Simon, I would dispute your implication that invisible impairments are
always lesser than visible impairments.
I think visible and invisible impairments can result in very different
forms of discrimination, but that the degree of exclusion which accompanies
a visible impairment is not inevitably greater than that which can accompany
an invisible one. My impairment is mostly invisible (I have M.E., and look
'normal', except when I go very white and have to lie down in odd places),
but there are many aspects of life I am excluded from completely.
Employment is impossible, education is extremely difficult (my cognitive
impairments mean I am now in my 6th year of attempting to complete my
Masters degree), and socialising is severely reduced. I do not wish to
further any hierarchy debate, simply to demonstrate through my own
experience that just because an impairment is not visible it is still very
real - the extremes of my fatigue are certainly as real to me as any lost
limb.
Best wishes, Julia Cameron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Stevens" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: An open debate to neuro diversity! No Labels
Mairian,
Thank you for your confidence. My concerns are not easy to explain but I
think are valid.
I do think that under the social model, impairment can exist without
socio-political disability. Exampling are people who need glassing, in
growing toe nails and so on. These has personal difficulties but do not
generate concepts of 'other' or other oppression.
Therefore, I am concerned that people with minor impairments are
mistaking symptoms of impairment as symptoms of disability and attempt
to align themselves as disabled activists.
This has three problems. Firstly, because of the social skills gained
through not having suffer the oppression of special schools, people with
minor impairments has more ability to dominate the movement and be vocal
in describing their difficulties in a way other impairment groups do not
have. This can generate a sense of superiority and arrogance.
Secondly, people with minor impairment can pass themselves off and can
be considered as acceptable forms of disability, resulting in their
viewpoint being more focus. Due to the discreditable rather than
discredited approach, this viewpoint can often be cure focused which can
be opposite to other impairment group who have a strong discredited
identity.
Thirdly, people with minor impairment will often fail to have the shared
disability experience of other impairment groups. This will therefore
distance themselves for other disabled people and may often have no
general disability understanding.
I have witnessed the rise of awareness and power of minor impairments
and it has been watching doctors feeding the seals at the zoo. In a
deseperate effort to medicalised everything in sight for expansion
purchases, doctors have create new impairments and then made people feel
grateful for the labels they been given. It is often a false celebration
of what was everyday life.
To argue it is not the revival of the medical model to its extremely is
a falsehood. And now this new impairments are being self-dianoged, it
further turns the idea of impairment upside down as people fight for
labeled.
Neorudiversity is the fish thrown by the doctors, or often scraps, being
fried and adopted into culture. It is a re-enforcement and valdation of
the new impairments which does not exist.
The new impairments are indeed more social constructed than more
tradiational. Physical impairments like lost limb is the most real and
actual impairment. Learning impairment can be valided to lesser degree.
The validity of mental illness has be questioned for decades. Now we
have these impairments based on academic skills in a social environment
which devalues other manual skill bases. We have shifted from a diverse
individual skills base, to poor education and onto blaming the
individuals for being medically incapable of certain academic skills
like reading, writing and maths.
I therefore have a difficulty accepted this sudden increase in
impairments numbers where impairment did not previously exist.
The 2 mains issues are therefore the true validity of the impairments
within an social model definition and the compatibility in terms of
attitudes from people with neorudiversity (will someone tell me why CP
is not included) and other impairment groups.
Many Thanks, Simon
PS: My spelling/grammer is crap because of the way my brain and hands
don't work together! Whenever I can, I do take responsibility for this
and just consider myself a crap speller.. like the good old days!
--
Simon Stevens
Managing Director, Enable Enterprises
[log in to unmask]
NEED INSTANT ADVICE?
CALL 247 INSTANT ON 090 904 80000 (£1 PER MINUTE)
PO Box 1974, COVENTRY, CV3 1YF
Tel: +44(0)24 7644 8130 (Sales 0800 358 8484)
Fax: +44(0)870 133 2447
IM: enableenterprises (Yahoo/AOL) simonenable (MSN) 155158793 (ICQ)
Personal site: www.simonstevens.com
Company shop: www.enableenterprises.com
Free Newsletter: www.contactexpress.biz
Join our FREE newsletter, send blank email to [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.
|
