I concur with this well-thought response. I see a range of responses to
disability, depending on many factors. My personal experience with disability is
over many years and of varying degrees, and the process of identity
development has been an ongoing journey.
My biggest concern with some of the disability scholarship is that by
emphasizing the willingness to self-identify as well as identify with a group, many
people in various stages of the process can feel excluded. At worst, concern
with social change and group effort can be at the expense of personal
empowerment and actualization.
The more the ambiguities and differences inherent in the complex process of
disability identity are welcomed in discussion, the more the spectrum of
responses will be apparent; and the more tolerant the atmosphere and varied the
constituency, the more the need for change will be recognized.
Sherry Kahn
Doctoral student in nursing
University of Massachusetts
In a message dated 10/16/04 7:54:55 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>...this continues to be an interesting debate...
>
>
>
>My take on resolving this core conflict in disability politics and identity
>
>are based on several points:
>
>
>
>Firstly, I think "age" of when the impairment occurs is crucial to how
>
>people understand their identity in terms of disability. Christopher Reeve's
>
>injury occurred later on in life, so the impairment was in conflict with
>his
>
>long term view of himself. For others who have grown up with an impairment,
>
>this will often be a crucial aspect of the person's experience and therefore
>
>identity. Disability scholars and society needs to acknowledge and respect
>
>these differences without one dominating the other and devaluing the other.
>
>
>
>Secondly, it is important to recognise that identity is not a static thing
>
>but dynamic and in a state of flux, and is dependent on the past and
>
>present, not really the future. If we think of our disabled identities
>in
>
>this way, we allow oursleves to respect who we are now, and for others
>to
>
>see that without closing the box on ourselves if a 'cure' comes along and
>
>feeling guilty, and allows us to be someone else we were not before; a
>new -
>
>not necessarily better - but different kind of person, who is aware of
>other
>
>disabled peoples lives and valuing people for who they are now, not what
>
>they may become or change. The important point is we all live in the now
>
>-including able-bodied people who also wish to be accepted as they are,
>not
>
>what they may become - and the value we place on people must always be
>
>weighted in this way. We really only have the present and we must stress
>
>this in disability educational programmes and the media and in our own
>
>lives.
>
>
>
>Thirdly, it is very important to remember that most 'cures' concerning
>the
>
>human body are often imperfect, deteriorate over time, or are a compromise,
>
>so that they are not cures at all, but simply allow people to maintain
>their
>
>lives with less difficulty and for longer than was previously possible,
>but
>
>not exactly how an able-bodied person might be able to live. The human
>body
>
>is not mechanical and medicine is therefore more often than not unable
>to
>
>offer a complete cure, due to the complexity of biology and never will
>do.
>
>Yes, science contrary to enlightment views will never offer a complete
>
>problem free world. One only has to think of the huge growth in medicines
>
>that have succesfully been developed to either cure or eleviate symptoms
>
>(and how wonderful that is), yet many still have unwanted and potentially
>
>dangerous side effects that the person still has to deal with. The
>
>importance of this is that many people who are offered some kind of cure
>
>will find themselves less than what is deemed 'normal' and find themselve
>at
>
>a later date either reverting back to a disabled identity because it feels
>
>more comfortable and allows them to acknowledge their continuing difference,
>
>or having to deal with the side effects of 'cures' or the deterioration
>in
>
>the body due to a 'cure'. Another aspect to this is that many cures are
>not
>
>only finanically impossible to implement but also to time consuming.
>
>Christoher Reeve had access to huge amounts of money and time to maintain
>
>his ambition, most disabled people don't.
>
>
>
>Fourthly, we will therefore always have disabled people, whether through
>
>war, disease, 'cures' etc and it is important that society recognises the
>
>permancy of this and therefore begins to recognise the valuing of people
>
>now, not what an imperfect science may offer in the future.
>
>
>
>Fifthly, even when a cure is taken and it works, many of the disabling
>
>effects of society will still be with the person and how these informed
>the
>
>persons identity. For example, maybe the lack of past opportunities and
>
>finanical stability will still effect the 'cured' disabled person's life
>for
>
>many years to come.
>
>
>
>Just a few thoughts, but I think these issues are crucial in how we change
>
>peoples perceptions of disability that we seem to be unable to have done
>
>given recent media converage.
>
>
>
>All the best
>
>Glenn
>
>
>
>Dr Glenn Smith,
>
>Research Fellow,
>
>London.
________________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.
|
