Just to add. Yes an strategic alliance is needed because at epistemological
level critical modernism (social model) and post modernism, if left on their
own will aniquilate each other, rather than realise that behind the
battleground the only expectation, away from the reflector, is the medical
model. By strategic alliance, I mean a express (political?) will to say the
world of ideas, categorisations, linguistics and reasoning will pull us
apart, because we after all live in the episteme. The episteme has a divide
and conquer rule. so we need a common 'political' agenda, not a common
language. Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: Social vs. impairment models
> >Hi Andy re postmodernism supporting the medicalised model,
> >postmodern writers have suggested that this way of viewing can do
> >nothing else than remain with/in a 'symbiotic relationship' with
> >modernist views, and as such wil be supportive of those aspects of
> >modernism (which includes socio/material and socio/biological
> >models) that are beneficial. So no need of strategic alliances. The
> >good thing about that is that there is no need to compromise for the
> >sake of the alliance. Dissent (rather than criticism) is possible
> >without it being taken as disloyalty ... cheers Carol
>
>
>
>
> >This is catch 22 situation as language will always reflect the episteme
in
> >which it belongs too. The term impairment , and any other term that was
> >'constructed' to show the oppressiveness of the medical model will have a
> >short life. This is not a revelation. Lets not be confused by the term as
> >the term was never intended to be an aim in itself.
> >
> >Postmodernist writers may want to consider their critics to the social
model
> >(I.e. Shelley Tremain) as post modernist without political materialism
> >(Marxism-social model) is metaphysics, a the philosophy of ideas, as it
> >best.
> >
> >Larry and those that feel very critical to the social model, particularly
> >from the post modern front, need to come into terms that without
> >compromising, without an strategic alliance with the social model, will
end
> >up -and this is the irony of life- supporting the medicalised model too.
> >Foucault also cannot escape to genealogy after all.
> > Andy
> >----- Original Message -----
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
(www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|