The identification of individuals with the label of “intellectual disabilities” presents complex

implications, both personal and educational. On one hand, this label has empowered collective
organization and advocacy for rights, fostering the self-advocacy movement. On the other, it
has perpetuated societal biases that reinforce a personal tragedy model, framing individuals as
deficient and dependent. This essay critically examines the extent to which these contradictory
effects coexist. It argues that while the label facilitates necessary access to support and rights,
pervasive societal attitudes still lean toward deficit-based understandings, limiting true
inclusivity.

Disability is a condition that may affect an individual's physical, sensory, cognitive, intellectual,
or mental abilities in ways that limit their capacity to perform certain activities or participate in
society on an equal basis with others. Disabilities can be congenital (present at birth) or
acquired later in life due to illness, injury, aging, or other factors.

Disability is often categorized into types, including: Physical disabilities: Impairments affecting
mobility, strength, or physical functions (e.g.paralysis, amputation).Sensory disabilities:
Impairments involving the senses, such as vision or hearing loss. Intellectual disabilities:
Challenges in cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior.

Robbson (1997) argues that disability is also a social concept influenced by barriers in the
environment, such as inaccessible infrastructure, discriminatory attitudes, and lack of support
systems. This perspective is emphasized in the social model of disability, which seeks to address
societal barriers rather than focusing solely on the individual's condition.

Intellectual disability (ID) is a developmental disorder characterized by limitations in intellectual

functioning and adaptive behavior. This condition affects a person's ability to learn, reason,
solve problems, and adapt to everyday life situations. People with intellectual disabilities may
have difficulty with tasks like communication, social interactions, self-care, and academic skills.

The label of “intellectual disabilities” has long been shaped by societal stigmatization.
Historically, individuals with such diagnoses were institutionalized, excluded from mainstream
education, and subjected to pity or discrimination. This reflects the “personal tragedy model,”
which views disability as a misfortune requiring charity rather than empowerment. For
instance, segregated educational systems and sheltered workshops often treated individuals as
incapable of participating in broader societal roles.

However, this perspective overlooks the broader social and structural factors contributing to
exclusion. Disability scholars such as Tom Shakespeare (2006) have emphasized that
impairment alone does not determine disability; rather, societal barriers like inaccessible
environments and prejudiced attitudes play a significant role. By framing intellectual disabilities
solely through a lens of deficiency, societal systems devalue individual potential and
contributions.

Despite these historical challenges, the label of intellectual disabilities has also enabled
significant progress through self-advocacy movements. Groups like People First International
have redefined the narrative, empowering individuals to organize collectively, challenge
stereotypes, and demand equal rights.

These movements have achieved milestones such as increased legal protections, improved
access to education, and societal recognition of autonomy. For example, the introduction of
policies like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States
underscores the importance of labeling for accessing tailored support services ( United Nations,
2006).

Through collective advocacy, individuals have demonstrated their capacity for leadership,
decision-making, and active participation in their communities. This shift highlights the
transformative potential of the label when used to foster empowerment rather than pity.

In the educational setting, the label of intellectual disabilities can be both a tool for providing
necessary support and a source of restriction. On one hand, it can lead to access to special
education programs, tailored teaching methods, and resources that help individuals succeed in
ways they might not in a traditional setting.

Educational professionals who are informed about intellectual disabilities may offer the type of
accommodations or interventions that are beneficial for students, helping them to progress
academically and socially. On the other hand, the widespread societal perception of intellectual
disabilities often limits the potential of individuals in educational settings.

Further, in the educational sphere, the personal tragedy model can shape how educators,
peers, and even families perceive students with intellectual disabilities. While some schools
have made strides toward inclusive education, others still rely on segregated settings or low
expectations, based on the assumption that students with ID cannot succeed in general
education environments.

This view reinforces the idea that intellectual disabilities are an insurmountable obstacle rather
than an aspect of human diversity that can be supported and accommodated. Thus, the
educational implications of this model often limit opportunities for social interaction, academic
achievement, and personal growth.

