Marian,
I am intrigued by this thread and the various comments, and
particularly by your comments. With regard to Larry's post, my reading
was sympathetic; my understanding of what I agreed to was as follows:
if your impairment is visible, divergent behavior is attributed to bad
character. Maybe there are heirachical differences in how impaired
people are treated (and treat each other). But, we shouldn't perpetuate
the notion that categories have validity, or reinforce the
oversimplification of diversity that categories confer. Therefore, we
decry the shortsightedness of academics who endorse this system.
My understanding of the above is certainly colored by my interest in
Liz DePoy's question earlier, of whether there is a tension in the
disability community between those with visible vs. nonvisible
disabilities. For me, Larry's question relates to that interest.
With regard to the initial posting by Pauline (see below), I understand
the question to be centered around her example of degree: using
crutches to walk vs. using a wheel chair. Thus, I think that the
initial question of degree was then translated to type, while the
notion of degree was challenged as well.
[log in to unmask],InternetGW2 writes:
>But it is for exactly this reason that I agree with Larry too. Maybe we
>don't all read his remarks in the same way, but the danger is that by
>singling his comments out in this way, we don't find out how others read
>them. What I get very strongly from Larry's contributions about
>neurodiversity is a voice that is struggling to be heard and rarely
>listened
>to in the overall scheme of things. I don't think he was homogenising
>academics - certainly not in the same way that someone on another list
>did
>recently - and even if he was, I recall that members of this list often
>shut
>down the points he tries to make. My interpretation of what he is
>saying is
>that all too often, research - including so-called emancipatory
>research -
>is aimed at producing "reality", "truth" and definitive, totalising
>answers.
>If that is happening, and I tend to agree with him on that issue, then
>it
>worries me. I see research in other areas making a real attempt to
>address
>things like complexity theory, because researchers in these fields
>acknowledge the extent to which social life is changing. I hope that
>Larry's
>point can be discussed further.
>Best wishes, Mairian
>>
>> I'm aware that Shakespeare has talked about the existence of a
>hierarchy of
>> impairments within institutions - however, is there any one else who
>has
>> explored this? I'm also aware of French and Crow's standpoint work. I
>realise
>> this is a difficult issue for us as disabled people to engage in, but
>I'd
>> rather we explored it than non-disabled academics. Moreover, as
>Abberley
>> has pointed out in the past - impairment is the substratum upon which
>our
>> disability is erected - surely it is important, therefore, to
>acknowledge
>> that there are differences in impairment as these will influence our
>general
>> disability experiences (with regard to social reaction to, and
>experience of
>> varying degrees of impairment).
>>
Another perspective, again from Abberley, but quoting Vic Finkelstein:
Finkelstein "argues that since
'assumed levels of employability separate people into different levels
of
dependency ... By trying to distance themselves [groups of people with
particular impairments or degrees of impairment] from groups that they
perceived as more disabled than themselves they can hope to maintain
their
claim to economic independence and an acceptable status in the
community.'
(1993a, p. 14)
He cautions against doing this for what are essentially political
reason,
that it will divide the movement, and points out that those who did this
would be surrendering to the logic of the medical model, which they
claim to
reject. Now this appeal to unity and theoretical consistency, whilst
appropriate to its context, seems to me to pass over an essential issue
for
disabled people - that, even in a society which did make profound and
genuine attempts to integrate impaired people into the world of work,
some
would be excluded by their impairment." (Abberley, P. (1998) Disabled
people
and social theory'. In T. Shakespeare (ed) The Disability Reader: Social
Science Perspectives. London: Continuum)
Finkelstein also referred in a 1990 article to an implicit hierarchy
when he
talks about the relationships between Deaf and disabled people, though
this
is a hierarchy relating to disability. ("'We' are not disabled, 'you'
are".
In. S.Gregory and G.M. Hartley (eds) Constructing Deafness. London:
Pinter
Publishers in association with the Open University.)
Heather MacDuffie
Center for Community Inclusion
University of Maine
5717 Corbett Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5717
581-1468
________________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.
|