I wasn't here on Friday, so in a rather sad attempt to grab me a bit of
Friday blood-sugar-low argumentativeness, and generally kicking a guy
when he's being kicked down (a temporal event only possible in virtual
reality), I thought I'd display my ignorance of recent advances in
linguistics to just state that as far as I know, for the most part,
Wittgenstein's "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be [remain?]
silent" still holds sway, and that ol' Chomsky would hold with both the
things you just can't believe: Language does define our attitudes and
determine our actions, and logically it is an infallible indication
of our belief system[s] (whether we like it or not, and unfortunate
for all literalists out there, without direct causal relationships: the
gangsta rapper giving a big shout out to all his niggaz, is not, I'm
afraid, per se a racist because of this), and we can presume that if
you cannot say it then you cannot think it. Amazing, huh? I hope I have
made myself precisely clear, but that's unlikely, and, anyway, the
author is dead (Saussure?), so bring your own, as they say...
Pretentious? Moi?
Monday morning coming down.
Iain
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:06:00 +0100 "Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Language and terminology may reveal much about our attitudes but they do
> not define our attitudes nor determine our actions. Language is a means
> of communication, not an infallible indication of an individuals belief
> system. Would you similarly berate an individual who's first language is
> not English or who's vocabulary is not as extensive as yours simply
> because they lacked the means to communicate using socially acceptable
> terminology? Would you go further and make a judgement regarding their
> attitude and, by implication, the beliefs they hold based solely on their
> use of language?
>
> Some of history's greatest tyrants have also been some of it's greatest
> orators, carefully structuring every phrase to ensure receptive ears hear
> nothing that may betray the speakers underlying attitudes. Such reliance
> on the use of language to determine (and manipulate) attitudes is almost
> Orwellian in it's scope - this constant tinkering with the English
> language, the banishing of unacceptable words and phases, the rational
> presumably being that if you can't say it, you can't think it!
>
> I for one don't give a wet slap what you call things so long as the job
> gets done and the people who need support get it. If that means
> unintentionally causing offence or invoking the wrath of the disability
> (sorry impairment) thought police along the way then so be it.
>
> Damn I love Fridays :)
>
> St.John Skeates
> Awards Section
> Bedfordshire County Council
> Direct Line 01234 316300
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: claire wickham [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]; Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm
> 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]
>
> *********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed.
>
> If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately
> by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
> Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer.
>
> Any modification of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
> unless expressly authorised by the sender.
> *********************************************************************
----------------------
Iain Hood
[log in to unmask]
Student Adviser, Learning Support
Anglia Polytechnic University
Cambridge
01223 363271 ex 2316
|
