When I’m at work, it is my job to meet with people. I work in a University, which is made up of academics, professional staff and, of course, students.
I am very aware that ‘university’ is a scary place for some. It shouldn’t be, but it often is. In fact, the University of Brighton, where I work, is committed to a ‘community university partnership’.
They have worked for 10 years (we have just had a birthday) to bring the community, which is pretty much everyone, and the university closer together.
So, the next time you drive past a university, don’t look at it like some monolith or ivory tower – the front door is more ‘open’ than you think.
I want to tell you about one of my ‘meetings’. It was a meeting where I learnt a big deal – a moment when my perspective profoundly shifted. It might come across as a ‘eureka’ moment, but for me it was more like a confirmation; when theory has found proof.
Let me tell you about the meeting, I was talking with some colleagues and two representations from the Student’s Union. The students represented the disabled members of the union. We were having a conversation about opportunities for disabled people to influence the university’s approach to disabled students and staff.
I feel a bit awkward using the word, ‘approach’. I am not only talking about services (as required by law) but also attitude, energy, enthusiasm, and ambition.
We side-stepped our conversation about how the university has or should frame disability. Are we just a bunch of people with missing/broken body parts? Is it our sole ambition to have those body parts fixed and become ‘normal’ (even though I have yet to meet a ‘normal’ person; we tend to come in all shapes and sizes).
We all came to a quick agreement that this is not how we saw ourselves. We know this. Disabled people, deaf people included, have been fighting against the ‘fix you’ mantra that we see around us all the time.
This promptly led me to the ‘social model of disability’ as defined by Oliver. It contrasts the ‘fix you’ to ‘I’m ok, lets fix them’.
By ‘them’, I am talking about everyone else who is not disabled. Just because I can’t hear the doorbell chime doesn’t mean that I am less of a person, the issue is this piece of technology is not suited to my needs – it is the doorbell that needs to change, not me.
The student came back with a surprising comment, “in our group, we don’t follow the social model’. My eyebrows raised – I love it when people challenge commonly accepted ideas and raise different ones.
“We follow the Affirmative Model. It suits how we see ourselves a lot better.”
The Affirmative Model is a brainchild of John Swain and Sally French and their article on this new perspective was published in 2000. They argued that even if the social model were made reality, disabled people would still be impaired.
Imagine a world where everything was put right. Interpreters everywhere, everyone knowing some signs, subtitles everywhere, and flashing lights galore – disabled people would still be disabled because they will be regarded and treated as victims of misfortune.
The authors perceived the Personal Tragedy Model of disability as the cultural realisation of the medical model – or ‘we can’t fix you, so you should be sad.’
It is quite intrinsic to our cultural identity in this country. I mean, look at the magazines with perfectly shaped bodies that have been implanted with artificial breasts and pictures photoshopped. Artificial beauty has been aligned with happiness and real, different bodies are ‘sad’.
The Affirmative Model challenges this state of mind to create a cultural position on disability. We are no longer ‘people who suffer from deafness. I am deaf. This is who I am. This is me.’
The Affirmative Model was proposed as an idea to enable us to recall, that actually, our difference is a core part of our being and of our experience.
In the paper written by Swain and French, one of the examples they referred to was Deaf people, and how Deaf people have gone past the inability to hear and cherished the Deaf life: a life with lipreading, signing, facial expressions, touch, Deaf spaces, and a Deaf community (to be brief).
Disabled people still find themselves under pressure to keep quiet about their condition(s), to try and assimilate, as if their impairments were not part of who they are or just a minor part of who they are and to regard their condition as an embarrassing hindrances to be overcome.
It is the assumption that the ‘disabled body’ is a prison and a ‘normal person’ is trying to break free.
There are disabled people who do experience real difficulties day by day, some conditions can be associated with pain, so being disabled is not always a wonderful experience. But there are people who would rather accept their disability than forever eat themselves up endlessly wishing things were otherwise (this is partially quoted from Disability Arts Online).
