Print

---

Richard,

since I take many of your comments below (and in several other posts) to
be insinuations directed towards me, that is, a thinly veiled personal
attack in response to remarks I made in a previous post, I would like to
take this opportunity to respond to you.  

First, I do not underestimate the impact that the social model has had
on the lives of disabled people in your country; nor do I underestimate
the role the model has played in transforming those lives.  However, I
think that it is possible to be critical of the model without denying
any of this.  In fact, I believe that it is essential for members of
social movements to be self-critical, to continously question the nature
and effectiveness of the tools they use to achieve their goals, as well
as the goals themselves.  My dissatisfaction with the category of
impairment derives or arises from this sort of questioning.  I believe
that a more transformative approach to disabled people's
oppression would be human-rights based and would identify the
classification of impairment as a legacy of the medical model.  

Second, you have made various insinuations about 'using the social model
for purely theoretical reasons' and 'academic navel-gazing'.  Since we
have never met nor corresponded on any other matter, I think it is safe
for me to assume that you don't know the circumstances of my present or
past life, know nothing of my experiences of institutional life, know
nothing of my experiences of disability oppression, and know nothing of
my experiences as a disabled person with a cognitive impairment. (On the
basis of reflection upon these past and present experiences, I think
that I am fairly well-placed to contend, as I did, that the conception
of disability that social modellists promote does not encompass the
modes of oppression which people with cognitive impairments confront.) 
In addition, I think it is safe for me to assume that you unaware of the
fact that I have been actively involved in organizing disabled women
(and disabled lesbians in particular) in my city and country for the
past decade.  Finally, I think it is safe for me to assume that you are
unaware of the fact that I am not an academic per se, but that I am
Research Associate at The Roeher Institute, which conducts research
intended to promote the human rights of people with intellectual
impairments, is the leading institute of its kind in Canada, is
non-profit, and is closely associated with the Canadian Association for
Community Living (whose 40,000 strong membership is comprised of
self-advocates and their families).

Regards,
Shelley Tremain


Richard Light wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark
> 
> Thanks for your contribution to the cognitive impairment debate.
> 
> There is much that I applaud in your message, primarily because it provides
> insight that is too often absent in debates on this list.  However, I would
> suggest that you differentiate between those 'using' the social model for
> purely theoretical purposes, and those using the model as a catalyst for
> political change.
> 
> Academic 'navel-gazing' over the social model may be of dubious practical
> value to disabled individuals, but social model principles continue to drive
> an expanding and increasingly active disability movement in the UK.  I
> sometimes wish that some of the 'theorists' spent a little more time with
> people who have existed under the burden of tragic or medical perceptions of
> disability, and are then introduced to/liberated by the social model.
> Flawed though it may be, the social model continues to successfully
> challenge taken for granted views of the majority.
> 
> As to "people using the social model hardly ever criticize the process of
> acute care", this is patently untrue for disability advocacy in the UK and,
> albeit via secondary evidence, in the USA.
> 
> The organisation for which I work - Disability Awareness in Action [DAA] -
> is compiling a database of human rights abuses against disabled people
> (measured against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and a high
> proportion of cases involve the failure of 'acute care'.
> 
> In my experience, staying abreast of 'real world' developments in the
> disability movement can be almost impossible, but as someone whose job
> involves making that effort, I can assure you that there are many of us
> whose daily work involves social model principles, and who are committed to
> publicising third-rate care/services for disabled people (whether
> self-identified or labelled by others).
> 
> Although 'disability studies' may be a trendy (and therefore increasingly
> well-funded) discipline, disability advocacy usually remains the remit of
> small, poorly funded groups that will never have the time/resources to let a
> wider audience know what they are doing (don't I wish we had the time/skill
> to develop a disability advocacy mailing list) - but believe me, they are
> out there making life uncomfortable for those who would seek to deny
> effective healthcare (or dignity) for disabled people.
> 
> My plea to you, and any other list members who have waded this far into my
> response is to forward evidence of any human rights abuse to DAA or DPI
> Europe, for inclusion in our database - a chilling record of abuse affecting
> at least 2 million people to date (I emphasise this as the Project has only
> been running for six months and with a minimal staff).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Richard Light


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