 |
 |
Hi Alex, I accept that the social model was intended as a means of highlighting the problems of the built environment for many disabled people. I think that the issue here is the extent to which difference is acccepted at all - I agree absolutely that there is no bipolar definition of ability/disability/fat/thin or whatever. I read an exchange on this list some time ago in which Tom Shakespeare was arguing along the lines of the social model doesn't allow the concept of a continuum, but rather forces a false distinction between disability and impairment. The question for me is, if you can be disabled by built environments, then the environments themselves are a concrete example of disabling attitudes. Therefore, the social model can and should be applied across the board. I take your point about fat people being able to diet (although obesity is often a sign of a psychological problem, and losing weight is anything but easy), but I think there's a problem with that idea too; it follows the medical model (i.e. it's your fault that you're fat, or your fault that you're disabled because you haven't tried hard enough to overcome your problems, which is, I think, the point that Charlotte Cooper was making, and is the attitude that I'm arguing is continued throughout western culture (although I could be accused here of making generalisations) - if you don't conform the the perceived "norm" (which is not at all "normal"), the there are ways for you to "improve" yourself through diet, exercise and cosmetic surgery. I guess that my focus on the body leaves a gap where learning disability is concerned; I don't know how to bridge it! Regards, Lynne > -------- > From: A.Mcclimens > Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2000 11:13 am > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Barbie and the social model of disability > > Morning Lynne; > > I've just booted up and was very interested by your posting to the > list. I'm also looking at the social model but from a different > perspective. My subject area is learning difficulties and in order to > get a new angle I too had a look at Cooper's article. Now while I > think there's something to go on there I'm not convinced. > the social model as it was originally developed (if I've got this right) > aimed to liberate people oppressed by the built environment. these > people tended to have physical problems (and obesity might be > one of them) and they rejected the design model which sought to > accommodate the 'average' person where average meant ambulant. > there's an issue here of degrees of difference and kinds of > difference. Cooper might well be towards the obese end of the > scales (on an objective measure; kilos or pounds) but it's how > society measures her obesity which I think she was objecting to. > for people who have learning difficulties they seem to be ignored > both by society and by the social model since both tend to cater > for physical 'disabilities' and are uncomfortable with the notion of > impairment. hence they tend towards a difference of kind. > > my point is that we either see people as being on a continuum of > difference/ability/weight etc or we categorise so concretely that the > continuum is segregated and people 'belong' in one category and > not another. > a fat woman calling herself disabled is interesting conceptually but > she has the option of dieting. a person with a learning difficulty > doesn't have a similar alternative. as far as altering body shape > goes some people with Downs syndrome do opt for plastic surgery > but that can only disguise their appearance, the intellectual part of > their condition stays. > > I admit that my own gender sometimes clouds my thinking here. > given the option I'd go for the Barbie shape but I suppose I'm just > hopelessly conditioned. > > if you feel there's any more to discuss I'd be pleased to hear from > you. > the weather in Sheffield is overcast. > > regards, > > Alex > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%