ADHD glossary · Family perspectives
Social model of disability: look at the arrangement, not only the individual
In Fundamental Principles of Disability, UPIAS distinguishes physical impairment from restrictions produced by a social organization that excludes people with physical impairments. The argument places disability in the social situation, rather than treating impairment and disability as interchangeable. [1]
General education and practical perspectives. Editorial standards.
This movement account provides a way into the social model of disability: examine how arrangements create exclusion. The cited text arises from a specific discussion about physical impairment. This page does not turn it into a complete explanation of every disability experience, a diagnostic definition, or a statement of current law.
Change the question about the display
Imagine a local history group arranging a display of household objects. Every description is placed flat on top of tall cabinets. A visitor who uses a wheelchair cannot read the labels from their seated position.
One possible description focuses only on what the visitor cannot do. A social-model question instead asks why the display was arranged so that reading its labels requires standing at that height. In this fictional example, the location of the text is part of the situation to examine.
The group might discuss another label position with the visitor. That possibility is not a complete accessibility solution or an assurance that the whole exhibition is usable. The visitor may identify other concerns the organizers have not considered. One change should not be treated as permission to declare every barrier removed.
Keep impairment and experience in view
Looking at an arrangement does not require telling someone that their bodily difficulty is unreal or that every part of it would disappear in a different environment. Nor should a relative use a model to argue someone out of their own description of pain, fatigue, or support needs.
For this glossary, a model is a lens for asking questions, not a rule that a person must accept to belong to a community. Someone may find part of the account useful and still need language for experiences it does not fully address.
Families can inspect the setting without speaking for everyone
A parent considering an ordinary activity can ask what its layout and instructions assume participants can do. They can also ask the child what matters to them rather than deciding that a change is sufficient. An adult may want to describe a barrier directly while asking a partner not to speak on their behalf.
A grandparent's experience with one venue need not stand for all disabled visitors. Siblings can contribute observations without being assigned ongoing responsibility for identifying and removing every obstacle.
An optional observation note
Write the activity, the arrangement that matters, what happened for the person, and what remains unknown. Keep the person's account separate from your proposed explanation. This is an original note-taking suggestion, not an accessibility audit or a determination of required adjustments.
The social model differs from neurodiversity terminology and from a particular accommodation. It cannot decide eligibility, enforceability, legal compliance, treatment, or diagnosis. Its contribution here is the invitation to examine social organization alongside the individual situation.
Sources
1. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation; Disability Alliance. Fundamental Principles of Disability. Summary of discussion held November 22, 1975, with organizational commentaries; original publication date not independently established from this copy. Unabridged electronic reformat prepared by Mark Priestley in consultation with Vic Finkelstein and Ken Davis, October 1997. University of Leeds Disability Archive UK. Accessed September 6, 2026. UPIAS commentary, original p. 14, electronic PDF p. 20. Archived full text.
Related guides
Sources and what they support
These sources support the specific statements identified below. Our practical exercises are suggestions to consider, not evidence of a treatment effect.
-
Fundamental Principles of Disability — UPIAS and Disability Alliance; University of Leeds Disability Archive UK electronic holding
Source type: institutional.
Accessed .
Source check, September 6, 2026: Scoped source check. Passage: UPIAS commentary, The poverty of the incomes approach, original p. 14 (electronic PDF page 20), definitions and preceding/following paragraphs; editor's note on first PDF page. Limits: Historical UK movement position concerning physical impairment; not current US law, clinical theory, a universal account of all disabilities, eligibility standard or denial of impairment-related experience. The broader historical argument on income and employment is not adopted.
Supports: In Fundamental Principles of Disability, UPIAS distinguishes physical impairment from restrictions produced by a social organization that excludes people with physical impairments. The argument places disability in the social situation, rather than treating impairment and disability as interchangeable.
Correction check: Archive copy and editor's provenance note inspected; no correction notice in material read. 1997 reformatting is recorded; no collation against every original scan or exhaustive historical revision audit.
Updates and corrections
Published .
Found a factual error or something unclear? Use the contact route on our Trust page. Read our research method for the evidence approach.