Maybe my mis-interpretation but in gender study do we not also use a
distinction in similar way that is: (sex) biology (gender) social. Would
that not be what social model of disability at least the non-materialist
types in reference to Priestly 1998.
If it the distinction can be used in gender study why not in disability
study?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Arnold" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: A Question Reply to John Homan
> I think the social model is a little mistaken in using the word
impairment,
> because the model has to modify the semantic understanding and root of the
> word impairment from it cognacity with disability in order to work.
>
> impairment still carries a value judgement in that it describes a state of
> less than perfection. perfection having to be measured in what can only be
a
> social way by the observer or definer of "impaired"
>
> if one substitutes condition for impairment, one is describing a neutral,
> just so, the state that one is either born with or has aquired.
> starting from the position of a theretically unsocial world where everyone
> were in John Donnes sence an island, it would not matter the level of ones
> funtion, either cognative organic or physical, one would live out ones
span,
> even if one were anencephalic and that span were zero.
>
> I suspect I have already lost most people here, but the point is, that if
> one introduces as few as one person to the model one therefore consitutes
> social space and invites the comparison of person a with person b.
>
> Add in society and factor in the particular mileu (this may be a social
> gruoping, a state (ie country) and an environment, and ability to funtion
> can be measured against social norms and values and also in terms of what
is
> deemed necesary to survive to a degree that is considered acceptable in
that
> environment. For instance if one were born in Alaska with a condition
which
> made wearing clothes uncomfortable and heated rooms were not yet invented
> one would have an alaska centric impairment in terms of survival, survival
> having been deemed a socially desirable goal.
>
> I am of course too philosophical. But I think my way, in fact I can only
do
> things my way, it is the only way. If occasionaly I agree in part with
> someone elses model, that is all well and good, it must signify to me that
> the model were right, only insofar as it co-incides with my value
judgement
> or my ability to be persuaded that my original judgement were wrong.
>
> Larry
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Timothy Lillie
> > Sent: 23 March 2001 18:33
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: A Question Reply to John Homan
> >
> >
> > Yes I agree. But no one attempts to modify, change or evolve the social
> > model. I do not see it a static, concrete (if I was only thinking in a
> > concrete fashion what sort of philosopher would I be?), never changing
> > model or concept - no concept is. I am charging social modellist as
> > treating it this way. It is not critiqued or questioned (or at least
> > only "the fringe bits" are. No one has the guts or inclination to
> > question the foundations.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > Oh, I'm not so sure about that. I think that the goodness of fit of the
> > social model is less good when we research the lives of people with
severe
> > cognitive impairments, for example. Of course, social constructions of
> > severe cognitive impairment can be created and critiqued, but it
> > is (to me)
> > less clear that the "disability" is solely (or primarily) the result of
> > social construction. By comparison: The social model completely
explains
> > the "disability" that is created by not having an accessible public
> > building; it is less useful (though not, I hasten to add, useless) in
> > explaining how a non-acessible public building creates "disability" in
> > people with severe cognitive impairments.
> >
> > I would welcome comments from others on this topic.
> >
> > Tim Lillie
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > ________________End of message______________________
> >
> > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> > are now located at:
> >
> > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> >
> > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> >
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|