Social, medial and neurodiversity models revision

Medical model of disability

Medical professionals have the power to make decisions based on diagnostic manuals, disease-based model where disability is located within the individual and assumes abnormality and thus a “normal”, focus on treatment/cure

Social model of disability

Developed by disabled academic Oliver (1983), society has the power, people are disabled by barriers in the environment not by their bodies or minds, focus removing barriers to inclusion, disabled people are oppressed by society

Critiques of social model

• Disability seen as a construct

• Overemphasis on environment

• Can underplay complexity, e.g. how does the environment cause pain or fatigue?

Neurodiversity framework

Views neurodiversity as natural human variation, doesn’t assume there is a “normal”, aligns with the social model but doesn’t think all of the responsibility sits within the environment. Political/social justice paradigm that calls for power sharing

Criticisms of neurodiversity framework

• People use the word inconsistently, so lack of clarity about what neurodiversity is and who is neurodiverse

• Unclear which labels included under neurodiversity umbrella

• Construct still in flux

Double empathy problem

Milton (2012) a mismatch in communication styles between autistic and non-autistic people as each party finds it hard to put themselves in the other’s shoes because they’ve had different experiences and process the world differently

Empathy gap is a problem for…

Both groups, non-autistic ways of communicating are typical/expected whereas the autistic way is pathologised as wrong

How can the double empathy problem reframe autism

From a social communication disorder to a broad range of developmental differences and experiences which would lead to radical change to diagnostic criteria

Sasson et al. (2017)

Non-autistic people made snap, negative judgements about autistic people, which sits in a lack of understanding and accepting

Jones et al. (2023)

• Autistic participants were evaluated more negatively than their partners

• Non-autistic interactions were rated as smoother and more enjoyable than mixed interactions

• Mixed interactions were perceived least successful