Lynne wrote:
> Thanks for your response, which I am thinking about...My initial
>thoughts are that I can see your point absolutely, although I think that the
>problem with the social model lies exactly in the area under discussion.
>What about, for instance, a facial disfigurement which is neither an
>impairment to physical function (i.e. movement, eating or whatever), nor
>within the "normal" range of facial characteristics (maybe the result of an
>accident)? Can a distinction be drawn between:an impairment which impairs
>only superficially, which nontheless is disabling through attitudes, or
>through an individual's body image; a physically disabling impairment which
>is where Jimmy and I disagree (and which implies that it is the impairment
>which disables rather than society); and a "stigmatised body image", which
>implies that the person who is stigmatised has a body image congruent with
>the view of society towards that body.
It might be worthwhile looking at Carol Thomas' book 'Female Forms' (1999,
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press) and in particular her argument about
'disability effects' and 'impairment effects.'
Best wishes
Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education and Social Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
Deafsearch
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]20 7359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|