I feel that anyone who is sceptical about the idea of impairment being
dependent on the context has that freedom to do so, but it is inherently
patronsing in the same way that society often dismissed people talking about
the social model of disability as fooling no one when the 'reality' of
biological difference was obvious to see - they in fact new better.
One has to suspend scepticism, and reset values and accept and listen to
people who feel that the experience of impairment is depedent on context,
the values we aspire to in life and our own reactions to it - hard as it is
to do so....
I have known severe organic impairment, but that was part of my self, my
life at that time and it was the context that devalued my experience of
impairment and thus life, not the impairment itself - that was part of my
life, whatever that life constituted at the time, which i'm sure was seen by
many as being poor because of their, not mine, value systems around life.
We, after all, have one life, not two lives which we can always choose
impairment against non-impairment. In that sense their is no sense in
comparing the two or saying one is preferable than the other - we cannot say
that impairment is better than non-impairment, otherwise we devalue the
existence of some people based on value systems they may not share, or have
come to reject.
Glenn
Dr Glenn Smith,
Research Fellow
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Bathurst [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 January 2003 10:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Obstacles to identity formation
Fellas
>In this sense impairment may neither be worse or better than
non-impairment, it is depedent on the context and value systems that
exist and we need to keep pushing those boundaries so that able-bodied
people understand that impairment does not equal worse than
non-impairment.
I think this is the claim that I am sceptical about. But I don't think
this makes me a determinist.
Tom
Impairment I think, MAY be no better or worse than non-impairment given
certain contingencies, eg. having dylexia may not have been any better or
worse than not having it before the development of an alphabet (not sure how
other symbols are perceived). However, I would be sceptical (too) when it
comes to severe pain with an organic origin and other forms of discomfort or
distress with organic origins (rather than that caused by environmental
factors). It would be difficult to say for example that an impairment that
causes pain or distress is any better (preferable) than not having that
impairment (with everything else being equal).
Best regards
Laurence Bathurst
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Sydney
PO Box 170
Lidcombe NSW 1825
Australia
Ph: 61 2 9351 9509
Fax: 61 2 9351 9509
Email: [log in to unmask]
See School Website www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
Home Ph: 61 2 9818 2050
Mobile Ph: 0407 069 441
________________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.
________________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.
|