The field of special education was dominated for a considerable time, at last until the 1960s, by the traditional natural science-based "psycho-medical" paradigm. Although this positivist manner of perceiving special education and deviance had to yield to the increasing emphasis on a sociologically based paradigm in the literature of the field since the 1960s, the psycho-medical paradigm has succeeded in rooting itself deeply in the practices of the discipline during its long history. There is still an ongoing battle between the psycho-medical and social paradigm for the right to diagnose deviance (Hedlund 2000). In other words, as Skrtic clearly states: the representatives of the new paradigm won the ideological battle, but lost the war on the battlefield (Skrtic 1991). Stangvik has admitted the same by saying that despite all the postmodern rationalization, the fate of deviant individuals is still dominated by the great tales of segregation and marginalization(Stangvik 1998). Recently, there has been heated discussion about the direction and general nature of the theory of special education(e.g. Pijl and Van den Bos 1998). According to Stangvik, the greatest benefit might be achieved by turning to history, anthropolgy and sociology. The problems of learning cannot be succesfully solved by using a system that repeats the routines that are conceptually, symbolically and practically built into basic education. The central areas of research in the field of special education are the scientific legitimization discource, classification practices and the formation and adaptation of subjects. It can be said, that this would mean creating an entirely new paradigm. Deviance must always be viewed in relation to its social context. The disability concept must simply be made ecologically or contextually valid. It is not sufficient that it is only etiologically valid. The centrality of needs means also that special education is normative by nature. We must decide which needs are more important than others. Furthermore if we accept the fact that the need for special education is socially defined, every researcher in the field is forced to make an ethical choice. If researcher accept the rational nature of special education, he also accept the prevailing educational inequality. If they criticize the prevailing practices of special education, they must consider special education as a facade hiding the prevailing inequality. In either case, the researcher must choose a side (Clark et al. 1998; Vehmas 2002). The growing field of disability studies has many facets and numerous styles, including Marxist, feminist postmodern and poststructuralistist. Some of these styles emphasize the social oppression of disabled people; others focus on the cultural and ideological construction of impaired bodies (Barton & Oliver 1997; Thomas 1999; Shakespeare 2006). However, all this work has as its common root a rejection of the psycho-medical model as the foundation for any effective understanding of impairment or disability. As disability has become politicized and the body has become a domain of theorization, the challenge has become one of how to embrance structuralistic and poststructuralistic work in disability studies while continuing to remain alert to the shape-shifting powers of orthodox biomedicine. (Williams 2001.) In the paper I am arguing, that fundamental factors in social paradigm are meaning, interpretation, discource and power. And these are essential elements of disability research and aslo indispensable to special education in order to go beyond the psycho-medical model.Theorethical and analytical reading texts of special education and disability research literature. Broadening the theoretically bases of special education Barton, L. & Oliver, M. 1997. Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: The Disability Press. Clark, C., Dyson, A. & Millward, A. 1998. Theorising Special Education: time to move on ? In Clark, Dyson & Millward (eds.): Theories in Special Education. London: Routledge, 156-173. Hedlund, M. 2000. Disability as a phenomen: a discource of social and biological understanding. Disability and Society 15(5), 765-780. Kivirauma, J. 2004. Scientific revolutuions in special education in Finland. European Journal of Special Needs Education 19(2), 123-143. Pjil, S. & Van den Bos, K. 1998. Decision making in uncertainity. In Clark, Dyson & Millward (eds.): Theorizing Special Education. London:Routledge, 106-115. Shakespeare, T. 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge. Skrtic, T. 1991. Behind the Special Education. Denever: Love. Stangvik, G. 1998. Conflicting Perspectives on Learning Disabilities. In Clark, Dyson & Millward (eds.): Theorizing Special Education. London:Routledge, 137-155. Thomas, C. 1999. Female Forms. Experienceing and Understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University. Vehmas, S. 2002. Deciance, difference and human variety: the moral significance of disability in modern bioethics. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis ser. B, 250. University of Turku. Williams, G. 2001. Theorizing Disability. In Albrecht, G., Seelman, K. & Bury, M.(eds.): Handbook of Disability Studies. London:Sage, 123-144.Disability and Society