On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Maria Barile wrote (with a great deal of editing) :
> We need, as many have said, an innovative way to view the impairment
> component(s); preferably without totally going back to the biomedical ideas
> of the 1940's.
I like to look at physical disablement from a phenomenological
perspective, the experience of being disabled and so on. However,
although I wholeheartly agree with the above statement, and am very
interested in this debate, I fear that 'an innovative way to view
impairment' would fall upon deaf or rather indifferent ears. For
instance the phenomenological way to view in impairment taken by
myself and other philosophers e.g Drew Leder and Susan Wendell (in part)
as seen as 'reduces disability to a mere thought' or not serious
analysis by some social modellists. This is hardly an isolated case.
Could it be that * the social model* in all its forms has gained so much
support that, by sheer numbers, those supporters, knowingly or otherwise,
exclude discourse on disability of any other kind? This would not just
be over rigid application but just plain arrogance. Or do I over state
my case?
Michael
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|