structures o f society, but di vided through multiple social divisions.
They a rgue that sim ilar contradictions a re relevant to a n understanding
of the oppression experienced by disabled people. They mainta in that the
challenges of addressing the contradictions between commonality and
diversity are critical to the future development of disability theory. In
order to theorize and promote the development of a meaningful inclusive
society, the relationships between disa bility, ethnicity, sexuality, age and
gender must be critically exami ned.
In the follow i ng chapter Anne Borsay draws our attention to the poi nt
that history is a m i ssing piece of the j i gsaw in disability studies. She
argues that whi lst the field has expanded from its origins in social theory
and social policy to i nclude politics, cult ure, leisure and the media,
historical perspectives across the entire range of disabled people's experi ­
ences are virtually non-existent. This, s h e contends, is d ue t o the incom­
patibilities between sociology and h istory. Hence, an evaluation of the
historical models devel oped by social scientists is used to launch a social
history of disabil i ty in wh ich materialism and culturalism a re comple­
mentary rather than m utua lly exclusive. A comprehensive historical
12 Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver and Len Barton
su rvey is not attempted . I nstead , atten tion is cen tred on the i n re r face
between physical impairment, cha r i ty and medicine in the l a te n i netee nth
and early twentieth centuries. Demonstrating the usefu lness of h i storical
sources, moral and medical su rvei llance proced ures and the ensu i ng
resi stance strategies are examined. The cha pter concludes by e x ploring
the place of the past in shaping present responses to, and the iden r i r i e s of,
disa bled people.
I n chapter 7 Paul Abberley argues that if we are to expla i n disa b i l i t y a s
a form of soc i a l oppression, then we must de ve lop a n understa n d i n g of
what society m ight look l i ke i f people with impairments are not to be
disabled. This is necessary if we a re to develop effective pol ic ies to
combat social exclusion . To achi eve this, he considers how two fo r ms
of classical social theory, one conservative a nd the other radic a l , ad d ress
the relationship between work and social i nclusion. He mainta i n s that,
despite their d i fferences, they are sim i l a r in the sense that both i m pl y the
inevita bility of socia l exclusion of some people with impa irments in any
possible society. He draws upon feminist approaches to provide a v i s i on
of a more inclusive society in which work is not regarded as t he de fi n i ng
characteristic of full social inclusion. The practica l application of such a
view is the advocacy of a d ual strategy that takes account of those who
can work and valorizes the non-working l ives for those who are una ble
to. This he rel ates to the economic and soci a l upheavals of conte m pora ry
European soci ety.
The next c h a pte r by Ph i l Lee charts the devel opment of pol i t ical
activity around the issue of disabi l i ty, primarily, but not exc l usi vely,
within the United Kingdom over the last two decades. He shows that
whilst the disa bled people's movement has made considerable progress,
not least in advancing t he socia l model o f disabil ity and placing civil
rights for disabled people firm l y on the political agenda, rea l politi ­
ca l gains have been quite limited. Furthermore, translating the social
mode l into practical administrative procedures is l i kely to remain p rob­
lematic. This is largely because the social fa bric of the last third o f the
twentieth century has been transformed with the coming of postmodern­
ity and the ensuing lurch to the right of Britai n 's political institutions. Lee
suggests that rather than i ntensi fy the shift towa rd incl usivity, th is has
resu lted in heightened social divisions. He continues with an assessment
of whether there are grounds for optimism in four key areas: the em·iron­
ment, the world of work, anti-discri mination legislation and wider social
policy developments. The chapter concl udes with the contention that
there are a n umber of political paradoxes that envelop the fu ture pol itics
of disability and the disa bled people 's movement that are l i ke ly to i n h i bit,
rathe r than enha nce, the prospect o f further su bstantial political ga i n s .
 Introduction 13
We stay in the realm o f pol itics i n chapter 9, by the American writer
and disa b ility activ i st Harl an Hahn. His analysis examines several differ­
ent concepts that have previously been adopted as a basis for improving
the status of disa bl ed people, and explores innovative ideas and pro­
posals that might achieve this objective in coming years. Although an
effort is made to include comparative data, this investigation focuses
primarily on a case study of changes in d isability laws and program mes
in the United States. The first section contains a brief history of disability
policy, including the problems created by j ud icial resistance to anti­
discrimination statutes such as the 1990 Americans with D isabilities
Act. An attempt is made to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
proposal s that stem from the emergin g social model for research and
advocacy on behalf of disabled people. The second section assesses the
threats to the lives of d isabled citizens p osed by plans such as rationing
health care, assisted suicide and other medical interventions founded, in
part, on quasi-uti l itarian constructs and on cost-val ue analysi s . The final
part investigates several possible innovations implied by the principle of
empowerment. In particular, e mphasis is given to the possibility of en­
hancing the strength of disa bled citizens through permanent, systemic
and institutional change i n the policy-making process.
The tenth chapter, by Chris Holden and Peter Beres ford, addresses the
issues raised by a globalized political economy and ensuing debates
within the discipline of social policy concerning the i m pact of changes
in the world market on the welfare state. They take up the claim that
there has been little attempt to relate the emergent discourses on global ­
ization a n d post-industrial capita lism t o those of the disabled peoples'
movement and disabi l ity theorists. They contend that globalization
impacts powerfully on the lives of disa bled people, with reference to
various globalized responses to disabi l ity and disabled people and thei r
organizations. They postulate that, in turn, this holds out the potential
for the generation of a meaningful challenge to the n arrowly conceived
economistic way in which globalization has often been presented and
understood.
The chapter begins with a brief summary of some of the economic
changes which have been associated with globa lization and the d ifferent
positions wh ich have been taken on the significance of these w ithin the
political economy literature. These are j uxtaposed with earl ier economic
developments and their impl ications for disabi l ity policy global l y.
The discussion then addresses the impact of globalization u pon welfare
policy, and considers the significance of these debates for disabled people
and the welfare state. The authors argue that j ust as the last century
witnessed the generation of a meaningful political analysis of the role
14 Colin Barnes, Mike O liver and Len Barton

