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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|