Michael:
Not a chance. Multiple forms of the social modelcauses confusion mostly
amongst academics. I don't know about the UK, but I do know that the ADA,
the WHO and the UN have all relied on some form of thesocial model to
create standing definitions from which to produce policy. In no way am I
protecting these organization's definitions of disability, but i do want
to point out that these definitions were produced in part from a social
model understanding of disability. Furhter, I don't think that the
differnt forms of social models really matter with respect to definitions
-- they certainly enliven the critique of disabilty theory, but i do
believe that the marxist approach (and god only knows what that would look
like) doesn't really produce a different claim about disabiltiy meaning
and rights than does say a postmodern democratic appraoch. clearly there
will be differing systems of analysis, etc.,but usually the end goal is
the same, while using different means -- freedom.
I suggest that, in looking to find the source of our (the disability
minority's) not being understood well, that you look outside, not inside.
the problem lies in people's fears and hatred, not in our theory or
practices, which are just as competent and subject to overtheorising as
any other academic theory.
--alexa
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Michael Peckitt wrote:
>
> Could our biased experts be uninterested in the Social Model because the
> model is not coherent? What I mean to say is that it's basic rtheme is that
> disability is oppression. So far so good. After that, there are so many
> different types of social models - some see it as almost simply a Marxist/
> Disability critique of society, oppression through Politics and Economics of
> the situations.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|