of industrial capita l ism in the creation o f di sa b i l i t y, so t h i s m u s t now

be extended to t a k e account of the impact of globa lization a n d post­
indu s tri a l ca pit a lis m . lt must a ddress both national a n d int e rn a t iona l
inequalities, as well as not io ns of welfa re and we l fa re policy develop­
ment.
The theme of globalization contin ues i n th e ne x t c h a pt e r in which
Marci a Rioux discusses the relationship be tween disabil ity and the con­
cept of human ri gh t s within a n international context. She a rgues that the
way go v e r nme n ts a llocate their resou rces reflects their interp reta t i o n of
ci t i zenship , the notion of r i g h t s a nd t he role of the stat e . She suggests that
the protection o f soci al r i ghts must be considered as a minimum standard
of l i fe and an entitlement that is fun d amenta l to co n tempo ra r y notions of
social justice. She d raws an im porta nt distinction between soc i a l and
economic g l oba li z a ti o n . She draws our attention to the fact th a t the
former is not so m uch a new idea but one that needs to be pursued
with renewed vigour an d cla ri t y i n the face of the lat t e r. She a rgues t ha t
disabled people have never been inc l uded in the m a i n strea m of social
rights . Tr a d iti o nal ly thei r issues have been re lega te d to social develop­
ment, to charity, to di spe n sati on , or to the determination of their as­
s u m e d best interests. But e c o n o m i c liberalization and g lob a l i z ati o n h a ve
highlighted the extent to which so me people are e x c l u ded . The denial of
lib er t i e s and the restriction of pa rt ic ipa t i o n in socie ty, those fu nd a men tal
freedo ms that govern ments promise thei r citize ns in dem oc ra c i e s , m ust
a l so be protected for those wi t h inpai r m ents .
C h apter 1 2 by Geof Mercer considers the reform u l a t i o n of disabili ty­
re l a ted research si n c e the coming of the soci a l m od e l of d i sabi l i t y. He
p r ovid es a broad o v e rvi ew of th e growing c r i ti q u e of e s ta b l i s h e d ways of
re sea rchi ng d is a bility in the latter half of the twentieth cen t u ry from
disabled peop l e a n d t h ei r orga ni z a t io n s . The st a rt ing poi nt is t h e re­
foc u si ng of s tu d i e s of d i sab i l it y away from the ways in wh i c h i n d ividual
limitations cont ri bu te to th e exclusion o f disabled people from everyday
social a ct ivi t ies , and towards the ways in which environmental and
cultural b a r r iers e ffec t ive l y d i sa b le peo p l e w ith impai rme nts . He shows
how the coming of the social model stimulated the nurturing of a new
re search p aradigm that is informed by similar emancipatory i n tentions. A
review of key issues pertaining to i ts development is p rov i de d with
pa rt icul a r re fe ren c e to the Bri t is h li tera t u re.
The discussion is located within competing pa r a d i gms of social in­
quiry. D r awi ng on the w ork of cr i t i c a l theorists, Mercer e xp l o res the
e manc ipa tory claims of this new app roa c h to r esea rch i n g d i sa b i li ty
issues. In c on tra s t to the more recent, overly pessi m istic s uggestion that
emancipatory d isa bi l i t y research might p rov e to be n ot h i ng more or less
 Introduction 15
than an 'impossible dream' ( Oliver 1 999) he argues that disabi lity re­
searchers are engaged in the advancement of both theory and practice .
He concludes by suggesting that in order to sustain this momentum,
disability researchers must devote far more attention to established
methodological considerations and concerns.
In the concluding chapter we begin by arguing that, given the i ncreas­
i ng interest in disability studies within the academy, it is essential that
academics maintain strong links with disabled people and thei r organiza­
tions . We examine the ways in which these interactions are currently
being developed. We argue that further interaction is essential i f we are to
cultivate a more comprehensive understanding of the process and experi­
ence of disability and the ongoing excl usion of disabled people from the
mainstream of everyday life . Finally, we examine some of the encroach­
ing economic and political forces that are likely to influence the shaping
of this hitherto m utually beneficial interface.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, G. L. (ed.) 1976: The Sociology of Physical Disability and Rehabili­

