Hi Mairian,
This is why I have problems with the current social model of "disability"
especially the UK version which you just mentioned. It simply assumes that
any attempt to define a social group using a specific characteristic,
specific needs, problems and/or common social vision as an attempt to split
among single impairment group. What causes the social model of "disability
theorist" to be so clung to the notion that these diverse group of people
must be categorized under the same so-called collective group? In Thailand
or even in many other countries, when such notion prevails, the smallest
group (in terms of number) tends to be ignored. In Thailand, the needs of
blind people especially for information access has been pretty much ignored
even though we're the loudest speakers when working in cooperation with
other disability groups. The society would rather listen, understand and
respond to the physical access such as, ramps, lift, toilet and so on than
info access. This does not mean it is bad for the public to react in such
a way, but it's just the matter of putting priorities in the wrong
sense. That's why I said even the term "impairment" itself is still
socially constructed. If they're all treated as just purely specific
characteristic which is no more similar to or different from one another
enough to be under one categorized group, such priority set up would never
occur. Of course, these different groups of people may find some common
needs to work together occasionally, but not being lumbered in to one
single group in which the minority (in number) will always be ignored.
Regards,
Thian.
At 10:28 AM 10/12/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Thian,
>
>This is not the social model that I know. On the contrary, the social model
>(UK version) actively resists splitting people into impairment groups
>conceptually or otherwise and struggles to maintain the collective notion
>of disabillity. However, what does happen is that some people find the
>conceptual framework of the social model restricting and so they form
>minorities, sometimes on the basis of impairment e.g Deaf people, people
>with learning difficulties, and some blind people. I agree totally with
>your comments about the dangers of minorities within minorities, but this
>is the identity politics that many social movements have to go through in
>order to gain recognition for their members. There comes a time however,
>when most movements begin to consider whether such a strategy has lived its
>life and needs to be changed if we are to move forward. That is why we are
>now looking towards a social theory of disability. So far as your comment
>about 'community' is concerned I wonder if you are using a Western concept
>of community or something else? For my own part, I find some Majority World
>conceptualisations of community more useful in describing the kind of
>community we have than traditional Western notions. Indeed it is precisely
>because our 'community' is formed in a different way that we struggle to be
>recognised as a community in an individualist society. However, there is no
>doubt in my mind that we HAVE a community, and we have a movement, but
>these are different things and have different memberships.
>
>Best wishes, Mairian
>
> >I think one problem, I have with what we call "social model" of
> >"disability", is that we put people with different types of disabilities
> >under the same group. For whatever reasons, this approach simply creates
> >more problems of causing minority groups within minority groups. That''s
> >why I could not swallow this model as much as I may want to. I don't
> >believe there is such a thing called "disability community." If I do so,
> >then I might as well accept the status of being a minority within a
> >minority group which I decline and will continue to do so.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Thian.
>
>
>
>Mairian Corker
>Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
>Department of Education Studies
>University of Central Lancashire
>Preston PR1 2HE
>
>Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
>email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|