Hi
re: 'Intellectual disability'? ...or to put it another way...
...the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life
of the community on an equal level with others due to the economic and
cultural demands of a society that fails to accommodate intellectual and
cognitive difference (e.g. the development of more intellectually demanding
means of production under advanced capitalism, the expansion of higher
education as a form of social inclusion/exclusion, etc, etc.).
As for 'measuring' IQ...? (i.e. the ability to succeed in tests designed by
people who think and write in a particular way) ... :-(
If we are serious about taking a more social interpretation of disability,
shouldn't we be trying to explain why certain people become more or less
included/excluded at different historical moments, in different societies,
rather than buying into the business (I use the term advisedly) of labelling
individual deficit.
It is still unclear to me why (mostly) academics have difficulty with social
interpretations of disability applied to people with the label of learning
difficulties . It seems a very helpful framework for me. Indeed, some of the
earlier academic attempts at social interpretation came from writers in this
field, For example, see...
Dexter, L. (1958). A social theory of mental deficiency. American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, 62, 920-928.
Ryan, J. and Thomas, F. (1980). The Politics of Mental Handicap.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Just a thought.
Best Wishes
Mark.
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Laurence
Bathurst
Sent: 15 May 2001 02:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: response to Rosemary Pryor
Hello Andy
I am very open to alternative approaches to my interpretation which is:
Intellectual disability indicates what some people in various nations call
"mental retardation". In, Australia, the term is sometimes interchanged
with the term "developmental disability". I believe "intellectual
disability" is used to distinguish whether a person who has a developmental
disability has a congenital cognitive impairment (or an impairment acquired
in childhood) which affects learning and thus adaptive skills for
independent living (or intellectual) development. The term distinguishes
people with a cognitive impairment (of this type) and people who have, for
instance, cerebral palsy or spina bifida where the impairment is primarily
a physical one. Of course, people can have a combination of both physical
and "intellectual" disabilities (impairment).
I assume the extra label is largely due to the different type of support
requirements that are specific to the nature of impairment. And yes, I
know we all have different support requirements.
Different again is another category of "learning disability" or "learning
difficulty". I only have a very loose interpretation of this and would
welcome any corrections. In Australia, the term is used to denote a
particular type of impairment that effects learning such as dyslexias and
ADHD which affect learning (but not with the same level or type of support
required by someone with an intellectual disability).
Of course, many people have combinations of all the above. A child who
acquired an intellectual impairment as a result of meningitis may also have
ADHD. So might a child who has a congenital physical developmental
disability.
Why do we need all these categories?...why label people? I dunno. As bad
as it all sounds, homogeneity sounds just as bad.
At 01:23 AM 15/05/2001 +1000, you wrote:
> I guess many of us go through these forum messages and think how some
>messages reflect on issues around one's own personal environment. I really
>hate this term "intellectual disabilities" what category of people is that?
>As for the rest I shudder to think! I have AD/HD and severe dyslexia along
>with physical impairment. I have been a disability activist since 4 years
>of age. As child locked up in mental institution considered useless! Now
>I'm a parent with child of AD/HD how to I relate to this type of message?
>
>I'm not normally lost for words but am now!
>
>Andy
>www.hi2u.org
>Hi2u 4 people with hidden impairments
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rosemary Pynor" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:04 AM
>Subject: Re: response to Rosemary Pryor
>
>
> > To all the parents of people with intellectual disabilities,
> >
> > I was not referring to you when I made my comments about parents
> > controlling the adendas in support groups. I was referring to groups
where
> > adults with the condition have the intellectual capacity to run their
own
> > lives. Many physical disabilities with childhood onset are a case in
>point.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Dear Felicity,
> > >
> > >With 31 years of being the parents of an intellectualy disabled
daughter
> > >behind us, in our mid sixties and with no relief in sight, my wife and
I
>are
> > >two of the thousands of empirical examples of what you write about. Of
> > >course we want the best for our daughter, of course we want an
>environment
> > >where her physical, emotional and psychological needs are taken care
of,
>one
> > >that will survive us.
> > >
> > >However, while government neglects its responsibility to and on behalf
of
> > >the community it represents, parents will continue toprovide the best
> > >environment and quality of life they can to their sons and daughters,
for
>as
> > >long as they can and at the direct expense of their own.
> > >
> > >As my friend Dianne observed: "why do we (parents) have to work so
> > >incredibly hard for so little, and then have to be grateful as well?"
> > >
> > >Amen to that. rgds John
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Felicity Maddison" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:58 AM
> > >Subject: response to Rosemary Pryor
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear Rosemary,
> > >Parents who have sons and daughters with an intellectual disability are
>most
> > >likely to experience, due to the lack of supports available in the
> > >community, a prolongation of, and continuance in, their intensive
>parenting
> > >role well beyond the years generally accepted by the broader community.
>It
> > >is the parents who are expected to provide
support,physically,emotionally
> > >and financially. They are very much stakeholders and
> > >societal/governmentexpectation appears to be that if their offspring
with
>a
> > >disability has a child (with or without a disability) and cannot raise
>that
> > >child unassisted that it is the family who would take up the reins on a
> > >second involuntary term of intensive parenting. Parents know only too
>well
> > >the difficulties experienced in raising a child with a disability. Most
> > >parents want a better life for their children than they have had. So
why
> > >would they a) want to their son or daughter to replicate their
>experiences
> > >particularly when their offspring's coping mechanisms may not be as
>finely
> > >honed as their own and b) line themselves up for a perpetual double
dose
>of
> > >of intensive parenting. There can be virtue in selfishness.
> > >Regards
> > >felicity
> > >
> > >________________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.
> >
> > =================================================
> > Rosemary Pynor
> > School of Behavioural & Community Health Sciences
> > University of Sydney
> > PO Box 170 LIDCOMBE NSW 1825
> > AUSTRALIA
> > 61 2 9351 9598 (ph)
> > 61 2 9351 9540 (fax)
> >
> > ________________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.
________________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.
|
