I have been arguing long and hard for my particular interpretation of the
social model on a uk autism list, and have met with some hostility for doing
so, the usual reasons is that people can accept at the high funtioning end
one were merely differnet but cling toward a disability interpretation where
so call mental retardation were present.
I am an absolute relativist who thinks that once one begins to accept
alternative ways of structuring the world one does not need the word
impairment either, which is effectively cognate linguistically with
disability. That is to say it is only when one puts any kind of value on a
particular funtion of the human animal, that is to say how "well" it were
performed, only then is one allowing the measure of how far the performance
of that funtion were impaired, one has to norm ones scale in order to
determine what side impairment falls on.
If one looks at IQ, ( a concept which can be thorouhgly deconstructed BTW)
one sees that it is a scale, and ought to be as neutral as say a scale of
temperature, where one cannot objectively and absolutely say what is hot and
what is cold, only that one position on the scale were hotter or colder than
another.
Another way of trying to understand the relativist position of my philosophy
is to use analogy again
What folows is to be regarded as copyright to me as a piece of writing,
which I will shortly have on my web site, so don't go quoting it without my
permission
I am like a tall pine growing in a forest of broad leaved trees, that
although I am very different from them, I am at least there equal in
stature, whereas were I a younger tree or stunted in my growth, I would be
overwhelmed by the other trees and maybe unable to ever reach the forest
canopy because they block out my light.
Well, consider a tree growing alone in the middle of an open plain. Whatever
height it is there are no other trees to compare it with. It is the tallest
tree around, however young it is, it is the oldest tree around, and however
long it lasts, the longest lived. however diseased or mishapen, it is the
most perfect tree around, because there are none to better it.
But put that tree in a forest of its peers and it might be short, mishapen
and blighted once we have sight of them. Its timber may of necessity thus be
less valued.
Well every human being is that tree on its own in the plain. It is its own
standard of perfection, whatever happens to it in life.
The forest is society, and only by comparison with society can an individual
find him/her self valued or devalued, declared imperfect, or diseased.
Disability is not something which can be measured, it is not a quantity,
like height or weight, it can only be determined by reference to something
which is not disability.
It is not something we are born with, it is something that is given to us by
our peers, as race or creed is given, as nationality is given. as a name is
given.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mark Priestley
> Sent: 15 May 2001 09:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: intellectual disability?
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
________________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.
|