Hi Alex,
I accept that the social model was intended as a means of
highlighting the problems of the built environment for many disabled people.
I think that the issue here is the extent to which difference is acccepted
at all - I agree absolutely that there is no bipolar definition of
ability/disability/fat/thin or whatever. I read an exchange on this list
some time ago in which Tom Shakespeare was arguing along the lines of the
social model doesn't allow the concept of a continuum, but rather forces a
false distinction between disability and impairment. The question for me is,
if you can be disabled by built environments, then the environments
themselves are a concrete example of disabling attitudes. Therefore, the
social model can and should be applied across the board. I take your point
about fat people being able to diet (although obesity is often a sign of a
psychological problem, and losing weight is anything but easy), but I think
there's a problem with that idea too; it follows the medical model (i.e.
it's your fault that you're fat, or your fault that you're disabled because
you haven't tried hard enough to overcome your problems, which is, I think,
the point that Charlotte Cooper was making, and is the attitude that I'm
arguing is continued throughout western culture (although I could be accused
here of making generalisations) - if you don't conform the the perceived
"norm" (which is not at all "normal"), the there are ways for you to
"improve" yourself through diet, exercise and cosmetic surgery. I guess that
my focus on the body leaves a gap where learning disability is concerned; I
don't know how to bridge it!
Regards,
Lynne
> --------
> From: A.Mcclimens
> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2000 11:13 am
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Barbie and the social model of disability
>
> Morning Lynne;
>
> I've just booted up and was very interested by your posting to the
> list. I'm also looking at the social model but from a different
> perspective. My subject area is learning difficulties and in order to
> get a new angle I too had a look at Cooper's article. Now while I
> think there's something to go on there I'm not convinced.
> the social model as it was originally developed (if I've got this right)
> aimed to liberate people oppressed by the built environment. these
> people tended to have physical problems (and obesity might be
> one of them) and they rejected the design model which sought to
> accommodate the 'average' person where average meant ambulant.
> there's an issue here of degrees of difference and kinds of
> difference. Cooper might well be towards the obese end of the
> scales (on an objective measure; kilos or pounds) but it's how
> society measures her obesity which I think she was objecting to.
> for people who have learning difficulties they seem to be ignored
> both by society and by the social model since both tend to cater
> for physical 'disabilities' and are uncomfortable with the notion of
> impairment. hence they tend towards a difference of kind.
>
> my point is that we either see people as being on a continuum of
> difference/ability/weight etc or we categorise so concretely that the
> continuum is segregated and people 'belong' in one category and
> not another.
> a fat woman calling herself disabled is interesting conceptually but
> she has the option of dieting. a person with a learning difficulty
> doesn't have a similar alternative. as far as altering body shape
> goes some people with Downs syndrome do opt for plastic surgery
> but that can only disguise their appearance, the intellectual part of
> their condition stays.
>
> I admit that my own gender sometimes clouds my thinking here.
> given the option I'd go for the Barbie shape but I suppose I'm just
> hopelessly conditioned.
>
> if you feel there's any more to discuss I'd be pleased to hear from
> you.
> the weather in Sheffield is overcast.
>
> regards,
>
> Alex
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|