Thank you, Bruce Henderson! But if the original Casus post might be used in
evidence, I'd better list some refs (that I was too sleepy to list at 0200
this morning, UK time), so that people can read a fuller text of what was
actually written, and smile at my feeble effort to boil it down to a few
Bickenbach JE, Chatterji S, Badley EM & Üstün TB (1999) Models of
disablement, universalism and the international classification of
impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 48:
(This, incidentally, includes three of the authors whose later book on Dis
and Culture I was slamming a couple of weeks back on the list. But I
thought they did well in this paper).
Finkelstein V (1999) Extended review: "Doing Disability Research", Colin
Barnes, Geof Mercer (ed), 1997, Leeds, Disability Press. Disability &
Society 14: 859-78.
(Of course, Vic F has a considerable acreage of papers of his own, some of
them on the web. But a review of other people's stuff is a great place for
saying what you really think rather less cautiously than in a formal,
Shakespeare T & Watson N (2001) The Social Model of Disability: an outdated
ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, Vol. 2, pp. 9-28.
(It's a pity this is in a journal-cum-research-review-series that is not so
widely available. Did they perhaps try the paper on a more widely
circulated journal, which was unwilling to publish it? Anyhow, as
a 'second thoughts' paper, it's well worth reading. It gives a much more
sympathetic portrayal than I could manage, of positions from which
Shakespeare & Watson were moving on).
Stiker H-J (1999) Using historical anthropology to _think_ disability. In:
B Holzer, A Vreede & G Weigt (eds) Disability in Different Cultures
A fair idea of currents in North American disability studies can be had
from a trawl through the massive Handbook edited by Albrecht et al, in
which SMODs play their part, but are hardly dominant:
Albrecht G, Seelman KD & Bury M (eds) (2001) Handbook of Disability
Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
If I might inadvertently have left an impression of Mark as a kind of non-
rude mechanical, oiling the list wheels while the high philosophy passed
over his head, the following, in which he discusses the merits and
arguments about various models, might correct any such idea:
Priestley M. (1998) Constructions and creations: idealism, materialism and
disability theory. Disability & Society 13 (1) 75-94.
There is of course a fair amount of other critical material on SMODs, as
well as defensive material by SMOD adherents. Also the material recently
listed by Shelley Tremain, with which I'm not yet familiar, but no doubt it
contains a trenchant critique.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.