In a message dated 4/21/00 9:07:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Also why is the term impairment treated with such venom - of course
because
the words 'medical model' springs to people's minds. >>
Is "impairment" really treated with such venom? Isn't the framework of the
social model hung on the distinction between "impairment" and "disabiiity"?
All discussions I've read in dis. studies books use these terms to describe
and explain our rejection of the medical model. It seems to me that dis.
studies scholars have been working to make "impairment" neutral and
"disability" the object of analysis. What is the objection to "impairment?
It seems to me inescapable that we do, in fact, enter the world of disability
through the impairment door. Try as I might, I have not been able to dispute
this in any meaningful way. How else would we arrive there? It seems
counterproductive to attempt to dispute the fact that we who are disabled
have (or are perceived to have) "impairments." By reacting with venom to the
term "impairment," aren't we failing to (as Simi Linton describes) CLAIM our
identity status? Reacting to the term "impairment" with venom may be a
marker of internalized oppression, which defeats the very purpose of
accepting our condition and rejecting our disablement.,
Best,
Beth
Beth Omansky Gordon
The George Washington University
Washington, D.C., USA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|