Hi,
I'm new to this list and it's my first post, but folks on DS-HUM (mostly
in the States) have probably heard more from me than they care. The
subject of the social construction of impairment interests me greatly as
I've engaged it for some time and it figures prominently in my
book-in-progress and should always loom large in any discussion of
music, which is my field but hardly a prominent one in disability studies.
I agree with those listers who argue that both disability and impairment
are socially constructed. Since many have weighed in on this and it's
very complex, I'll leave it at that. I think, though, that that makes
locating the distinction between the two particularly important. You're
probably all aware that the two terms are used pretty interchangeably
(as is handicap) in common parlance in the States, though in DS we use
the terms pretty much as folks on this list do.
If the difference between disability and impairment isn't that they
are/aren't socially constructed, then it's got to be something else,
otherwise there's no useful distinction. Before I audition that
distinction as I see it, I think it's important to emphasize that social
constructions are very real, that social realities are still realities,
and that their impact can be huge. Even if something is socially
constructed, it's socially constructed with a basis that's very real,
although sometimes that basis is only a very real perception that
doesn't have much underlying. There's always a basis for the
identification of disability and impairment, but both require
identification, an action that requires human agency, and is thus social.
In my experience, the case for social construction may actually be more
easily made with the familiar analogy to gender/sex, than directly with
disability/impairment. One does this by challenging the widely accepted
notion that gender is socially constructed and sex is not. I would
submit that the difference between gender and sex is not that they
are/aren't socially constructed, but that they are/aren't embodied. The
aspects of gender that are so often cited, such as clothing and
cosmetics, aren't embodied. The aspects of sex that are so often cited,
such as genitalia, are, of course, embodied, but the common taxonomy of
precisely two sexes based on precisely two categories of genitalia is
socially constructed. My current research includes a legendary jazz
singer with a sexual impairment and it's taken me to intersex studies
where one encounters a lot more variety than two sexual flavors of human
beings.
I think we can make a very good case for impairment as embodied,
disability not. That takes nothing away from social construction of
either. Easily amplified low vision is generally not regarded as an
impairment. Mobility that calls for assistance (that is about as easily
available as a pair of glasses) is generally regarded as an impairment.
Both are embodied, but the is/isn't impairment distinction is socially
constructed. Left-handedness is rarely construed as an impairment in
most English-speaking places these days, but it is in many places. In
certain musical situations LH creates challenges to getting the job done
that are far more daunting than blindness, which is regarded as more
significant in most situations.
Hope that's useful and interesting and, as one new to this terrific
list, not rehash. I have much more to say about it, but that's why
people write books.
Best,
--
Alex Lubet, Ph. D.
Morse Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor of Music and Jewish Studies
Adjunct Professor of American Studies
Head, Division of Composition and Music Theory
University of Minnesota
2106 4th St. S
Minneapolis, MN 55455
612 624-7840 612 624-8001 (fax)
________________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.
|