...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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Beauchamp-Pryor
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 15/10/04 17:22
Subject: cure and identity
How do we justify not wanting to be non-disabled? I've been struggling
with this question for the last five weeks.
Five weeks ago, after months of deliberation and anxiety, I decided to
go ahead and have a congenital cataract removed. I had been offered
the operation at numerous times throughout my life, but had been warned
of the risks. In addition to the risks, I also felt guilty at wanting
to see more and thought I should count myself lucky for the level of
vision I had.
The operation was successful and I can't express the overwhelming joy I
have experienced since. I can now see people's smiles, sadness,
wrinkles and rain. These are, obviously, all personal emotions to me
and are very different to the barriers I encountered as a result of
social, political and economic structures. I am confused as to my
identity and it is scary, but I am who I am with or without a
disability.
________________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.
|
