Yes but like all foundation documents it should be open to ammendment and
revision.
There needs to be more inclusion of the perspectives of people with
neurological differences and the debate needs to be informed by people who
regard difference not necessarily as an impairment, more of a maladaptation
to a society which requires certain levels of cognitive funtion.
1976 was a quarter of a century ago, and we need to build on the past and be
critical of it in the context of the present if we are to lern from it.
I am not saying the document could have been written differently then,
however we have to accept that the state of knowledge then was not what it
is now.
Maybe I do come from a different world, in that, that which is imputed to be
impaired within me, is my very capacity for thinking and personhood. It is
difficult to compare experience of segregation because one is physically
rejected to the experience of rejection because one does not behave within
societal norms for reasons that are ultimately as physical as any other, but
at a more subtle level than for example crude brain injury.
However from the outside perspective of what is expected of personhood
within a prejudicial and discriminating society, we are alike in being
considered less than whole, and accorded a lesser status, therefore we do
have common cause
Back in 1976 it would have been hard to accept even by the enligthened
therists that there were autistic people, funtioning at a higher level in
society who shared a range of "impairments" with "lower funtioning" people
who were not even considered capable of having an opinion. We have only
started coming out of the wood work so to speak in the last decade or so, so
we have a lot of catching up to do with regard to awareness and conciosness
raising, not to mention supplanting the parent dominated, perspective of the
societies who supposedly campaign on our behalf but not with our consent.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mairian Corker
> Sent: 28 August 2001 13:05
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Information request re hierarchy of impairments
>
> The UPIAS (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation)
> document is
> the cornerstone of disability studies and disability activism in
> the UK. It
> was written in 1976 when the disability movement began to form. The full
> version can be accessed at the Centre for Disability Studies
> web-site at the
> University of Leeds. An abbreviated version can be found in Oliver, M.
> (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke:
> MacMillan. It does not define "physical" impairment directly, but as I
> suggested, the meaning can be gauged from what the document says about
> specific impairments, and by how particular groups, most notably Deaf
> people, responded to its contents (see Campbell. J. and Oliver, M. (1996)
> Disability politics: Understanding our past changing our future. London:
> Routledge. It does however define the distinction between impairment and
> disability, which is at the heart of what UK disability studies calls "the
> social model". According to Paul Longmore and colleagues, an equivalent
> statement was produced by The League of the Physically Handicapped in the
> early 20th century in the US. (Longmore, P.K. and Goldberger,D.
> (2000) 'The
> League of the Physically Handicapped and the Great Depression: A
> Case Study
> in the New Disability History'. Journal of American History, 87(3):
> 888-322). There were also issues of resistance from the same groups that
> resisted the UPIAS statement. For me this represent compelling
> evidence that
> "physical" impairment is not an inclusive term.
>
>
________________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.
|