This reminds me of my years as a young person when my friends and I talked about the ‘identity crisis’, when we moved from being ‘an pseudo hearing person, to a fully-functioning Deaf person’. It is a point of realisation that while everyone is trying to normalise us, it is easier (and more fruitful) if we accept who we are and use the resources the ‘Deaf way’ has to offer.
It is my realisation that disabled people want to be more like Deaf people. Well, at least these students do. They were more interested in how they could be valued and respected as disabled people, as well as having fun together as a community.
I left the meeting with a buzz.
If you liked this, read John Walker’s last article for us, My Journey to ‘Capital Deaf’
John Walker is a senior research fellow at University of Brighton. Deaf, and sign language user by informed choice. He writes a blog on topics related to the Bourdieusian principle, by the title “Deaf Capital” . It is concerned with the ‘value’ that people place on the Deaf community or the cultural elements of deaf lives that can be askew or misconstrued. Follow him on twitter as @chereme
The Limping Chicken is the UK’s independent deaf news and deaf blogs website, posting the very latest in deaf opinion, commentary and news, every weekday! Don’t forget to follow the site on Twitter and Facebook, and check out our supporters on the right-hand side of this site or click here.
Check out what our supporters provide: Phonak: innovative technology and products in hearing acoustics. Deaf Umbrella: sign language interpreting and communications support. 121 Captions: captioning and speech-to-text services. Signworld: online BSL learning and teaching materials. STAGETEXT: theatre captioning. Ai-Live: Live captions and transcripts. Krazy Kat: visual theatre with BSL. SignHealth: healthcare support for Deaf people. Deafinitely Theatre: theatre from a Deaf perspective. Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support. SDHH: Deaf television programmes online. Sign Solutions:, language and learning. Lexicon Signstream: BSL interpreting and communication services. Action Deafness Communications: sign language and Red Dot online video interpreting. Hamilton Lodge School in Brighton: education for Deaf children. RAD Deaf Law Centre: and legal advice for Deaf people.
Michele Taylor Coach
November 7, 2013
This is really interesting: thanks!
I am a hearing disabled person and would agree that the Affirmative Model is a good one.
As an equality trainer, however, I use the Social Model as the foundation of what I present and work with – simply because from an organisation’s point of view, it is the only relevant way to think as it focuses on their responsibilities and their appropriate areas of concern.
Editor
November 7, 2013
Hi Michele, great to see you commenting on here. That’s a really good point about the social model being more effective at making companies rethink disability. Is there some way of creating a hybrid Affirmative/Social model for inward and outward perspectives I wonder? Because it seems like a lot of people are using a bit of both. Charlie (Editor)
John Walker
November 7, 2013
I think Michelle is right to use the social model when engaging with companies because it introduces the idea that non-disabled people are responsible for access. But it has to be accepted that even if the company has removed barriers in the work place, they will still be marginalised.
The affirmative models goes a step further to look at the cultural response to disability – after all, most social rules and behaviours, that we follow, are cultural.
To give you an example: a deaf employee arrived at work with a newspaper cutting on their desk, received from another colleague, about the latest inventions pitched as a potential cure for deafness. The hearing person felt they had done the right thing whereas the deaf person felt rejected as an employee. The social model doesn’t say a lot about this. Alternatively, the affirmative model could explore the cultural manifestations of disability.
deafmumoftwodeafkids
November 7, 2013
Fantastic article and interesting to read about the Affirmative Model – I can relate to that model better than the Social Model. I would love to watch a video of John Walker explaining more about the Affirmative Model. Pretty please? ……….
pennybsl
November 7, 2013
In my teaching work during the past decade, even more so with better access to Deaf Issues and Deaf Media portrayals in the last 5 years…… it’s always humbling and enlightening to see several ‘deaf’ students of all ages develop their own ‘DEAFidentity’. They have not only become accepting of their own deafness, but also gained new network of friends – a lovely mix of hearing (Deaf-friendly), Deaf, Disabled and happily Odd – in the progress, as well as becoming active participants in society.
There is also the Cultural model – it is more onto the Affirmative aspect – which makes complete sense about the meaning of inclusion in our own terms.
