Before you run away Richard, I am not going to 'flame' you. At some point,
and I'm not sure where, this thread become 'social model limitations'. I
don't actually find this very helpful. The social model only has
limitations when we try to make it do more that its meant to do, and I
think that is the other part of the problem....
>
>Part of the problem is that to make the social model insight meaningful to
>ordinary disabled people across the world, it is discussed and used in very
>different ways to the exclusive academic environment. Put simply, many of
>us are working on the 'disability = social consequences of impairment'
>formula. Simple, easily communicated but loathed by some academics.
That is exactly the equation I am working with, and I note there are two
parts to the equation if we assume that disability is synomymous with
social consequences. This equation also signifies a relationship between
impairment and disability. I suspect what some people on the list are
trying to articulate is that first, impairment is not a unitary term and
second, if we are really committed to social change for ALL disabled people
then we have to understand the complex social make-up of impairment
(particularly in the relationship with chronic illness). We certainly can't
fully understand and translate into effective social practice the
relationship between disability and impairment before we do that.
>Consensus on these issues will never be unanimous because for all the
>academic's claim to 'objectivity', our views are heavily influenced by our
>politics. On that basis, I willingly concede that I am persuaded by
>materialist accounts and have no cause to reject such accounts in my day to
>day work.
>
I think the idea of 'objectivity' is absolute crap - there's no such thing!
I also think that 'academics' are too easily stereotyped and tarred with
the same brush. But I do subscribe to 'reflexivity' which makes me say yes,
sometimes materialist accounts are very persuasive because they peddle
'reality'and 'facts' but it is too easy for one group's interpretation of
'reality' to become dominant and therefore oppressive. It is that knowledge
- and there are many, many examples of it - which requires me to draw upon
other accounts, though I would never lose sight of the main goal because,
as you write:
>While we fiddle with semantics and schisms on this list, disability rights
>legislation is being massacred by the courts (US in particular) and disabled
>people are again facing the curse of eugenics (although breathe a sigh of
>relief, this is NEW eugenics!) with the practical result that we are
>routinely assessed as 'unworthy' of costly treatment, or even nutrition, in
>hospitals around the world.
I don't think too many people look at what comes before the massacre. For
example, some nations may have a disability rights law (which is now the
target of the massacre) but how many of us stopped to think, as that law
was being enacted, that that law itself is a barrier to the rights of large
numbers of disabled people on the grounds of its own framework. So much of
what we do is reactive, but I think the vision of a social understanding of
disability was intended to be proactive - transforming society rather than
tackling barriers in a piecemeal and simplistic way. To achieve that,
surely we have to listen to ALL people with impairments with an open mind
and try to come up with some common denominator, rather than a mind-set
which says that we MUST do it THIS way.
What I want to say again is this. If we agree that UPIAS was the driving
force behind the social model and that UPIAS was an organisation for people
with physical impairments, whilst at the same time continuing to rely very
heavily on the UPIAS definitions of disability and impairment, what does
this mean for inclusion? Has the movement as it is NOW come together in
recent times outside of the academy in a uniformly accessible environment
and talked together about whether the UPIAS statement needs adjustments
because of the extension of 'physical' to include sensory and what Colin
calls 'mental' impairments. As a person with a sensory impairment (though
actually I prefer the term communication impairment as that is a more
social rendition), it still jars when I read a statement that doesn't
acknowledge my existence whilst at the same time saying this is how it
should be for me. I imagine - no, I know that many others feel the same.
>
>I willingly defer to the huge intellects represented on the list but simply
>ask: 'do you stop to consider whether what you do benefits, harms or does
>absolutely nothing for disabled people?' Disabled people have been fighting
>the vested interests and arrogance of 'professionals' since they first
>sought to end the abuse of institutionalised 'care'. Might it be the case
>that the academic endeavours the movement spawned are now simply another
>barrier for disabled people to cross? Deeply ironic or what.
You know I think this is a critical point and unfortunately the social
transformation that we seek does not tend to reach the academy.
Nevertheless, the academy 'educates' and trains the doctors who think that
the Hippocratic oath gives them the power to decide over who is worthy of
life and what 'care' is 'in the best interests' of disabled people. Maybe
we could reach an understanding that what is needed is BOTH a top-down
approach AND a bottom up one.
At the same time, one thing that disabled activists and academics
ostensibly have in common is that they have a more developed sense of
social agency and collectivism, though of course not all academics are part
of the movement. But is this agency and collectivism there for ALL disabled
people?
>
>The movement that I am a part of is proud, inclusive and supportive, it is
>clearly there, rather than on this list, that I belong (cries of 'hear,
>hear' swell in the crowd).
>
Yes this is the movement I know too - 'here, here' - though I am afraid I
am more inclined to feel humble rather than proud because I think that
pride, though a magnet for some, can work against inclusion and
supportiveness. I still wish that you would carry on with your provocative
and evocative postings, Richard.
Best wishes
Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
Deafsearch
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
