Framing disability

Of course, for journalists, our work begins before we even sit down for an interview or write a single word. Before we can begin our reporting, we first come up with an idea. We must figure out whether it is viable and whether we can find sources to speak on the record. We usually have to have some idea of the angle or frame. This is not to say that we journalists come to our reporting with our frames already decided. If we thought we had all the facts before we wrote the story, we would be pretty bad at our jobs, and every journalist has experienced a story that has changed significantly in the telling. That said, we can think of our initial idea as a map that guides us as we set out to do our reporting.

The frame is also one of the places we can first run into trouble. There are some common frames and ways of seeing disabled people that are not nuanced, can be harmful and — most important for our purposes — are generally untrue. To understand where some of these frames come from, we must first discuss some models of disability. If you’ve read about disability at all, you’ve probably heard of the medical model and the social model of disability. In addition, we look at the rights model, the charity model, and the religious model.

Medical model

The medical model sees disability as a problem with the body or mind that can be fixed by medical means. It situates the disabled person as broken in some way, and the goal is to get the person back to “normal” — to the able-bodied standard or as close to it as the disabled person can reasonably get. If that is not possible through current medical science, then the thing to do is to try to find a cure. Symptom alleviation, quality of life for the affected/afflicted person and integration into wider society are secondary priorities.

Social model

The social model locates disability in society rather than in the person. According to this model, I might have physical and mental impairments that are medicalized (treated as a medical problem), but what disables me is when I’m trying to access certain environments and can’t. The way to ameliorate my disability in this context is not to make me undergo medical treatments so I can climb stairs but instead to build a ramp for my wheelchair.
Rights model

 
The rights model extends the Enlightenment philosophical project of the rights-bearing subject or citizen to the disabled person. It considers the disabled person as deserving of the rights of the citizen due to their individual human dignity and generally advances the project of disability rights through individual victories and the use of pre-existing political institutions. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is an expression of the rights model.

Religious model

The religious model sees disability as something that is willed by a divine force or being. When people consider disability as a punishment from God or as a result of bad karma that’s either the fault of the disabled person or the parents, they’re using the religious model. I would also argue that, when people use phrases like “everything happens for a reason” or “so-and-so became disabled so he could touch people’s lives,” they’re drawing on the religious model. The religious model doesn’t necessarily belong to any one religion or philosophical framework; all it needs is the attribution of disability to supernatural forces.

Charity model

The charity model is related to both the religious model and the medical model. It sees disabled people as objects of pity whom non-disabled people have a social responsibility to help. Generally, it sees the purpose of disabled people as to provide opportunities for able-bodied people to learn compassion and feel good about helping. Their, the disabled person’s, purpose is to serve as an avenue of growth for others[1].

 
Considering models

It’s important to note that all these models have strengths and weaknesses. There is no “one true model” of disability, nor are there any that are entirely bad. For example, while thinking disability is a punishment from God encourages stigma, the religious model could also provide meaning and purpose in the face of suffering. While the social model can be a useful way of looking at the world, it isn’t entirely sufficient for disabilities that cause a lot of bodily suffering, such as chronic pain, or mental anguish, such as major depressive disorder. What’s important for us as journalists is to figure out which model underlies our assumptions as we develop our work. Do our questions change if we apply another model?