The spectrum within the Cultural and Social models is broadening with healthy egos emerging. If only, if only the powers-to-be and decision-making drop their blinkered shades and see our real potential as rounded citizens.
Thanks JW for the article – great Deaf Cultural awareness stuff, realistic and possible, not fantasy at all. High Fives in Deaf Equality!
Tim
November 7, 2013
Interesting. The ‘Affirmative Model’ is a new one to me, but I like what I’ve read here, it’s like an ‘upgrade’ of the social model.
One questions that I find interesting is why would any Deaf charity that holds itself out as being a champion of Deaf people hold strongly to the medical model?
I would suggest that they are ‘for’ other people.
MWILLIAMS
November 7, 2013
John….That makes for good reading – would deaf organistation adopt the affirmative model? me think not… as the terrible cynic in me says….somthing they might not like…” ownership”…
John Walker
November 7, 2013
I think the problem for some organisations is to realise that the manifestation of disability, and deafness, is cultural. I think that is a difficult hurdle for some people to overcome, which is not the case for Deaf people.
Linda Richards
November 7, 2013
Thanks John for this article. I wonder if the essential point here is that we Deaf people have a shared language – BSL? That we are outwith the spoken English environment means we are not subject to, pressured by or party to the dominant language makes it possible for us to not so much be different, but be us? I was thinking about some of the powerful stuff around telling the world who we are. Songs, media, drama, writings and comedy to name a few. Comedy is one such way by which we can challenge the status quo. Or indeed to affirm the status quo from a Deaf perspective. I was thinking about some of the comedy I have seen by disabled performers and then those by Deaf comedians notably ‘The Deaf Comedians’ and latterly, our John Smith. The comedy from disabled comedians seems to me to be about the ‘experience’ and ‘educating’ the wider world. For instance, the ignorance, the lack of accessible premises, lack of understanding, and so on. Deaf comedy has been about that and about taking the mickey out of failed education or communciation modes such as oralism or inane practices around hearing aids and dead batteries, through to teasing interpreters and so on. Latterly, there seems to me to be a shift, albeit subtle, (which may be attributed to other things such as the advent of social media, the development and growth of Deaf films and so on) that although these things are covered in Deaf comedy there’s something more. I see Deaf audiences laughing and affirming that what is relayed is indeed their experience and this shared experience is affirmed but they seem to emerge as energised and kind of saying “So what? And then going on their path taller and stronger. There’s a shift in how we might tackle the stuff that gives us a headache. John Smith’s videos on Facebook about his battles with the Halifax are humorous and show a means of how we might go about things for ourselves. This is being done outside of the usual Deaf organisations which largely (and sadly) seem to focus on the medical model or the business of “Poor Deaf people, they haven’t got X,Y,Z”. I guess that’s another difference between us and people with disabilities. There seems to be more of a focus by them to improve their lot around access and so on. Of course, we would like things to be better and not have such ignorance around but we are happy to be together in our own world vis-a-vis Deaf clubs, Deaf events (incuding EDDJ) and so on. And so we come back to the one thing that binds us all …. Language. Our language – BSL. Thanks again for your post. Lmr
John Walker
November 7, 2013
Thank you for beefing up my description of the cultural model of deaf people that the affirmative model leans to. This model actually originated on the Arts. There was a concern whether disability arts did itself justice: are they representations of suffering or an exploration of the disabled way? Disabled people might not have a separate language but I do feel they are trying to find a form of expression that represents “I am disabled and it is a core part of me”.
Linda Richards
November 7, 2013
“Representations of disability or an exploration of the disabled way” …. That’s a really interesting facet. However, I still feel that disabled performers lean towards ‘educating’ others about the disabled self whereas we Deaf lean towards it being affirmation of our experiences and in fact it doesn’t matter if no one else gets it. It’s for us. Hence the affirmation. Thanks again… Thinking a lot about this and I know this will be of interest to those from the interpreting side or who are studying the success (or otherwise) of transferring such comedy, representations or explorations. Lmr xx