Michael wrote,
>
>I agree that the social model could possibly be used as an epistemology
>but I have a few reservations. All discussion on this list-serv about
>epistemology (and now I think about all discussions, period) have given
>the socoial model a privileged position. All other ideas, concepts,
>theories are seemingly seen as subortinate to it, and everything must fit
>within the social model.
I don't think you're alone in this view. It may be, though, a case of 'the
social model' being interpreted and applied very rigidly, when most
commentators agree that there is more than one social model.
>
>I do not think that way. Whenever I come across a theory I ask, does it
>help explain my sitution (disabled) or part of my situation?
Yes, I do this too, though I also think about whether it helps to explain
the situation of other disabled people too. But I'm not sure that the
social model is explanatory, or even meant to be, except in a very
simplistic way. As many have taken pains to emphasise, it is not a social
theory therefore your pursuit of theory is not incompatible with the social
model, just treading a different path to the social understanding of
disability.
>Also to me futher
>disability theory is not logically equivalent to furthering the social
>model. If a postmodern theory such as Lacan or Heidegger helps articulate or
>criticise a problem I will use it regardless of whether it 'fits in'
>with the social model. There are many times when the social model does
>not explain the situation at hand thus I will not use it.
I'd like to learn more about your understanding of Lacan and Heidegger, and
particularly your understanding of their work as post-modern.
>
>I have also noticed that any other ways of articulating the disability
>situation apart from through a social model framework are rarely engaged
>in. Why is this? It is just a different way of telling the story, if
>you don't like it, forget it - but let it be heard.
Often they're not engaged with because people don't understand them, see
them as irrelevant or dis-engaged with disabled people's lived experience
and day-to-day practical relaities (rather than with the social model).
That's all the more reason why you should keep on writing and explaining.
Maybe the penny will drop one day. In a recent interview, feminist
philosopher Judith Butler was questioned about her use of Austin and
Althusser in her recent book 'Excitable speech' because she has always been
perceived as a post-modern. Her response was:
" ... the real task is to figure out how a subject who is constituted in
and by discourse then recites the very same discourse but perhaps to
another purpose. For me that's always been the question of how to find
agency .... So I think I need Althusser and Austin. I think Althusser gives
me interpellation, the discursive act by which subjects are constituted,
and Austin gives me a way of understanding the speech acts of that subject."
So maybe disability theory needs Lacan and Heidegger?
Best wishes, Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|