I think the social model is a little mistaken in using the word impairment,
because the model has to modify the semantic understanding and root of the
word impairment from it cognacity with disability in order to work.
impairment still carries a value judgement in that it describes a state of
less than perfection. perfection having to be measured in what can only be a
social way by the observer or definer of "impaired"
if one substitutes condition for impairment, one is describing a neutral,
just so, the state that one is either born with or has aquired.
starting from the position of a theretically unsocial world where everyone
were in John Donnes sence an island, it would not matter the level of ones
funtion, either cognative organic or physical, one would live out ones span,
even if one were anencephalic and that span were zero.
I suspect I have already lost most people here, but the point is, that if
one introduces as few as one person to the model one therefore consitutes
social space and invites the comparison of person a with person b.
Add in society and factor in the particular mileu (this may be a social
gruoping, a state (ie country) and an environment, and ability to funtion
can be measured against social norms and values and also in terms of what is
deemed necesary to survive to a degree that is considered acceptable in that
environment. For instance if one were born in Alaska with a condition which
made wearing clothes uncomfortable and heated rooms were not yet invented
one would have an alaska centric impairment in terms of survival, survival
having been deemed a socially desirable goal.
I am of course too philosophical. But I think my way, in fact I can only do
things my way, it is the only way. If occasionaly I agree in part with
someone elses model, that is all well and good, it must signify to me that
the model were right, only insofar as it co-incides with my value judgement
or my ability to be persuaded that my original judgement were wrong.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Timothy Lillie
> Sent: 23 March 2001 18:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A Question Reply to John Homan
>
>
> Yes I agree. But no one attempts to modify, change or evolve the social
> model. I do not see it a static, concrete (if I was only thinking in a
> concrete fashion what sort of philosopher would I be?), never changing
> model or concept - no concept is. I am charging social modellist as
> treating it this way. It is not critiqued or questioned (or at least
> only "the fringe bits" are. No one has the guts or inclination to
> question the foundations.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Oh, I'm not so sure about that. I think that the goodness of fit of the
> social model is less good when we research the lives of people with severe
> cognitive impairments, for example. Of course, social constructions of
> severe cognitive impairment can be created and critiqued, but it
> is (to me)
> less clear that the "disability" is solely (or primarily) the result of
> social construction. By comparison: The social model completely explains
> the "disability" that is created by not having an accessible public
> building; it is less useful (though not, I hasten to add, useless) in
> explaining how a non-acessible public building creates "disability" in
> people with severe cognitive impairments.
>
> I would welcome comments from others on this topic.
>
> Tim Lillie
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|