Basics:

Paradigm Shift – Think Differently About Disability

Most of us at some point in our lives encounter people that think differently about disability than we do. Maybe it’s a minor difference or maybe a point you hadn’t considered before. Maybe you find what they think is offensive, or maybe you think they’re being too lenient.

How you perceive or think about disability is important because how you think about disability changes what you *do* about disability, directly impacting the lives of people with disabilities.

These different ways of thinking about disability have been broken down into the “Models of Disability,” and some of them can go into pretty significant detail. However, I’m going to focus on these main ones because I think they’re important.

The Charity Model

I think this one is the easiest to understand so I’m starting here. When you use the charity model as a lens to view disability, you see people with disabilities as needing help, literally charity.

The good: A sense of duty and altruism prevails here, and that is admirable. After all, without the early donors of the Victorian era, schools for the blind and deaf would not have been created and whole generations of folks would have never had the chance to get an education. This model is still in play today, with organizations like “Doctors Without Borders” fundraising to send volunteer doctors to places without easy access to medical care, saving lives and making lives better. Nearly every disability has scholarships available, again set aside by donors making real changes in the individual lives of people with disabilities. 

The bad: However, there are definitely some downsides to this view. If you are someone receiving charity, you usually have very little autonomy to make your own decisions. In the very nature of being a charity case, you are of a lower standing than those providing the charity. The implication that someone must “care for,” “protect,” or “help” people with disabilities can have extremely negative effects on the people receiving that charity. I’ll also say that the charity model takes the spotlight away from the disabled person and focuses it on the donor, or the good-doer, the hero. This too can be good so long as that person continues in their journey and doesn’t stop at “I’m doing such a good thing right now”. The worst part of this model is that charity is optional. And if it’s optional, you can skip it when you’re busy, or because your boss is grouchy, or when that email has to get out right now. 

The Moral Model:

The moral model is probably exactly what you think it is – the lens through which you are either “bad” or “good” as a person with a disability. In the “good” iteration of this model, you see the person with the disability as absolutely good and “pure,” they can do no wrong. Examples of this would be in the movies Forest Gump and Simon Burch, where the main character with a disability is also a hero. You see the “bad” version in old kids’ cartoons or movies where the bad guy has an eye patch or a special suit to keep him alive, or my personal favorite disabled bad guy, Dr. Claw, who was an amputee. You can read more about the villainizing of disability in this great blog post. 

The good: There isn’t much of a positive using the moral model. Seeing someone as automatically a hero because they are disabled is extremely limiting. Modern vernacular has come up with a word for the moralizing of disability – “inspiration porn,” this video from the very awesome show “Speechless” does a good job explaining the concept. When we see any group of people only in the binary of good and bad, we are not able to see the whole person. 

The bad: I think it’s easy to see the bad in the “bad” version of the moral model. If someone is automatically bad or scary because they have a disability, that has some pretty significant impact on persons with disabilities and how you interact with them. There’s also a much darker aspect of this model – there are 31 states plus Washington, D.C. that *currently* have laws that allow for the forced sterilization of people with disabilities. 

The Medical Model:

When we use the medical model to view disability, we see something that needs to be researched and eventually cured. This model has a lot of nuances and different disabilities within the greater community may have been more directly impacted by this model than others.

The good: Because of the research done on newborn eye infections that can cause blindness, all infants are given special eye drops shortly after birth, preventing a serious disability from ever happening. Because of the research done on my oldest daughter’s sleep disorder, she can receive a treatment that stops nearly all of her symptoms and allows her to live a life where she does not sleep all day. Ongoing medical research has made tremendous strides for many and has real value for those positively impacted by it.

The bad: However, there’s a lot of bad in the medical model. When you use the lens of the medical model, all people with disabilities need to be “fixed” or “cured.” This can have some disastrous effects – we are only a few generations away from a time when the “cure” for many psychological and cognitive disorders was a lobotomy. In the late 90’s, children with autism were often given chelation therapy, a dangerous medical procedure used for those with heavy metal poisoning. As you can imagine, many people with disabilities do not like the medical model and find it dehumanizing, reducing them to a list of symptoms or test results. When you view people with disabilities as a problem to be solved, you’re not bringing them into the equation to talk about their specific needs, which may or may not fit your medical lens.