tation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Albrecht, G. L., Seelman, K. and Bury, M. (eds ) 2001: Handbook of Disability
Studies. London: Sage.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G. and Shakespeare, T. 1999: Exploring Disability: A Socio­
logical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.
Barton, L. and Oliver, M. (eds) 1997: Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future.
Leeds: Disability Press.
Blaxter, M. 1976: The Meaning of Disability. London: Heinemann.
Bowe, F. 1978: Handicapping America. New York: Ha rpe r & Row.
Brechin, A., L i ddia rd , P. with Swain, j. 1981: Handicap in a Social World.
Sevenoaks: Hodder and Sto ughto n in association with the Open University.
Ca mpbe l l , J. a n d Oliver, M. 1996: Disability Politics: Understanding Our Past,
Changing Our Future. London: Rourledge.
Cole ridge , P. 1993: Disability, Liberty & Development. Oxford: Oxfam.
Davis, L D. 1995: Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness and the Body.
London: Verso.
Drake, R. 1999: Understanding Disability Policy. London: Macmillan.
Feuer, L. S. ( ed. ) 1969: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy: Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels. Glasgow: Collins.
Finkelstein, V. 1980: Attitudes and Disabled People. New York : World Rehabili­
tation Fund.
Finkelstein, V. 1997: Emancipating disability studies. In T. Shakespeare (ed_), The
Disability Studies Reader, London: Cassell, 28-49.
16 Colin Barnes, Mike 0/iver and Len Bartmt
Foucault, M . 1 975: Th e Birth of the Clinic: An A rcheolog)' of Medtc<l i l'ercep­
tion. New York : Vantage Books.
Foucault, M . 1 979: D t scip lme and Punish: The Birth of the l' rt son , t r. iro m the
French by Alan Sheridan. Harmondsworth: P e ngu i n .
Gleeson, B. 1 999: Geographies of Disability. London : Routlcdge .
Go ffm a n , E. 1 96 8 : Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled ldt•n tity.
Engl ew oo d Cli ffs, NJ: Prenticc-Hall.
Gordon, B. 0. and Rosenblum, K . E . 200 1 : Bringing disability m to the socio­
logical frame: a comparison of disabil ity with race, sex a nd se x u a l orrc n t a tion
statuses. Disability and Society, 1 6 ( 1 ) , 5 - 1 9 .
Gramsci, A. 1 97 1 : Selections from the Prison N o tebo oks . London : New l eft
Books.
Hasler, F. 1 9 93: Developments in the Disabled Peo p l e 's Movement. I n J. S wain ,
V. Finkelstein, S. French and M. Oliver (eds ), Disa b ling Barriers - l:na bling
Envtronments . iondon: Sage in Association with the Open U n ive r si t y, l ?!l- 8 4 .
H unt, P. ( ed . ) 1 9 6 6 : Stigma: The Experience o f Disa bili ty. London : ( ;cof frey
·

