Suchergebnisse

Abstract In discourse around disability there has been a shift away from a 'medical model', which perceives disability as an individual problem to be 'cured' or contained, towards a 'social model'. The latter focuses on the relationship between people with disabilities and their social environment, locating the required interventions within the realm of social policy and institutional practice. Drawing upon a small qualitative study conducted in Melbourne, this article argues that recent plans by the Australian government to introduce mutual obligation requirements for recipients of the Disability Support Pension (DSP) sit in tension with this shift from the medical to the social models of disability. Mutual obligation is based on the assumption that income support recipients need to be taught how to be more 'self‐reliant', to 'participate' in society more fully and to become 'active', rather than 'passive', citizens. This language appears to overlap with that used to articulate a social model, which places emphasis on participation in the community and attempts a shift away from reliance on the medical profession. However, examples from interviews conducted with current and former DSP recipients demonstrate that, in practice, mutual obligation is likely to reinforce a medical model of disability, frame DSP recipients as 'conditional' citizens and ignore the obligations of the state and society regarding access and inclusiveness for people with disabilities.