 |
 |
On 14 Jul 99, at 23:22, Tanis M. Doe wrote: > I think we "could" > think of "disability"as an ideology if we take the stance that disability > (as opposed to people WITH disabilities) is oppression and that social > forces are part of the construction of disability, Hi Tanis, I think what you think about the ways we could think of disability as oppression is right on, for the phenomenon of being disabled is bound up in ideologies that, if re-thunk, could allow for a more enabling society. However, I like the way that our UK colleagues separate *impairment* (as the physical or mental condition) from *disability* (the conditions of dependence or social exclusion, caused by barriers in our sociocultural and built environment). I think this distinction is crucial to understanding of 'disability' as the *result of* ideologies held by mainstream stakeholders of the status quo. Thus, it is a very Marxist concept. (But I think there is more than capitalism to blame--for the ideologies have evolved from a time before the era of those dead-white-Greek-guys, Plato et al.) > What think you? > Am I really full of shit as someone thinks? I think not, Tanis. But that may be a case of one pot calling another 'black,' given that my remarks here often attract a lot of manure, too. ;) Cheers, and keep your nose above the pile, Dona Dona M. Avery Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0302 www.public.asu.edu/~donam %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%