The Social Model:

When we view the world from the social model, we see disability as only one part of a person’s identity, much like the way we see race, gender, hair color, etc. When we view it that way, we can see that society creates (and keeps) an environment that is inhospitable to those with disabilities. It is the environment that creates barriers to access, and the only way to resolve it is to reduce those barriers – whether they are physical barriers like a ramp, emotional barriers like stigma, or institutional barriers like oppression.

The good: I like to think of the good of this model as “Star Trek,” in which characters with disabilities are easily accommodated due to advanced technology. In reality, Star Trek the TV series had some pretty questionable depictions of people with disabilities. This model is the only one that centers on the person as an individual, able to make their own decisions and live their lives as they desire, and it acknowledges societies role in restricting access.

The bad: I hear folks talk about this model as being the “only good model” to view disability, and it’s easy to see why. Of course, we want that Star Trek future where disabilities are just another part of a person and can be accommodated and worked with. However, we are not actually living in that future right now and it’s important to consider the reality of living with a disability in the 21st century as opposed to the 24th. We have not removed all of those barriers and we’re still very far away from that goal.

There are other Models of Disability, this site has a good list that breaks them down quite a bit.

Okay, so what do I do with these models?

I’ve found it helpful to take the time to consider these models whenever you are thinking about disability and accessibility. Think about how you are framing the concept of disability. When you are encountering a problem, think about it using each model. I do this a bit as a thought experiment and because it helps me get out of the trap of seeing disability in only one way.

As email marketers and advocates for accessibility, the way we think about disability is extremely important because it impacts our behavior and the actions we take. 

A lot of times when we are advocating for people with disabilities, we tend to fall into some of these traps ourselves, or discussions with others end up pushing us into conversations that pit people with disabilities as “needing our help,” “being lawsuit trigger-happy,” or other scenarios that can trap us into thinking about people with disabilities in only one way. When you know these models and the benefits and pitfalls of each, you can more easily navigate those conversations to get to the end result you want – accessible emails.

Here are some examples:

If we only talk to our stakeholders about disability as helping/charity/altruism, our work towards accessible emails can be blown off as unnecessary, optional, or “maybe after Q4”. This means our work in this area will always be cut short. 

If we only talk to our stakeholders about disability in terms of predatory lawsuits (that’s not a thing, by the way), our work towards accessible emails can be made to meet only the bare minimum or follow what everyone else is doing, which may or may not be accessible.

If we only focus on what people with disabilities *can’t* do or need from their AT, we might focus singularly on tech solutions that may not be needed or have already been solved. Our focus to “fix” things can cause problems, or make for inefficient solutions because we’re not including the input of people with disabilities.

See the nuance here? We want long-term change and improvement in our emails to make them more accessible. That is real work and will require discussion past just one way of approaching accessibility. You will need to have a broader perspective to include multiple perspectives and gently challenge the folks you’re working with.

One more thought about the charity model in regards to email accessibility:

If you are stuck in the “hero” mode or find yourself wanting to “help” when you’re providing accessibility services, a few thoughts: People with disabilities already fought for and won these rights. They protested and pushed for them during the Disability Rights Movement.

They don’t need your help! Your company/clients do, though! Because those laws exist because they were fought for, and your company/clients must follow them when applicable.

I’m going to say it again – you are *not* directly helping people with disabilities when you make your emails accessible. You *are* helping the companies you create emails for when you make those emails accessible and when you advocate for people with disabilities within your organization. 

Please don’t take this the wrong way. What you/we are doing is great! We are forging new paths and innovating within our industry to provide accessible solutions to the companies we do business with! This work has value!

That’s really great for email as a whole!

If we all adopt these accessible solutions, we will make the whole experience of reading an email better for people with disabilities *and* make it easier to root out the bad apples that aren’t making the mark by comparison.

We are making email better by making email accessible.