Tom
What do you mean by....
"I think that impairment is worse than non-impairment in many
circumstances."
Do you mean that in the same way that it is worse to be old and young? Its
worse to be poor than rich. (Comparison based on Social value)
Or do you mean that in the same way that impairment itself de-values who we
are. The argument found in quality of life discussion?
If we look at life cycle from a human variation perspective, Isn't
impairments a particular part of life cycle, in the same way that childhood
youth, middle age and old age is part of life cycle. In that case why place
man-made value on it. For me, each one of my impairments is part of who I
am. Yes of course there are times when one or the other seems to take more
time away from what I wanted to do. But then for some people, having to
work three jobs in order to survive create same limitations as my
impairments do for me. If society would to be built so that needs required
by all human variation could be met would that not help us reduce the
socially constructed and impairments restriction? Consequentially the value
of what is worth more or less?
Maria Barile (MSW)
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "T W Shakespeare" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: Obstacles to identity formation
Larry said:
"impairment merely re-adopts the old notion of disability as it existed
prior to the social model."
"Words have no meaning except what we make of them and they are
certainly not constant in what they purport to convey."
"I a paradoxical absolute relativist deny that there is any norm in
anything and that number and value do not really exist outside of human
construction and interpretation."
I would tend to agree with your first two statements, broadly speaking
and not wanting to quibble.
But impairment surely does exist outside of human construction and
interpretation. Animals can be impaired, and it limits their ability to
survive and reproduce in their environment. Pre-linguistic humans
presumably were often impaired, and the consequences were similarly
disadvantaging. Norm, relating to average, or perhaps to 'evolved
species capacity' has meaning beyond human normative valuation, surely?
I think that impairment is worse than non-impairment in many
circumstances.
Perhaps we need a comment from Ron Amundsen?!
Tom S
________________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.
________________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.
|