While a medical, pathologic, and deficient interpretation has long been the dominant definition of disability, disabled people have articulated their own criticism and alternatives to medicalization and to developing discourses, and Disability Studies offer critical responses. The basis for this was the growing awareness of political, economic, historical, social, and cultural factors that generally dis-able people. Accordingly, the DPI (the Disabled Peoples’ International) defines disability as “the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical and social barriers.” (Goodley 2011: 8) Anne Waldschmidt argues that disability is not the effect of medical pathology but the product of social organization and established through systematic exclusion. “People ‘are’ not necessarily disabled because of their impairment, but they are ‘made’ disabled through barriers that are erected in order to preclude their participation, in and through a social system.” (translated by author, Waldschmidt 2010: 43)

Disability is herewith not seen as natural, but as a discursive field that is historically, socially, and culturally constructed, or considered a social distinguishing mark, a culture-specific way of problematizing differences that are “attached” to the body. In the same tone, Margrit Shildrick and Janet Price state that "the body as abled/disabled has historicity and is constructed, not by once-and-for-all acts, nor yet by intentional processes, but through the constant reiteration of a set of norms. It is through such repetitive practice that the body as abled/disabled is both materialized and naturalized." (EE)

Sources:
Goodley, Dan (2011): Disability Studies. An Interdisciplinary Introduction, SAGE Publications: London.
Shildrick, Margrit/ Price, Janet (1996): Breaking the Boundaries of the Broken Body, in Body and Society 2/4.
Waldschmidt, Anne (2010): Das Mädchen Ashley, in: Gendering Disability, Transkript Verlag: Bielefeld.