Modernism and Postmodernism, which began in the late 1950s and the mid-1970s, have influenced the development of disability models. In this post, I introduce the similarities and differences between disability models in the late 20th century and explain how rehabilitation sciences mirror Modernism and Postmodernism.
Modernism and Postmodernism
Modernism began after World War II and gradually transformed into Postmodernism in the mid-1970s. Modernism arose from the Theory of General Relativity proposed by Albert Einstein. The formulas in the Theory of General Relativity provide a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time (Synge, J. L., 1960). After Einstein published the Theory of General Relativity, society started to embrace “universalism” and believe that “truth” exists only in facts.
The limitations of Modernism led to the development of Postmodernism. Postmodernism, in contrast to Modernism, favors pluralism, particularism, and diversity. Postmodernism places emphasis on subjective experience and the empowerment of human beings (Moxley, D. P., 1995).
The development of disability models follows a similar trajectory
There is a similar trajectory in the development of disability models. The Nagi model, which is thought to be the first disability model, originated in 1965 (Altman, B. M., 2001). The Nagi model is a typical disease model that defined pathology as an interruption in “normal” body processes. The author built the Nagi model with dualist terms, such as normal and abnormal.
In 1980, the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) model proposed that disability is the result of an “abnormality” of body structure and function (Johnston, M., & Pollard, B., 2001). Researchers have critiqued the Nagi and ICIDH models for their focus on diseases and for their blurred definitions of “normality.”
In the early 21st century, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) was developed to provide a framework and a unified taxonomy in the health sciences. In the ICF, we no longer see the “normality” concept. Instead, there are complex mechanisms and terms used in the framework, such as the six interrelated concepts in the ICF.
Modernism, Postmodernism, and disability models in rehabilitation sciences
From the Nagi model to the ICF, the way disability was defined changed from linear to multidirectional, from dichotomous to a spectrum, and from dualist to pluralist. This change echoes the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism.
Modernism views a person as an object, thus treating disability as a disease that needs to be cured and normalized. Postmodernism views a person from many perspectives, including economic, social, political, and historical status. The most popular disability framework, the ICF, employs the spirit of Postmodernism. But to some degree, it still uses Modernist principles.
The ICF tries to present the dynamics of subjective behaviors and experiences, and its decentralization equally emphasizes all the concepts. Nevertheless, the systematic coding scheme used in the ICF and its intention to develop a unified taxonomy still show dualism and universalism, which are Modernist perspectives.
Future suggestions
From the development of disability models, we can see the evolution of thinking in rehabilitation sciences. However, there are a few questions that still need to be answered.
First, the nature of pluralism makes it harder to reach a consensus on disability models. With the growth of integrated models, is it necessary to use a specific model as a guiding principle? How do we decide which disability model should be followed by legislators and stakeholders?
Second, disability models are influenced by historical progress and people’s beliefs. How can we think independently in order to refine the definition of disability? Could we build a disability model that combines the advantages of both Modernism and Postmodernism?
Third, from the Nagi model to the ICF, scholars still use unified terminology and apply a dualist principle to explain disability. While we put too much emphasis on terminology and definitions in disability models, do we leave enough room for diversity and evolution?