Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 10:1 (2011) ► pp.109–127

False dichotomies of disability politics

Theory and practice in the discourse of Norwegian NGO professionals

| Oslo University College

This article discusses the relationship between the social and medical models of disability and between the academic and NGO communities in that field. Interviews with professionals from Norwegian disability NGOs show that while they share some of the political goals of the social model, they have a somewhat narrow understanding of the model’s critical potential. A false dichotomy has emerged in NGO discourse: The medical model, which originated as a negative construct within the social model, is reinterpreted as a legitimate conceptual alternative. This hinders dialogue between academe and the NGO community, and hampers the critical potential of the NGOs. In order to eliminate the dichotomy, it is necessary to develop the social model more extensively in discourse contexts outside the academic field.

Keywords: disability, discourse, NGOs, academia, social model, medical model, false dichotomies, topoi
Published online: 30 June 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.10.1.06gru
References
Barnes, C., G. Mercer, and Tom Shakespeare
1999 Exploring Disability, a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1995 Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2001 [1989]. Language and Power. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
2005 “Critical discourse analysis.” Marges linguistiques:76–94.Google Scholar
Gleeson, Brendan
1999 “Recovering a ‘Subjugated History’: Disability and the Institution in the Industrial City.” Australian Geographical Studies 371:114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grue, Jan
2009 “Critical discourse analysis, topoi and mystification: Disability policy documents from a Norwegian NGO.” Discourse Studies 111:285–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Harlan
1984 “Reconceptualizing disability: a political science perspective.” Rehabilitation literature 451.Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda Hamilton
2003 Backlash against the ADA : reinterpreting disability rights. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longmore, Paul K.
2003 Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. A.
2005 “Mystification and social agent absences: a critical discourse analysis using evolutionary psychology.” Journal of Pragmatics 371:1945–1964. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, Kieran
2003 Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael
1990 The Politics of Disablement, Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
1996 Understanding Disability, From Theory to Practice. New York: St. Martins Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samaha, A. M.
2007 “What Good Is the Social Model of Disability?” UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 741:1251–1308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, Tom
2006 Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siebers, Tobin
2008 Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Sharon L., and David T. Mitchell
2006 Cultural locations of disability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiker, Henri-Jacques
1999 [1982] A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A.
1984 The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Carol
1999 Female forms : experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
UPIAS
1976 “The Fundamental Principles of Disability.” edited by Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. London: UPIAS.
Weiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak
2003 Critical discourse analysis : theory and interdisciplinarity. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wendell, Susan
1996 The rejected body : feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
(Eds.) 2001 Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Anton Pelinka
2002 The Haider phenomenon in Austria. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Teun Adrianus van Dijk
2000 Racism at the top : parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Engwall, Kristina
2016. How disability is conceptualized in individual discrimination complaints. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 16:4 ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Grue, Jan
2014. Technically disabled, ill for all practical purposes? Myalgic encephalopathy/chronic fatigue syndrome discourse in Norway. Disability & Society 29:2 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Li, Zhiwei & Caiyun Qi
2023. Why can’t children with autism integrate into society in China? Study based on the perspective of NGO classification. Frontiers in Public Health 11 DOI logo
Lundberg, Camilla & Eva Simonsen
2015. Disability in court: intersectionality and rule of law. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 17:sup1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Kent & Keith Tudor
2015. To be registered, or not to be registered – is that the question?. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 6:1-2 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.