Hi Liz,
I was happy to receive your post. I remember enjoying the paper to
which you refer below, which I read when Morris's book was first
published. I especially enjoyed your remarks in the paper about
revisiting and repoliticizing the category of impairment, though for me
this leads in a different direction.
I agree with you that the social model is a valuable tool. However, I'm
not convinced that it has the explanatory power you suggest it does. I
agree with Mike Oliver that it shouldn't be expected to do the work of a
broader social theory of disability. (I would add that nor should it be
regarded as an end in itself, which I think is sometimes the case.)
It's only a *model*.
Having said that, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions with respect
to your post... You say that the model is "fully able to include... the
range ...of impairments". You also suggest that shortcomings in this
regard concern current *application* of the model. If you have been
following posts over the past few weeks, you might have noticed that I
seriously doubt this. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise :-) I'd
like to know how you think the current conception of disability (in the
terms of the model) encompasses or explains the forms of oppression to
which people with cognitive impairments are subjected. I'd also like to
know what exactly you think these consist of that they are able to "fit"
this conception.
I hope you will have the time and energy to respond.
Best regards,
Shelley Tremain
> Liz Crow wrote:
>
> Hi Julia,
>
> In case you're not aware of it, you might find my article useful -
> it's in both Jenny Morris' Encounters with Strangers and Colin Barnes'
> Exploring the Divide: 'Renewing the Social Model'. I had been very
> involved in the disabled people's movement for many years when I wrote
> this, firmly wedded to the social model. However, as my impairment
> increased (I too have ME), I felt more and more alienated from what
> was happening in 'the movement' and less and less able to contribute.
> I guess I wrote this piece as a way of trying to work out what was
> going on.
>
> I'm utterly convinced of the value of the SM. I think it's fully able
> to include people with illnesses, as well as the range of other
> impairments, and I also think as a model and a tool for change it's
> perfectly capable of incorporating the implications of impairment
> without losing any of its power for explanation or change. However,
> I'm much more cautious about our (current) capacity as a movement to
> apply it wisely.
>
> I think the problem lies in our not grasping the range or complexity
> of issues to do with both disability *and* impairment. In the end,
> during periods of better health, I am brought overwhelmingly
> face-to-face with disability. At my illest, when I have no choice but
> to retreat from the world (removing discrimination would delay this
> retreat, but at my very illest, the retreat becomes inevitable), the
> idea of external structures, discrimination, etc seem almost laughable
> - not that that means they cease to exist, but that my existence is
> almost so completely apart from any kind of social world, that it
> scarcely touches me. That's one of the reasons I believe impairment
> and disability can't be fully understood, one without reference to the
> other. The two relate and for many/most of us - whether because of
> fluctuating impairment or changing disability - are constantly
> shifting. Disability is not about or caused by our bodies, but it
> *impacts* on our bodies, and our bodies on it.
>
> When I was at my illest, there was a 'threat' (both spoken and
> implied) from many disabled people that I should not mention the fact
> that my body was (and is) so very hard to live with/through. I have
> been told that ill people do not have a place in 'the movement' (that
> our 'issues' are different), that by saying my body causes me grief I
> am in denial (of what exactly is never specified) - oh, etc, etc! But
> the social model never said any of this stuff - it was all down to the
> way that individuals were applying it. Removing discrimination from
> my life won't make my body well (though it will make my life
> dramatically better) and (after all these years of discrimination),
> removing my illness won't mean that discrimination ceases to impact on
> me. Both impairment and discrimination have a massive impact on my
> life - in different proportions at different times - and, regardless
> of how models are applied, the only feasible way for me to carry out
> my life is to acknowledge both.
>
> Where I think we need to be very cautious in suddenly seeming to
> 'reclaim' impairment, is in the world 'out there' where there is a
> genuine risk that many people will say "A-ha, we always said disabled
> people were tragic". For our campaigning work, for non-disabled
> people wanting to do something, perhaps this debate is purely
> 'academic' - and for these purposes, I firmly believe that disability
> needs to be the public focus. But behind the scenes, it becomes much
> more important. For our own understanding and, more importantly, for
> our ability to fight against disability, strongly and effectively, I
> think we have to acknowledge the complexities that are really going on
> behind the scenes.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
