 |
 |
Alex, Thanks for this. I would argue the disability/impairment relationship is similar to gender/sex. You argue that low vision is not regarded as an impairment but I would argue it is and that everyone has one or more impairments if we define an impairment as any difference from the perceived norm. However, not every impairment results in disability.. hence low vision in an impairment which is resolved by wearing glasses. Take away glasses, and the impairment becomes a disability. The debate here is what is socially constructed and what does that mean. Okay, I could argue I have a speech difference rather than impairment, I prefer to argue others have a listening impairment. If impairment is socially constructed, is that always wrong? Can disabled people not be empowered by the construction. Equality is my goal but in order to achieve me, I must be different to fight for it. Many thanks, Simon -- Simon Stevens Chief Executive, Enable Enterprises -----Original Message----- From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alex J. Lubet Sent: 02 September 2004 14:25 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: impairment Hi, I'm new to this list and it's my first post, but folks on DS-HUM (mostly in the States) have probably heard more from me than they care. The subject of the social construction of impairment interests me greatly as I've engaged it for some time and it figures prominently in my book-in-progress and should always loom large in any discussion of music, which is my field but hardly a prominent one in disability studies. I agree with those listers who argue that both disability and impairment are socially constructed. Since many have weighed in on this and it's very complex, I'll leave it at that. I think, though, that that makes locating the distinction between the two particularly important. You're probably all aware that the two terms are used pretty interchangeably (as is handicap) in common parlance in the States, though in DS we use the terms pretty much as folks on this list do. If the difference between disability and impairment isn't that they are/aren't socially constructed, then it's got to be something else, otherwise there's no useful distinction. Before I audition that distinction as I see it, I think it's important to emphasize that social constructions are very real, that social realities are still realities, and that their impact can be huge. Even if something is socially constructed, it's socially constructed with a basis that's very real, although sometimes that basis is only a very real perception that doesn't have much underlying. There's always a basis for the identification of disability and impairment, but both require identification, an action that requires human agency, and is thus social. In my experience, the case for social construction may actually be more easily made with the familiar analogy to gender/sex, than directly with disability/impairment. One does this by challenging the widely accepted notion that gender is socially constructed and sex is not. I would submit that the difference between gender and sex is not that they are/aren't socially constructed, but that they are/aren't embodied. The aspects of gender that are so often cited, such as clothing and cosmetics, aren't embodied. The aspects of sex that are so often cited, such as genitalia, are, of course, embodied, but the common taxonomy of precisely two sexes based on precisely two categories of genitalia is socially constructed. My current research includes a legendary jazz singer with a sexual impairment and it's taken me to intersex studies where one encounters a lot more variety than two sexual flavors of human beings. I think we can make a very good case for impairment as embodied, disability not. That takes nothing away from social construction of either. Easily amplified low vision is generally not regarded as an impairment. Mobility that calls for assistance (that is about as easily available as a pair of glasses) is generally regarded as an impairment. Both are embodied, but the is/isn't impairment distinction is socially constructed. Left-handedness is rarely construed as an impairment in most English-speaking places these days, but it is in many places. In certain musical situations LH creates challenges to getting the job done that are far more daunting than blindness, which is regarded as more significant in most situations. Hope that's useful and interesting and, as one new to this terrific list, not rehash. I have much more to say about it, but that's why people write books. Best, -- Alex Lubet, Ph. D. Morse Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor of Music and Jewish Studies Adjunct Professor of American Studies Head, Division of Composition and Music Theory University of Minnesota 2106 4th St. S Minneapolis, MN 55455 612 624-7840 612 624-8001 (fax) ________________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. ________________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.