Emma,
as i see it it also depends on the meaning one employs for disability.
If its used with the meaning impairment then it does not matter how one
uses it
as it does not matter whether one says defective person or person with a
defect.
as the problem lays with the classification of impairment/defect and
what goes with it.
If one uses disability to mean that one is disabled /hindered by social
realities/ social structures/ by reaction of others towards ones
body/functioning
meaning
for example
'person that is hindered by social realities'..
or 'a by social realities hindered person'
both are just fine
the problem is not so much the order but how we use the term disability.
When we use in North America the term like person with a learning
disability
we use the term disability with the meaning impairment/defect
and that would not change if we would say a learning disabled person
We do not use the term to mean person that is hindered in ones learning
by how society set up the learning system/what is expected as an
learning outcome.
I see the person first debate as a red herring debate as it deflects
from the misuse of the term disability with the meaning impairment and
defect.
We should use the term disability only if we want to highlight the
social reality the discrimination towards a persons body/functioning
If we want to highlight the body /functioning one has two options
using impairment/defect (medical model)
or variation (social model)
I might have no legs (factual) and can not walk (factual) but I would
never accept walking impairment/defect as a label for myself as that
indicates in my eyes that i should be able to walk
whereby I see myself as using alternative modes of movement
so I reject both these labels for me 'person with a walking impairment'
and 'walking impaired person'.
and accept both of these 'person with a mode of movement variation'
and 'a movement variable person'.
(sounds awful but for illustration purposes you get the point)
and I would accept disabled person or person with a disability if
disabled reflect the meaning of negative social treatment and negative
social environment.
so only if both term highlight external parameters and are not a
reflection on me.
Now some might identify themselves as impaired/defective (and they might
also encounter social disablement) .
If that is the case the issue is whether one deals with their
impairments or the social disablement first or both.
But its not about whether someone is a person first or not. That does
not solve the issue of impairment label or what remedy one focuses on.
I generated a glossary here
http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/glossary.pdf
Cheers
Gregor
Dr. Gregor Wolbring
Assistant Professor
University of Calgary
webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/
Ableism and Ability Ethics and Governance blog: http://ableism.wordpress.com
biweekly column The Choice is Yours: http://www.innovationwatch.com/commentary_choiceisyours.htm
Nano Bio Info Cogno Synbio Blog:http://wolbring.wordpress.com/
What Sorts of People blog: http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/
________________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 list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|