Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 10:1 (2011) ► pp.109–127

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

False dichotomies of disability politics

Theory and practice in the discourse of Norwegian NGO professionals

 | Oslo University College
Published online: 30 June 2011
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.10.1.06gru
This article discusses the relationship between the social and medical models of disability and between the academic and NGO communities in that field. Interviews with professionals from Norwegian disability NGOs show that while they share some of the political goals of the social model, they have a somewhat narrow understanding of the model’s critical potential. A false dichotomy has emerged in NGO discourse: The medical model, which originated as a negative construct within the social model, is reinterpreted as a legitimate conceptual alternative. This hinders dialogue between academe and the NGO community, and hampers the critical potential of the NGOs. In order to eliminate the dichotomy, it is necessary to develop the social model more extensively in discourse contexts outside the academic field.
References (26)
References
Barnes, C., G. Mercer, and Tom Shakespeare. 1999. Exploring Disability, a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001 [1989]. Language and Power. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Critical discourse analysis.” Marges linguistiques:76–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gleeson, Brendan. 1999. “Recovering a ‘Subjugated History’: Disability and the Institution in the Industrial City.” Australian Geographical Studies 371:114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grue, Jan. 2009. “Critical discourse analysis, topoi and mystification: Disability policy documents from a Norwegian NGO.” Discourse Studies 111:285–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, Harlan. 1984. “Reconceptualizing disability: a political science perspective.” Rehabilitation literature 451.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda Hamilton. 2003. Backlash against the ADA : reinterpreting disability rights. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longmore, Paul K.. 2003. Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. A. 2005. “Mystification and social agent absences: a critical discourse analysis using evolutionary psychology.” Journal of Pragmatics 371:1945–1964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kieran. 2003. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael. 1990. The Politics of Disablement, Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Understanding Disability, From Theory to Practice. New York: St. Martins Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samaha, A. M.. 2007. “What Good Is the Social Model of Disability?” UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 741:1251–1308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shakespeare, Tom. 2006. Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siebers, Tobin. 2008. Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, Sharon L., and David T. Mitchell. 2006. Cultural locations of disability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stiker, Henri-Jacques. 1999 [1982]. A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A.. 1984. The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Carol. 1999. Female forms : experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UPIAS. 1976. “The Fundamental Principles of Disability.” edited by Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. London: UPIAS.
Weiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak. 2003. Critical discourse analysis : theory and interdisciplinarity. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wendell, Susan. 1996. The rejected body : feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (Eds.). 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Anton Pelinka. 2002. The Haider phenomenon in Austria. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Teun Adrianus van Dijk. 2000. Racism at the top : parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Li, Zhiwei & Caiyun Qi
2023. Why can’t children with autism integrate into society in China? Study based on the perspective of NGO classification. Frontiers in Public Health 11 DOI logo
Engwall, Kristina
2016. How disability is conceptualized in individual discrimination complaints. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 16:4 ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Lundberg, Camilla & Eva Simonsen
2015. Disability in court: intersectionality and rule of law. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 17:sup1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Kent & Keith Tudor
2015. To be registered, or not to be registered – is that the question?. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 6:1-2 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Grue, Jan
2014. Technically disabled, ill for all practical purposes? Myalgic encephalopathy/chronic fatigue syndrome discourse in Norway. Disability & Society 29:2 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue