Full adoption of inclusivity in fitness activities begins by understanding the difference between individuals with “disabilities” and “impairments”. The term “disability” is a socially constructed phenomenon; the outcome of social barriers that restrict the activities of people with impairments. Critical Disability Theory—the contextual, historical, and social study of people with disabilities—defines two models (medical and social) of disability that provide helpful frameworks for understanding society’s stereotypes towards individuals with differences in ability. Critical Disability Theory (CDT) is particularly important for fitness communities where social interactions and physical ability are integral components of the services offered by the facility. Gyms can incorporate inclusivity into their community by acknowledging existing stereotypes surrounding fitness amongst disabled people and actively focus on offering services to people with physical impairments.

What is Critical Disability Theory?

Originating in the 1970s, Critical Disability Theory (CDT) explores how society fails to support people with disabilities. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, CDT analyzes “disability as a cultural, historical, relative, social, and political phenomenon.” The field of study came from the 1970s disability rights marches in Washington, D.C. and ultimately resulted in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—a landmark decision that prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity that receives federal funds—a significant predecessor to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

Critical Disability Theory frames the term “disability” as a socially constructed phenomenon rather than biological or universal reality. The use of such blanket terminology stereotypes every individual with any sort of impairment—regardless of severity or functional hindrance—as a “disabled” person. This method of qualification is inherently marginalizing and oppressive. The Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) claims the term itself is a disability, stating:

“In our view, it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments, by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.” –UPIAS, 1975

Critical Disability Theory defines two models of disability: The Social Model of Disability and the Medical Model of Disability. Fitness—the ability to perform activities through exercise—is an inherent intersection between these two models. It’s important to differentiate between the two models in fitness communities where the availability of products and services are directly impacted by a client’s physical impairments.

The Medical Model of Disability

According the University of Oregon, the medical model views disability as resulting from an individual’s physical or mental limitations rather than social or geographical environments:

• Disability is a deficiency or abnormality
• Disability resides in the individual
• The remedy for disability-related problems is cure or normalization of the individual
• The agent of remedy is the professional who affects the arrangements between the individual and society

The Social Model of Disability

The Social model of disability separates disability (social exclusion) and impairment (physical limitation) and the belief that people with disabilities are a subjugated group:

• Disability is a difference
• Disability derives from interaction between an individual and society
• The remedy for disability-related problems is a change in the interaction between the individual and society
• The agent of remedy can be the individual, an advocate, or anyone who affects the arrangements between the individual and society

Differentiating Between Disabilities and Impairments in Fitness Communities

Fitness professionals and communities have tremendous opportunity to positively impact the social model of disability. Gyms can normalize training with physical impairments by offering modifiable exercise programs and working with adaptive athletes to eliminate stereotypes of being a traditionally non-inclusive social environment. Instead of separating adaptive athletes from non-adaptive athletes in different facilities and different workout regimens, gyms can curate programs that integrate both divisions by ensuring adequate equipment and modifications are available.

CrossFit, a branded fitness methodology characterized by functional and constantly varied movements, is an excellent example of exercise programming that scales to athlete’s needs. Daily workouts are scaled according to athletic ability regardless of whether the modification is due to medical impairment, difference in strength or flexibility, or general wellbeing at the time of exercise. Implementing this method of delivery in exercise programming across all sports and fitness activities would have a significantly positive impact in welcoming individuals with impairments to participate in communal fitness programs.

Services like Nanedge automatically generate modified versions of workout programs depending on an athlete’s ability. By acknowledging that stereotypes exist and offering services that create highly-inclusive programs for any individual, gyms can effectively mitigate the social construct of “disability” people and instead focus on improving the physical impairment of their clients.