Chapman.
IDF 1 99 8 : \Vorld Disa biliy R eport. Geneva : International D i sa b i lit y Forum .
lenze r G. (ed . ) 1 97 5: August Comte and Positit1ism: The Essential Writmgs. New
York: Harper Torchbooks.
linton, S . 1 9 9 8 : Claiming Disability. New York: New York Uni versi ty Press.
longmore, P. L. and Umansky, L. (eds) 20 0 1 : The New Disability History:
American Perspectives. New York : New York University Press .
Marks, D . 1 999: Disability: Contro!lersial Debates and Psychosocial Perspec­
ti!les. London: Ro u r l e dge .
Meekoshe, H. and Dow s e , L. 1 997: Ena bling citizensh ip: gender, disa b i l i t y and
citizenship i n Australia. Feminist Review, 57 ( Autumn), 45-72.
M itchel l , D. and Snyder, S. 200 1 : Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the De-
penden c ies of D iscou rs e . Ann Arbor: Un iv e rs i ty of M ichigan Press.
Oliver, M . 1 9 8 3 : Social Work with Disabled People. London: Macm i l l a n .
Oliver, M . 1 9 9 0 : The Politics o f Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Oliver, M . 1 9 99: Final accounts with the pa ra s ite people. In M . Corker and S.
French (eds), Disability Discourse, Buckingham: Open University Press,
1 8 1 -93.
Parsons, T. 1 95 1 : The Social System. New York: Free Press.
Pfeiffer, D. and Yoshida, K. 1 99 5 : Teaching d i sabi l i ty studies in Canada and the
USA. Disability and Society, 1 0(4), 475-500.
Rieser, R. 1 990: Interna lised oppression: how it seems to me. In R. R iese r and M .
Mason (eds), Disability Equality in the Classroom: A Human Rights Issue,
London: Inner London Education Authority, 29-32.
Rioux, M . H. and Bach, M. 1 9 94 : Disability is not Measles. Ontario: York
University, Roeher Institute.
Rosenhan, D . L. 1975 : On bei ng sane i n i nsane places . In S . Dinitz, R. K . Dynes
and A. C. Clarke (e ds ), Det,iance: Studies in Definition, Management and
Treatment, New York: Oxford Un i ver s i ty Press, 279-8 1 .
 Introductio n 17
Scheff, T . 1966: Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. L ondon: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson.
Sc o tt, R. 1969: The Making of Blind Men. London: Sage.
Stone, E. (ed.) 1999: Disability and Development. Leeds : Disa bility Press.
Sullivan, M. and Muntford, R. 1998: The articulation and practice: the cr i ti que
and resistance in Aote a r o a . Disability and Society, 13 (3), 183-9.
Su th erla nd, A. T. 1981: Disabled We Stand. London: Sou veni r Press.
Swain, ]., Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Ol i v e r M. (eds) 1993: Disabling Barriers
,

- Enabling Environments. London: Sage in Association with the Open Univer­

sity.
Szasz, T. S. 1961: The Myth of Mental Jll ness: Foundations of a Theory of
Personal Conduct. New York: Dell.
Tideman, M. (ed . ) 1999: Handikapp: synsatt p rinciper perspectiv. Stockholm:
Johanson & Skyttmo Forlag.
Townsend, P. 1979: Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
UPIAS 1976: Fundamental Pri11ciples of Disability. London: Union of Physically
Impaired Against Segregation.
van Oorschot, V. and Hvinden, B. (eds) 2001: Disability Policies in European
Societies. The Hague: K luwer law International.
Wendell, S. 1996: The Re;ected Body: Feminist and Philosophical Reflectio ns on
Disabilit)'. Lon d on: Routledge.
WHO 200 1 : Rethinking Care from the Perspective of Disabled People: Confer­
ence R ep ort and Recommendations. Geneva: World He a lth O r ga n iza t i on s '

D isa bi l i ty and Rehabilitation Team.

Wil l iams , G . 1997: The socio l ogy o f disability: tow ar ds a materialist phenomen­
ology. In T. Sha kespeare (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader, London: Cassell,
234-44.
Zola, I. K. 1982: Missing Pieces: A Chronicle of Living with a Disability.
Philadelphia: Te mple University Press.