Just a thought in this interesting exercise. 1/Although I sympathise with
the social model I can see that in spite of explaining impairement it cannot
explain all cases of disability.The social model or its 'environmental'
approach, serves as a tool to explain a reality but not all the reality can
be put toghether to make it easier for our human understanding 2/The theory
in fact uses a lot of the economic models of 'negative externalities' for
which someone has to be accountable for the cost of technology, economic
explotations, organiosations, etc.3/ The social model, however, choses to
find on 'society' (what a general and eterious term!) the responsible
entity. A different approach would unveil the hegemonic interests that hide
behind the term (I.e who have equities in, own, the car, pharmaceutical, war
industies?)
4/ the term 'Social' needs to be defined more nitly or the term needs to be
changed (the corner shop owner, the teacher, the nurse, we are all society!
However, equally, noone is society!) 5/ The social model, rightly, shifted
the foccus from the individual. It served a purpose when the so called
'medical model' was the 'common sense'. 6/ Society or the political and the
civil society have the responsibility to probide a fair level field, but
even by doing so, the term disabilities would still be used.
Best regards, Andy Velarde, UKC
understanding.----- Original Message -----
From: "claire wickham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: generalist/specialist assessors
> Peter et al,
>
> Language and terminology are important and they can reveal
> much about our attitudes. For example, if someone referred to BSL as
> "deaf and dumb language", I would consider this indicative of a
> non-acceptance of BSL as a language in its own right. As I have no
> evidence concerning the writer's behaviour, I concluded that he/she
> probably did not understand the social model of disability. Naturally I
> would change my mind should I have evidence that indicated that they
> place d the locus of disadvantage within society and its structures
> rather than in the individual.
>
> However, as you, I think, were noting, the distinction between
> disability and impairment is fundamental And yes, of course the social
> model can, and should, be criticised constructively...but simply
> talking about people with disabilities" is neither criticism nor
> constructive.
>
> And, to add to the thoughts about an assessor, an assessor who works
> within the social model is more likely to effect institutional change
> and make demands of service providers rather than construct a programme
> of individual adjustments.
>
> ATB
>
> Claire
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:04:46 +0100 Peter Hill <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > The Social Model of Disability is a philosophy, not a book of rules and
> > regulations. I would suggest that too pedantic an approach (eg jumping
> > on the writer's use of disability v impairment) leads to a 'cast in
> > stone' mindset - which, in turn, leads to harmful inflexibility. The
> > writer may well be au fait with the Social Model - his/her use of the
> > term 'disability' is not a disqualifier. (Note: I am aware of the
> > difference between 'disability' and 'impairment').
> >
> > Many on this forum read Oliver and others many years ago. Been there,
> > done that, bought the t-shirt, bought into the concept, - and are now
> > prepared, even, to be constructively critical of that concept.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Peter Hill
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > claire wickham wrote:
> >
> > > My point of view:
> > >
> > > I presume that the writer means impairment and not disability. I am
> > > taking issue here with a use of language that suggests the writer is
> > > not on board with the social model of disability where disability is
> > > "conceptualised as social oppression experienced by people with
> > > impairments and manifested in discrimination and consequent
> > > disadvantage." (Priestly, 2001)
> > >
> > > I would comment that a DSA assessor whose work is underpinned by the
> > > social model of disability is more likely to be empowering and to
> > > examine the situation in terms of institutional barriers and
> > > discrimination.
> > >
> > > ATB
> > >
> > > Claire
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:37:31 +0000 Eileen McCabe
> > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"Specialising in one disabiilty makes better DSA assessors as
> > >>they are more likely to have an in-depth knowledge of that disability
> > >>and be better able to understand the student's requirements than
> > >>generalists (those who assess for a range of disabilities) who will
> > >>have superficial knowledge of the disability."
> > >>
> > >>Does anyone agree/disagree or have any point of view on the above
> > >>comment?
> > >>
> > >>Regards
> > >>Eileen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>CCPD
> > >>University of Westminster
> > >>email [log in to unmask]
> > >>tel: 020 7911 5163
> > >>fax: 020 7911 5162
> > >>
> > >>This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named
> > >>only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you
must
> > >>not copy or show them to anyone, nor should you take any action based
on
> > >>them, other than to notify the error by replying to the sender.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ----------------------
> > > Claire Wickham
> > > Director: Access Unit - Short Courses and Outreach
> > > University of Bristol
> > > Union Building
> > > Queen's Road
> > > Clifton
> > > Bristol BS8 1LN
> > >
> > > Tel: 0117 954 5710
> > > Textphone: 0117 954 5715
> > > Fax: 0117 954 5714
> > >
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 01527 500324
> > [log in to unmask]
> > www.study-pro.com
> >
> > Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources
> >
>
> ----------------------
> Claire Wickham
> Director: Access Unit - Short Courses and Outreach
> University of Bristol
> Union Building
> Queen's Road
> Clifton
> Bristol BS8 1LN
>
> Tel: 0117 954 5710
> Textphone: 0117 954 5715
> Fax: 0117 954 5714
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
|