To go back a few days in this discussion; I found much of your response
intriguing. Perhaps we can search a bit futher? I am not familiar with
the UPIAS document you refer to. I wonder what the definition of
'physical' is? And then, if one is going to inquire into why questions of
heirarchy re visible and nonvisible are being asked now, it seems
important to know, who is asking? I know that asking as an American, the
Americans with Disabilities Act contributes to my sense that it is right
to ask this question. For, under this act, people with psychiatric
disabilities are considered disabled, as well as those who are thought to
have psychiatric disabilities. So, perhaps in a different way than the
sense of community that the social model of disability has generated
internationally, the ADA actually has created a category of people who
perhaps could legally be considered a community.
As far as invisible disabilities go, I always think of psychiatric
disability, while others wake me up with reference to Deaf/deafness, for
example.
[log in to unmask] writes:
>t I did a close reading of UPIAS'
>"Fundamental Principles" document. In this reading, I pointed to the fact
>that the document itself is clear that it refers to people with physical
>impairments. It says things like "the situation of (people with other
>kinds
>of impairments) is similar to that of people with physical impairments
>(but
>presumably not the same as). As this is the document from which "the
>social
>model" emerged in the UK, I became interested in the comments that were
>being made at the time in numerous sources about whether the disabled
>people's movement - and more particularly "the social model" itself - was
>inclusive.
>
>I came to a tentative conclusion that because the social model is
>ultimately
>an ideology, the groups who felt excluded were the groups for whom
>"physical" versions of the social model didn't work even if they hadn't
>articulated it in quite that way. They talk about inclusion into the
>social
>model without really considering whether the social model is or can be
>inclusive to the extent that everyone wants without important ontological
>sacrifices being made. "Other" versions of the social model were just
>that -
>"other" - and so this created a hierarchy on the basis of the dominant
>model
>and "other" models. My next question was why is this becoming an issue
>now,
>and why does it keep on re-emerging here in this forum? There are three
>possible answers to that question. First, it has to do with the nature of
>the social world we live in now. Second, it is because the "rights and
>empowerment" agenda has encouraged more disabled people to speak out. The
>more vociferous people become the more likely we are to engage in culture
>wars over which version of our lives prevails in the public domain. And,
>finally, the possibilities presented by politics in cyberspace are
>different
>to those presented by "real" space. In cyberspace, the politics of
>democracy
>(perhaps what Pauline calls 'respect') tend to be more evident than the
>politics of protest. Therefore, I think that lists like this tend to bring
>into sharp relief the other side of the collective, the bit that we don't
>really have a way of talking about i.e. that disabled people are a
>community
>of unrelated strangers. If we impose "real world" frameworks here, all
>that
>happens is that discussion stops - until the next time.
Yes, I agree
>
>
>>
>> My understanding of the above is certainly colored by my interest in
>> Liz DePoy's question earlier, of whether there is a tension in the
>> disability community between those with visible vs. nonvisible
>> disabilities. For me, Larry's question relates to that interest.
>
>Yes I agree, though it's not quite as simple because there are obviously
>hierarchies that are themselves based on visibility (what Pauline calls
>degree, but it can also be called type when you think about the
>Deaf/disabled conundrum). Again I'd add though that in cyberspace, we are
>all invisible or only visible through our words. It's very clear to me
>that
>in this forum we do need to work much harder at understanding the meaning
>of
>words, because the clues to meaning are in the words themselves. This
>reverses the hierarchies of the corporeal world. The identity markers are
>also different and much more deceptive. It is unsurprising that people who
>find face-to-face interaction oppressive are increasingly turning to this
>medium as a space in which they can "be". But then again, there are
>probably
>a large number of people who use this forum as an information bank and who
>have become accustomed to the possibilities it presents for getting across
>time and space barriers quickly. The conflict between the two groups is a
>large part of the battles we see here.
Thanks for the above, interesting ideas.
Heather
Heather MacDuffie
Center for Community Inclusion
University of Maine
5717 Corbett Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5717
581-1468
________________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.
|