Hello Colleagues -
A couple of weeks ago, I suggested to someone on this list that the
Handbook of Disability Studies. edited by Albrecht, Seelman and Bury, would
be a good classroom resource, and pointed to a review of it that I had done
for the e-zine, Disability World. I received 2 private comments suggesting
that the Handbook is too oriented toward the "medical model" of disability.
One commenter explained she was accepting that judgment by others she
respected, because she has not had a chance to look at it herself.
I indicated both surprise and disagreement with that criticism of the
Handbook; I have obtained agreement from both commenters to put our
discussion on this listserve, in case others would like to give input. The
exchange we've had so far is pasted below. I do note that Keith McVilly has
recommended two chapters from the Handbook as part of the current thread,
"How Disabled People are Viewed."
I welcome reactions to the exchange so far, which is reproduced in its key
points, next
First comment from:
Joe Camilleri, Chair
National Commission Persons with Disability
Centru Hidma Socjali, Braille Street
Sta. Venera HMR 18 - MALTA
Am I the only one in thinking that the Handbook of Disability Studies takes
an impairment/ Medical Model stance on many issues?
Second comment (she had not seen the first) from:
Beth Omansky Gordon, The George Washington University
Washington, D.C., USA
Re: the Albrecht volume -- I have heard many criticisms about this volume
as not being truly representative of disability studies. This volume was
long-awaited and happily anticipated. But, when it was finally published,
an audible groan of disappointment was heard throughout the dis. studies
community. It is too medical model. Some of the contributors have
expressed regret about being part of this volume because it didn't turn out
the way it was first promoted.
There are many good dis. studies readers across several disciplines that
are more universally received within the discipline. I thought you might
like to know about this.
My response to both:
HI Beth and Joe --
I thought I would let each of you see the response from the other, which
are mutually supportive .... I appreciate getting your responses, although
I can't agree with the criticism. I wonder how many of the critics have
examined the source (which unfortunately is too expensive to allow many to
do just that!) I think maybe this discussion would be worth holding on the
Disability Research listserve itself ....
Frankly, I was surprised to hear this criticism; had I been aware of it, I
would have addressed that explicitly. ... my top-of-the-head response is
that, of course, with almost 40 different chapters, including the preface,
not only the quality but the theoretical slants vary somewhat.
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that the whole enterprise of the
Handbook is explicitly committed to the social model -- I could give
various quotes, but here's one, just for example -- in the introductory
discussion of terminology to be used (middle of page 3)"This heated
discourse struggles with expressing values that acknowledge individual
difference and inclusion in a society based on civil rights." (To me, that
is very much a "social model" perspective on the issues.) Included among
the authors are some of the leading social model exponents, e.g. Adrienne
Asch, Carol Gill, Tom Shakespeare, Colin Barnes, Geoff Mercer, Len Barton
-- and chapter topics includeDivided UnderstandingsThe Social Experience of
Disability; Disability CultureAssimilation or Inclusion?; Identity
Politics, Disability and Culture; Disability, Education and Inclusion; etc.
etc.
Given that array, even if there are a couple of chapters that one might
classify as leaning to an impairment perspective (but, I'm not sure which
those would be), the collection seems to be a good one to represent the
social perspective of Disability studies. What am I missing here?
Beth's reply to my response:
Without gossiping, I will say that the criticisms I heard about the book
came from scholars who were very familiar with the book project, and with
the contents. I have not read the book. I almost bought it a couple of
times, and was advised by colleagues whose opinions I highly respect to
give it a pass. You have a good point about the cost being
prohibitive. If it were more reasonable in price I may have taken a chance
on it.
.......
It seems to me that while "civil rights" issues are, indeed, an integral
component of the social model, a commitment to civil rights is not a
benchmark of commitment to the social model. The social model addresses
much more than just civil rights, although I think that American disability
studies tends to focus more on civil rights and the humanities than does
disability studies elsewhere around the world. People who are entrenched
in the medical model can (and often are) proponents of disability rights.
I look forward to the discussion.
________________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.
|
