Interesting. So what is the response to someone who says, "Okay, I agree that the dynamics around accommodation are about majority/power versus minority/no power, and is not about the part of my disability that is intrinsic to me/my body. But my lived experience and what I associate as part of my disability (along with the accommodation wars) is also about missing my transfer and falling on my butt, or spending 10 hours a week on bowel program, or being so spastic I can't get dressed."
I understand what you mean about the intrinsic part being irrelevant to accommodation, but individual disabled people (at least in my world) are pretty attached to their social **and** bodily experiences as part of "disability." I've also heard individuals express frustration (yes, mostly in private settings, 'cause people do fear political repercussions) that their bodily experience is not acknowledged by prevailing models. So maybe it's about somehow communicating that the social model is about one aspect of "disability," not every aspect.
Claudia (not an academic)
<<<And the same is with like me I am a minority as I am the without leg
minority trying to get accomdatin by the leg majority. Having no legs is
intrinsic to me or my body but that doesn't change the dynamics that a
group without power (no leg) demands accomodation from the group with
power (people wit legs).
Or being gay it's intrinsic to the person but so what that doesn't
diminish the fact that the minority gay asks the majority of non gay to
accomodate them.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|