The personal tragedy model can influence educators, leading them to adopt lower expectations
for students with intellectual disabilities, viewing them as incapable of achieving at high levels.

However, the benefits of labeling are often undermined by pervasive societal stereotypes.
Many educational and employment systems continue to frame intellectual disabilities as
deficits, leading to lowered expectations and limited opportunities. For instance, in mainstream
schools, students with intellectual disabilities are frequently placed in separate programs with
minimal inclusion in general classrooms. This segregation reinforces the idea that these
individuals are fundamentally different and unable to meet societal standards.

Similarly, employment outcomes for individuals with intellectual disabilities remain

disproportionately low, with many relegated to low-paying or sheltered jobs. Such outcomes
are not a reflection of individual capabilities but rather of systemic biases that prioritize
normative productivity over inclusivity. These stereotypes perpetuate the personal tragedy
model, framing disability as a problem to be managed rather than a diversity to be embraced.

The dual implications of labeling intellectual disabilities are rooted in the tension between
empowerment and marginalization. On the positive side, labeling grants access to essential
resources, accommodations, and advocacy networks. It ensures that individuals are recognized
within legal frameworks that protect their rights. On the negative side, labeling often reinforces
“otherness,” perpetuating societal views that emphasize limitations rather than strengths.

Addressing this dichotomy requires a shift in societal perceptions. Education systems,

workplaces, and media narratives must move beyond deficit-based frameworks to adopt more
inclusive approaches. For instance, the social model of disability emphasizes removing societal
barriers rather than focusing solely on individual impairments. By embracing this model, the
label of intellectual disabilities can be reframed as a marker of diversity and a call for systemic
change.

The label allows for the identification of common needs, such as support in education,
employment, and access to social services. It also facilitates the creation of networks and
systems designed to advocate for the rights of people with ID and promote more inclusive
societal attitudes.

The statement highlights the duality of the label of "intellectual disabilities," acknowledging its
potential for empowerment through collective support while critiquing its frequent framing
within a personal tragedy model of disability. I largely agree with the assertion, as it accurately
reflects the contradictory implications of such identification. Below, I elaborate on the positive
and negative aspects of this dynamic.

The identification of intellectual disabilities has enabled individuals to unite under a shared
identity, fostering the development of self-advocacy movements such as People First. These
movements empower individuals by advocating for rights, inclusion, and access to resources.

They challenge societal stigma, promote visibility, and encourage self-determination. Through
collective organizing, people with intellectual disabilities and their allies have successfully
influenced policy changes and improved educational and social support systems. For instance,
self-advocacy movements have played a key role in shifting the focus from institutionalization
to community-based support and inclusive education. They provide platforms for individuals to
voice their experiences, reject paternalistic attitudes, and demand equitable treatment (WHO,
2021).
 This collective action is a powerful counterbalance to societal marginalization. The
identification with the label of "intellectual disabilities" indeed has contradictory implications.
On one hand, it facilitates collective empowerment and advocacy; on the other, it risks
perpetuating a deficit-based view of disability.

The extent to which the positive potential of the label is realized depends on the willingness of
society, educators, and policymakers to embrace a more inclusive and strengths-based
perspective on intellectual disabilities.

In the nutshell, identification of individuals with the label of intellectual disabilities has both
empowered and marginalized those so-labeled. While it has facilitated collective organization
and access to rights, societal attitudes often remain rooted in the personal tragedy model,
limiting the label’s transformative potential. To fully realize the benefits of labeling, society
must shift toward inclusive frameworks that celebrate diversity and dismantle systemic
barriers. Ultimately, intellectual disabilities should not be seen as a personal tragedy but as an
opportunity for collective growth and inclusion.

REFERENCES

Davis, L. J. (2013). The Disability Studies Reader (4th ed.). Routledge. Macmillan Publishing
company.

United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Oxford:
Oxford University.
Robbson, S. (1997) Advocacy for People with Intellectual Disabilities. London: London
University.

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge. PGJ Publisher.

WHO (2021). World Report on Disability. Lusaka: WLD Punlisher.