The Political Implications of Disability Definitions and Data

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis is to examine and to compare the conceptual, methodological, and operational implications of the medical and economic perspectives that have formed the bases of the traditional "functional-limitations" paradigm and the sociopolitical definition which is the foundation of the new "minority-group" model for research on disability. Both the medical and economic definitions have relied primarily on clinical methods. Whereas the medical approach has been operationally measured by limits on major life activities, the economic orientation has been measured by restrictions on the amount or kind of work that can be performed. By contrast, the sociopolitical definition, which focuses on the interaction between the individual and the environment, can be empirically assessed by measures of visibility and labeling. Self-identification is also an important index of the relative size and political strength of disabled persons. Because of the significance of new antidiscrimination laws, which appear to be based on the minority-group model, there is a pressing need to grant operational measures of the sociopolitical definition a position of parity in relation to the vast amount of data that have already been accumulated through the use of medical and economic concepts in government and other surveys.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anspach, R.R. (1979). From stigma to identity politics: Political activism among the physically disabled and former mental patients. Social Science and Medicine, 13A, 765-773.

Coleman, L.M. (1986). Stigma: An enigma demystified. In S. C. Ainlay , G. Becker , & L. M. Coleman (Eds.), The dilemma of difference: A multidisciplinary view of stigma (pp. 211-232). New York: Plenum Press.

Erlanger, H.S. , & Roth, W. (1985). Disability policy: The parts and the whole. American Behavioral Scientist, 28, 319-345.

Gliedman, J. , & Roth, W. (1980). The unexpected minority. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hahn, H. (1982). Disability and rehabilitation policy: Is paternalistic neglect really benign? Public Administration Review, 42(4), 385-389.

Hahn, H. (1984). The issue of equality: European perceptions of employment policy for disabled persons. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.

Hahn, H. (1985a). Changing perceptions of disability and the future of rehabilitation. In L. G. Perlman & G. F. Austin (Eds.), Societal influences in rehabilitation planning: A blueprint for the 21 st century (pp. 53-64). Alexandria, VA: National Rehabilitation Association.

Hahn, H. (1985b). Toward a politics of disability: Definitions, disciplines, and policies. The Social Science Journal, 22(4),87-105.

Hahn, H. (1986). Disability and the urban environment: A perspective on Los Angeles. Society and Space, 4, 273-288.

10.

Hahn, H. (1987). Civil rights for disabled Americans: The foundations of a political agenda. In A. Gartner & T. Joe (Eds.), Images of the disabled/disabling images (pp. 181-203). New York: Praeger.

11.

Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1),39-48.

12.

Harris, L. (1986). The ICD survey of disabled Americans: Bringing disabled Americans into the mainstream. New York: International Center for the Disabled.

13.

Hatfield, E. , & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror... : The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

14.

Howards, I. , Brehm, H.P. , & Nagi, S.Z. (1980). Disability: From social problem to federal program . New York: Praeger.

15.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Lieberson, S. , & Waters, M.C. (1986). Ethnic groups influx: The changing ethnic responses of American whites. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 487, 79-91.

17.

Nagi, S.Z. (1979). The concept and measurement of disability. In E. D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Disability policies and government programs (pp. 1-25). New York: Praeger.

18.

Parsons, T. (1964). Social structure and personality. New York: The Free Press.

19.

Siegler, M. , & Osmond, H. , (1975). Models of medicine, models of madness. New York: Macmillan.

20.

Stone, D.A. (1984). The disabled state. Philadelphia , PA: Temple University Press.

21.

Waters, M.C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.

22.

Witte, E. (1963). The development of the Social Security Act. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.