Print

---

Yes of course, China, and many/most places.. the "idea" of social
construction is absent - both in the country's discourse and
implemented in practice in the country's policies. YET, those of us who
employ the idea of social construction can use it as a tool to look at
how China, or other places have constructed disability - meaning how
they interpret it (here, through a religious lens), how they as a
society respond to disability etc.  Simi

--- Johnson Cheu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> all-- let me try to comment briefly on the
> "countries who don't
> use...social model" issue raised here.  I'll
> probably get it wrong, but
> here goes.
> 
> In China (which, I realize, is not considered 3rd.
> word by some, but parts
> of it are if you want to use Moderization as a
> yardstick)  Anyhow,when I
> was there  (and I was quite a sight to behold in
> parts of the country with
> my chair or without it), depending on who you talk
> to, the idea of social
> construction was non-existant.  And it was usually
> religious based where
> certain sects still believe in divine something or
> other regarding
> disability/gender. Society, as a whole,  didn't
> comprehend anything about
> their environment, social beliefs, etc as a
> "construction".  No rehab
> institutes, CIL's, women's shelters, support
> organizations, special
> eduction programs. Everything was "because of
> fill-in-the-blank divinity,
> or "just the way it is".  And, if you were disabled
> in any way, well, you
> could go to college but only if "You could take care
> of all your needs
> yourself", i.e. if you fit into our model of
> independence and health.  The
> exceptions seemed to be veterans, but even many of
> those I saw were
> homeless, asking the "rich" Americans for
> money/meals because well, "you
> must have money if you can travel this far and bring
> *him* (meaning me)
> with you."  My folks and I got pretty good at
> scampering.  Personally, I
> think this kind of "we have no responsibility to X"
> is what allows the
> killing of babies with disabilities, and girls,
> (Much quieter now, but
> still happening).  But that aside, I am not saying
> that people were not
> aware of these issues and contradidtions and rebel
> openly or secretly
> against the gov't.  Or that changes don't happen. 
> Deng Xiopeng's disabled
> son helps but even he lives a catered and sheltered
> existance, and even he
> doen't get that great attention-- when he travels,
> he has to have a nurse
> on hand and a bed avialable within 10 minutes of any
> public appearance--
> (bedsores likely). People at Cal were going to
> present him with a JAY
> CUSHION, but we didn't want to insult the guy.  But
> as a function of
> government and govermental policy, I can't say that
> the social model was
> employed in any tangible way.
> 
> --Johnson
> 
>   >Sorry, lest this sound like a dialogue, but
> please allow me one more
> >point on a related topic. I also remember a posting
> on this list last
> >week, that said something like "countries where
> disability is not
> >socially constructed." I don't understand that
> statement (if I have it
> >accurately). It seems that what we have across
> countries are various
> >bewhaviors and practices, reflecting various
> constructions of
> >disability (or of other groupings, identities,
> soicial positioning).
> >The construction is the idea about the phenomenon.
> I believe that
> >disability (and pretty much everything we process
> mentally) is
> >constrtucted, by which I mean it is "read" in a
> particular way, and
> >that reading is determined by social forces. I
> understand that there
> >are many places, within the US, and outside of it,
> where the use of
> >social construction as a way of looking at the
> world is not employed.
> >By using it as a tool for looking at people's
> experience, I am not
> >imposing it on those who don't share my belief,
> anymore than I can say
> >that others use of their perspectives and beliefs
> about me impinges on
> >me. UNLESS - and this is an important unless, we
> apply those beliefs in
> >practices and soical interactions that DO impose,
> intrude, oppress,
> >discriminate etc.
> >                             Simi Linton
> >
> >--- Mairian Corker <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >> Simi wrote:
> >> >I'm glad that Mairian brought up the idea of
> social
> >> construction as a
> >> >*tool* for examination of a phenomenon. i
> haven't
> >> followed this whole
> >> >discussion, but the bits i've picked up seem to
> use
> >> the idea of social
> >> >construction as if it were a way of living,
> rather
> >> than as a
> >> >perspective for examining the ways that
> disability
> >> (or whatever
> >> >label/identity/social positioning is operative
> in
> >> the country under
> >> >discussion) functions in a certain place. i
> don't
> >> see how we can
> >> >evaluate whether a particular culture/copuntry
> >> "uses the social
> >> >construction model."
> >>
> >> Thanks Simi. I think I would want to add and
> maybe
> >> emphasise deconstruction
> >> also, because parts of disability studies have
> >> tended to give it a bad
> >> name. Deconstruction is also a methodological
> *tool*
> >> that is used by those
> >> of postructural orientation in looking at
> >> contextualised meaning in
> >> language - it is not a tool of destruction. It
> urges
> >> its practitioners be
> >> careful and rigorous in how they interpret things
> >> and why. Various
> >> postmodern writers have pointed out that there is
> no
> >> such thing as
> >> deconstructionISM, nor indeed is there any such
> >> thing as social
> >> constructionISM because these things are not
> >> doctrines or ideologies,
> >> unlike modernism and its associated *tool*
> >> structuralism, which have
> >> assumed the status of metanarrative. I get very
> >> frustrated when I read
> >> disability texts that damn posmodernISM without
> >> understanding that there is
> >> no such thing (and yes, I did use that term
> myself
> >> at one time, though I no
> >> longer do so and I'm also very capable of
> accepting
> >> SOME aspects of
> >> materialist writing). Poststructural writers aim
> to
> >> deconstruct
> >> oppositional categories and universal 'truths' by
> >> showing how the concept
> >> of 'voice' becomes meaningless within the
> framework
> >> of such categorising
> >> since these categories exclude large swathes of
> >> human experience. Yes, a
> >> lot of people feel threatened by that, because it
> >> means that nothing is as
> >> clear cut as it seems. But then, isn't that how
> the
> >> powerholders would like
> >> us to think, just because it makes life easier
> for
> >> them?
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >>
> >> Mairian
> >>
> >>
> >> Mairian Corker
> >> Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability
> >> Studies
> >> Department of Education Studies
> >> University of Central Lancashire
> >> Preston PR1 2HE
> >>
> >> Address for correspondence:
> >> 111 Balfour Road
> 
=== message truncated ===

===
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
Simi Linton
[log in to unmask]
212 580 9280 (phone and fax)
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%