The Whole Mess

(Part 1 of 2)

A major policy assumption is that success is defined as independence, whereas dependency is considered failure. Even within the disability community, it is easy to fall into a neoliberal capitalist assumption, with its emphasis on market-based individualism and minimal state intervention, that to be a “good” disabled person, we must prove that we can, with the proper accommodations afforded, live and produce on our own. This shows up in multiple ways in the legal and policy fields, including Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) policies, Social Security Income (SSI) asset limits, and the financial and social devaluation of caregiving labor, to name just a few. Disability justice principles remind us that, in fact, all humans are interdependent and that disabled folks are no different ¹. If anything, that truth is starkly apparent in how we live our “independent” lives. Ethical disability policy must be grounded in interdependence rather than independence, recognizing care, reliance, and mutual support as fundamental to human life. This tension between ideals of independence and the lived reality of interdependence becomes especially visible in how U.S. disability policy is structured.

A major policy assumption is that success is defined as independence, whereas dependency is considered failure. Even within the disability community, it is easy to fall into a neoliberal capitalist assumption, with its emphasis on market-based individualism and minimal state intervention, that to be a “good” disabled person, we must prove that we can, with the proper accommodations afforded, live and produce on our own. This shows up in multiple ways in the legal and policy fields, including Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) policies, Social Security Income (SSI) asset limits, and the financial and social devaluation of caregiving labor, to name just a few. Disability justice principles remind us that, in fact, all humans are interdependent and that disabled folks are no different. If anything, that truth is starkly apparent in how we live our “independent” lives. Ethical disability policy must be grounded in interdependence rather than independence, recognizing care, reliance, and mutual support as fundamental to human life. This tension between ideals of independence and the lived reality of interdependence becomes especially visible in how U.S. disability policy is structured.

Within the United States specifically, neoliberal independence is held as the moral ideal. As a society, we believe self-sufficiency and productivity are the pinnacle of success. This is especially clear in policy discourse. For example, SSDI is framed as a temporary (albeit longer-term) financial safety net while recipients attempt to return to work, rather than a legitimate form of long-term support, even though many recipients have lifelong or terminal disabilities ². Policy discourse promotes returning to work, emphasizing work “incentives” that, in reality, financially restrain disabled people with income limitations that dissuade disabled people from earning “too much” ³. There are ongoing eligibility reviews to ensure recipients remain “disabled enough” to qualify for support, making it conditional at best and punitive at worst.

Beyond its practical shortcomings, SSDI reflects deeper moral assumptions about who is considered deserving of care. SSDI assumes that paid labor equals moral worth, that needing ongoing support is a moral risk, that productivity is evidence of responsibility, and that dependence is something to be corrected. The policy is not just administering benefits; it is policing deservingness. Reliance on collective support is treated as a failure of character, and disabled people must continually justify their need to exist outside the labor market. Many disability-based programs remain suspicious of disabled people accumulating assets, such as Medicaid programs, often imposing limits and implicitly communicating that we may receive help, but only if we remain economically constrained.

This moral calculus is also evident in the eligibility criteria themselves, which reward prior labor market participation over current need. Eligibility for SSDI is contingent not only on a strict definition of disability, but on prior participation in the formal labor market through the accumulation of work credits ⁴. Framed as an insurance model in which beneficiaries have paid into the system, this requirement embeds a moral distinction between disabled people deemed deserving because of prior productivity and those whose disabilities limit or prevent sustained employment. This framework reflects a neoliberal ethical orientation in which access to support is treated as a reward for labor rather than a valid moral response to need. Disabled people are thus positioned as legitimate recipients of care only insofar as they can demonstrate past economic contribution, reinforcing the idea that dependence is acceptable only after productivity has been proven.

To be continued…

1. Sins Invalid. (n.d.). 10 Principles of Disability Justice. Sins Invalid. ↩︎
2. Urban Institute. (2016, February 25). 11 Charts about the Social Security Disability Insurance Program. https://www.urban.org/features/11-charts-about-social-security-disability-insurance-program ↩︎
3. Social Security Administration. (n.d.-b). Substantial Gainful Activity [Government]. Social Security. ↩︎
4. Social Security Administration. (n.d.-a). How Does Someone Become Eligible? [Government]. Retrieved January 25, 2026, from https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/qualify.html ↩︎