Michael,
I'll start by saying I'm not a philosopher, so excuse if I've got the wrong
end of the stick. I'm looking at the social model for a very specific
research purpose from an academic viewpoint, and it has its problems (as
already discussed). I think the problem here is one of different aims; many
people need the social model to highlight the obstacles created by society
which impede their movement - in this case it's a political concept. For
non-disabled research students like me, it's an academic exercise which has
real-world implications, which I believe it's important not to forget. Other
people fall into both camps. And although I am not primarily concerned with
politics, I hope that my research will provide real evidence for the
problems inherent in the representation of physical impairment and
disfigurement on television, and that it can be used for political purposes.
In other words, the social model is being used for a range of purposes, by a
range of people. We are all open to criticism, but this does not in itself
invalidate our views, but rather promotes debate from a range of viewpoints.
Lynne
> ----------
> From: M.G.Peckitt
> Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2000 4:55 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Barbie and the social model of disability and other
> views
>
> 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
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|