Hi Paul
I think impairment is the most neutral thing there is. Having blue or brown eyes is a neutral state. Therefore having a slurred speech is similar, it is factual and neither good or bad. In problem is how others relate to this, which creates disability. For myself, my identity as a disabled peope is very different to my identity as a impaired person. While all identity is interlinked, it is separate. I do agree that impairment affects lifestyle and with external pressure, will be socialised with a positive or more likely neutral value. But going back to the issue, impairment is a biological fact and therefore neutral.
Simon
Simon Stevens
Enable Enterprises
PO Box 1974, COVENTRY, CV3 1YF
Tel: 070 209 21158 Fax: 0870 133 2447
Personal:
Email: [log in to unmask] Web: www.simonstevens.com
Business
Email: [log in to unmask] Web: www.enableenterprises.com
Join our free mailing list at
[log in to unmask] <---CLICK HERE
and keep in touch with the latest in accessibility issues PLUS free price draw every month! Win £150 worth of consultancy
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Phil Smith
Sent: 21 April 2000 13:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: disability and impairment
Ria quoted Simon, who said, in differentiating between disability and
impairment:
" Impairment is a biological difference in function or appearance which
may require different or unique lifestyle elements (such as diet) from
the perceived norm. Impairment has a neutral value. Impairment can
also be seen as a part of a person's identity, culture and way of
living. It is personally experienced and while giving raise to the
need for impairment specific peer support, can not be compared easier
with others. Impairment is also a part of normal life and should not
removed."
In thinking about this proposed definition, I wonder about the statement
that "Impairment has a neutral value." I wonder if this can be, or is, true.
The word "impairment," some might say, is separate from the actual lived
reality of that which it refers to: they are not the same thing. The word, I
think, can never be neutral; it always has some value placed upon it, as do
all words, by societies and cultures.
This is partly about my continued discomfort about the separation of
"disability" and "impairment": as meanings, they are both culturally and
personally constructed. It seems to me that we cannot understand them
separately from those constructed meanings (that's sort of all we have to
work with, isn't it?).
Anyone have thoughts? Can you help me with this?
Phil Smith
Vermont Self-Determination Project
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|