Mairian wrote:
> However, I don't think that the social model 'takes a state of affairs and
> calls it impairment' so much as it re-iterates the individual model's
> achievement of the objectification of impairment, but reverses the focus
to
> place it on disability. It doesn't 'call' impairment except in the sense
of
> a collective and foundational corporeality - at least in dominant accounts
> - but it does, as a result, restricts the range of 'unique social
> realities' that are possible.
This is what naming an object does, it creates a 'collective and
foundational corporeality' if you like, and this restricts possible
realities, as you put it.
So the mistake the social model theorists make as do most other human
scientists, is that they still believe there is a problematic object, but
they want to change the terminology. But changes in terminology aren't going
to remove the object. We are supposed to change the condition of one object,
'the impaired' by appealing to another object 'society' with obvious
results. The target of analysis is the same as the medical model: *an
object*,
and the problem is still this impaired body and how we should deal with it.
Even if by some miracle we managed to persuade the thing called society to
provide an environment that wouldn't disable we would still be impaired. All
these human scientists, theorists, psycho babbalists etc. believe the
numerous states of affairs we conceptualise as impairment is the target or
fundamentally part of the problem: 'an object'; that's what they have in
common.
Let's say someone decided to do some research on why disabled people don't
have sex as much as able bodied people. What they would examine is an
object (a group of varied people they've classified as impaired). The
research
may come up with results that disabled people find it difficult to get into
night clubs or people don't want sex with them because of representations or
ideas of normality etc. In fact this type of research always comes to these
obvious conclusions without really offering any hope of changing things
other than through an appeal to society (which doesn't care) to act
differently. What remains after the study is the object which is ready for
the next endless round of analysis and theorising. Maybe they need better
access, maybe they need therapy, maybe they need spirituality, maybe they
need a shag, maybe they need euthanasia, maybe they need locking up, maybe
they need being treated as normal, maybe they need plastic surgery, maybe
they need
gassing, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
What then is the escape from this endless and continual fascination with the
'impaired'? One answer might be to demonstrate that actually this formation
called the impaired does not really exist except through these continual
examinations, these practices which create the object. Someone with a
missing arm might just be someone with a missing arm and have nothing
essentially linking him to someone with a missing leg, more than there is
something linking him to someone with two legs. But, I hear you say, they
are both discriminated against by society. But that's surreal, I reply, what
could possibly be the logic of discriminating against someone with a missing
arm and someone with a missing leg, what is it they have in common (I'm from
another planet)? They are both impaired you reply. But what about that blind
person and that deaf person, surely they have nothing in common, I say? Oh
yes they do, they are impaired as well, you answer. Well I'm glad I'm not
impaired then, I say. Ah, .. but you're, you've got a funny shaped head and
weird eyes. This means that you will be disabled by society, because you are
impaired. But we're trying to get society to treat you lot better because we
realise its not nice. That's not fair, who are the people who get to decide
who's impaired then, I ask? Well no one really, that's just the way it is,
these people have physical and other problems. So the problem is that
they're impaired and I'm one of them and all I can hope for is that society
is going to be charitable enough to alter things around a bit to accommodate
me? You got it. Mmmmm, this is a very strange planet. I declare that I am
not impaired, such a concept is alien to my alien thinking, I demand that
you reclassify me as extra terrestrial immediately and therefore not subject
to your primitive practices. Sorry mate, the psychologists and doctors are
already on their way, but there is some good news: a group of campaigners
have already taken up your cause and are waving placards with 'free the
zongo' and 'equal rights for the impaired zongo' written on them. But I've
already stated that I'm not impaired!!! On this planet, whether you like it
or not, you're impaired, get used to it.
The social model says:
I = D because of S
This is false logic, because S and I do not exist. More likely:
I = O because of P
D = O because of P
and S = O because of P
therefore:
I = D because of P
The problem is rather simple, it's P.
I = Impairment, D = Disablity, S = Society, O = Object, P = Practice
Regards,
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
