 |
 |
Heather wrote: > > To go back a few days in this discussion; I found much of your response > intriguing. Perhaps we can search a bit futher? I am not familiar with > the UPIAS document you refer to. I wonder what the definition of > 'physical' is? The UPIAS (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation) document is the cornerstone of disability studies and disability activism in the UK. It was written in 1976 when the disability movement began to form. The full version can be accessed at the Centre for Disability Studies web-site at the University of Leeds. An abbreviated version can be found in Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke: MacMillan. It does not define "physical" impairment directly, but as I suggested, the meaning can be gauged from what the document says about specific impairments, and by how particular groups, most notably Deaf people, responded to its contents (see Campbell. J. and Oliver, M. (1996) Disability politics: Understanding our past changing our future. London: Routledge. It does however define the distinction between impairment and disability, which is at the heart of what UK disability studies calls "the social model". According to Paul Longmore and colleagues, an equivalent statement was produced by The League of the Physically Handicapped in the early 20th century in the US. (Longmore, P.K. and Goldberger,D. (2000) 'The League of the Physically Handicapped and the Great Depression: A Case Study in the New Disability History'. Journal of American History, 87(3): 888-322). There were also issues of resistance from the same groups that resisted the UPIAS statement. For me this represent compelling evidence that "physical" impairment is not an inclusive term. > And then, if one is going to inquire into why questions of > heirarchy re visible and nonvisible are being asked now, it seems > important to know, who is asking? I know that asking as an American, the > Americans with Disabilities Act contributes to my sense that it is right > to ask this question. For, under this act, people with psychiatric > disabilities are considered disabled, as well as those who are thought to > have psychiatric disabilities. So, perhaps in a different way than the > sense of community that the social model of disability has generated > internationally, the ADA actually has created a category of people who > perhaps could legally be considered a community. But the 'communities' created by medical and legal categories are imposed - and they are not socio-cultural communities (am I right in saying that the ADA doesn't recognise Deaf, only deaf). As such they are not a basis of solidarity, recognition and support for disabled people, but a means of social control. Not only do they define people as having "psychiatric impairments" but they also divide people with "psychiatric impairments" from "people with visual impairments", "people with hearing impairments", "people with mobility impairments" and so on. Thus disability studies and disability activism have pursued various collective concepts (e.g. disability community, disability movement, disability rights movement) that aim to unite disabled people across impairments. Whether or not this has been a successful enterprise is debatable on the evidence produced by disability studies itself. One problem is that the ideologies that have emerged from these collectives have ultimately been conceived by those who are most visible, most articulate and most politically informed. The other problem is that the people who conceived these ideologies were not always reflexive. In their drive to challenge the individualisation and medicalisation of disabled people, they decided that impairment had to be reduced to a common denominator in order to increase the political power of (the new understanding of) disability. The version of disability that was promoted as a result was how they saw it, but not necessarily how it is seen by all groups of disabled people, particularly because their cross impairment knowledge was limited. This is the origin of the difficulty we have with acknowledging and talking about difference in empowering ways. > As far as invisible disabilities go, I always think of psychiatric > disability, while others wake me up with reference to Deaf/deafness, for > example. Yes, and for the disability movement, it is not just about "coming out" but "staying out", a task that is a darned sight more complex for people whose impairments are not visible. It's all the more so when disability studies marks language as a side effect of society. In the UK, disability activists use the terms "madness and mental distress" and "psychiatric system survivors" to distinguish disabled people's viewpoint from the hegemonic viewpoint. Survivors are setting up groups (communities?), but the question remains: what about those who haven't survived or those who are still in the process of surviving. The reason you are woken up is, I suspect, that you are open to it. There is still a lot of denial in the movement that impairment differences matter, and that these differences are not of the same quality as differences among women and minority ethnic groups. This gets translated into an unwillingness to look at how existing ideologies and practice can be made more inclusive because such an examination is seen to threaten the political power of the collective. Best wishes Mairian ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.