Mental health has held an uncertain and contentious place within disability studies, partly due to early focus on physical impairments. Reeve notes an avoidance of psychological issues, widening the disciplinary divide. Debates persist over whether mental distress qualifies as disability and whether distress from social exclusion should be addressed within the field, a point emphasized by feminist scholars.

Critiques on Disability Studies

From disability studies and social science perspectives, clinical psychology often adopts a medicalizing framework—equating disability with individual impairment and treating it as a deviation to be fixed. It focuses on the analytically isolated individual, favoring individual therapy over broader systemic approaches. The discipline’s narrow view of "systemic" care usually excludes societal and relational dynamics. Clinical psychology has historically overlooked the impact of social prejudice on disabled people’s mental health, often framing distress as a natural outcome of impairment. Disability studies critiques this as pathologizing, individualizing, and exclusionary, arguing that the true sources of distress are societal barriers and discrimination.

Critiques of Clinical Psychology

- Critiques of Clinical Psychology
- Critiques of Disability Studies

State University of New York at Binghamton

Clinical psychology and disability studies have long existed in separate academic, philosophical, and political spaces, especially in relation to mental health and disability. Both fields have faced significant criticism for their approaches to supporting the mental health of disabled people. This divide highlights the urgent need for mutual engagement and collaboration. Bridging these disciplines could lead to more inclusive and effective mental health support for disabled individuals.

Bridging the Disciplinary Divide on Mental Health and Disability

Simpson, Jane, and Carol Thomas. Clinical Psychology and Disability Studies: Bridging the Disciplinary Divide on Mental Health and Disability. Disability & Rehabilitation, 2014. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.961656.

Reference For: Clinical Psychology and Disability Studies: Bridging the Disciplinary Divide on Mental Health and Disability

Comparing Clinical Psychology and Disability Studies

Thomas introduced "psycho-emotional disablism" to describe the psychological harm caused by social prejudice and exclusion, defining disablism as the avoidable restriction of life activities and a form of social oppression. He also argues that "impairment effects" should be a secondary but legitimate focus, as they intertwine with disablism. For clinical psychology to engage, the concept must resonate as a psychological construct, with models like SPAARS offering insight into how repeated disablist experiences can trigger automatic emotional responses. Psychological grounding of the concept could yield valuable theoretical and socio-political insights for both disciplines.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After