The Minority Group Model of Disability

 

By Martin Hobgen

Although writers in the USA often use the term ‘Social Model of Disability’ there are many occasions when the model that is being used is actually something called the Minority Group Model of Disability.¹ This model is mentioned in passing by several UK writers within the sociology of disability.² The clearest definition, however, is given by Nancy Eiesland, and provides the framework for her theological approach to disability.³

Disabled people seen as a minority group are understood to be:
… a group of people, who because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination.⁴

This clearly moves the understanding of disability away from the Individual/Medical Model and identifies disability as a result of attitudes and actions by the majority, non-disabled group, which discriminate against members of the minority disabled group.⁵ This model has close links with various rights-based models that emerged in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s.⁶ It has been a productive model within the USA, the most significant outcome being the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990).⁷ One of the reasons that this legislation has been effective is the inclusion of a clause which linked its implementation to sources of federal funding.⁸ In the UK, the enforcement of discrimination legislation has largely been through legal action brought by individuals, charities and the Equality Commission.
While there are many similarities to the UK Social Model, there are differences too.⁹ The USA model requires the difference between disabled and non-disabled people to be maintained. This is problematic when seeking to foster inclusive relationships between disabled and non-disabled people. If disabled and non-disabled people see each other and themselves as members of discrete groups, then this hinders all but the most intentional attempts at building inclusive relationships.

The separation of people into these two broad groups of disabled and non-disabled people is problematic for church communities. As Christians we understand that we are all made in the image of God and therefore equally loved by God with our individual characteristics and diversity being irrelevant. Among Baptists the idea of covenant relationships, with God and one another, are important and the separation between disabled and non-disabled people is incompatible with being a covenant community, joined together by faith in the Trinitarian God whom we worship.¹⁰
 

Questions

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to understanding disability and relating to disabled people?
• How do you think this understanding shapes how churches relate to disabled people?
• This approach can be used to campaign for disability rights. How might the church engage with such campaigns? 

 

References

Albrecht, G. L., Albrecht, G. L., Seelman, K. D., & Bury, M. (2001). Handbook of disability studies: SAGE.
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring disability: a sociological introduction: Wiley.
Barnes, C., Oliver, M., & Barton, L. (2002). Disability studies today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Creamer, D. B. (2009). Disability and Christian Theology: Embodied limits and constructive possibilities: Oxford University Press.
Eiesland, N. L. (1994). The Disabled God: Towards a Liberatory Theology of Disability. Nashville: Abingdon.
Goodley, D. (2010). Disability studies: an interdisciplinary introduction (First ed.). London: SAGE.
Goodley, D. (2017). Disability studies: an interdisciplinary introduction (Second ed.). London: Sage.
Hahn, H. (1993). 'The political implications of disability definitions and data'. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4(2), 41-52.
Hahn, H. (2002). 'Academic Debates and Political Advocacy'. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver, & L. Barton (Eds.), Disability studies today (pp. 162-189). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hauerwas, S. (1986/2004). 'The Retarded, Society, and the Family: The Dilemma of Care'. In J. Swinton (Ed.), Critical reflections on Stanley Hauerwas' theology of disability: disabling society, enabling theology (pp. 161-180). New York, Oxford: Routledge.
Hickman, L. (2018). A Disability Theology of Limits for Responding to Moral Injury.  
Johnstone, D. (2001). An introduction to disability studies (2nd ed.). London: David Fulton Publishers.
Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.
Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. London: Routledge.
Swinton, J. (2011). 'Who is the God We Worship? Theologies of Disability; Challenges and New Possibilities'. International Journal of Practical Theology, 14(2), 273-307.
Waldschmidt, A. (2017). 'Disability Goes Cultural: The Cultural Model of Disability as an Analytical Tool'. In Waldschmidt A., Berressem H., & Ingwersen M. (Eds.), Culture-theory-disability: encounters between disability studies and cultural studies (pp. 19-28). Germany: Transcript - Bielefeld.
 

---

1  (Barnes & Mercer, 2010, pp. 2-3, 7, 26-28; Barnes, Oliver, & Barton, 2002, pp. 171-172; Goodley, 2010, pp. 12-14; 2017, pp. 13-14; Shakespeare, 2006, pp. 23-25; 2013, pp. 94, 103). (Hahn, 2002) identifies himself as proposing the Minority Group Model of Disability. (Eiesland, 1994, pp. 62-66) footnotes him among several contributors. Hauerwas identifies Gliedman and Roth’s 1979 The Unexpected Minority as the instigators (Hauerwas, 1986/2004, p. 170). (Hickman, 2018, p. 244) confuses the two, suggesting that the Social Model and Minority Group Model are different names for the same model.
2  The model is discussed by (Albrecht, Albrecht, Seelman, & Bury, 2001, pp. 125, 134-136, 156, 319, 556, 576-577; Barnes & Mercer, 2010, pp. 2-3, 7, 26-28; Barnes et al., 2002, pp. 171-172; Goodley, 2010, pp. 12-14; 2017, pp. 13-14; Hahn, 1993; Shakespeare, 2006, pp. 23-25; 2013, pp. 94, 103).
3  (Creamer, 2009, pp. 25-26) briefly discusses the development of the minority group model.
4  (Eiesland, 1994, p. 63)
5  A minority is understood in terms of power that a majority group exerts over a minority group. In South Africa under apartheid the black numerical majority were a minority group in terms of power and rights.
6  (Eiesland, 1994, pp. 53-57; Johnstone, 2001, pp. 22-24)
7  (Swinton, 2011, p. 280)
8  (Hahn, 2002, p. 165)
9  (Waldschmidt, 2017, p. 21) minimises the differences between the social and minority group models. (Goodley, 2017, pp. 13-16) emphasises the differences, while recognising the similarities.
10  The implications of this approach are limited to this key issue and so there is no related article.

---

Want to comment on this reflection? Please leave your thoughts via this contact form.

Some comments may be shared below.