Larry,
I can understand your point but can you understand one?
I use the term impairment to mean condition or status, I am difference, I do
have difficulties which require assistance.
Like or not, impairment and disability exist and are bargaining tools in
receiving assistance, services and in my case, work. I use my impairment and
too right, I have to.
If the social model is not working for you, fine, but sort it out in your
own space. My concern are been a desire to abolished the social model and
impairment for everyone just because it is not working for a few people, and
please believe me when I say a few... this battle is not on the streets.
The reality of life is far more complex than the perspectives I hear here
and the reality is impairment exists and the term must be used as a tool.
By wishing away impairment now will also make life worst for disabled people
as the abuses their suffer will be valided as 'differences' since the new
medical model understanding of difference will prevail without an social
model and rights models to defend disabled people. So while those some
impairments will feel happier at 'being accepted', other impairments will
suffer increased abuses of their human rights in the name of difference.
Simon
--
Simon Stevens
Chief Executive, Enable Enterprises
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Arnold
Sent: 01 September 2004 23:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: impairment
In my construction as soon as you refer to my "impairment" you are disabling
me, can you not understand that because you are specifying some part of my
condition, that is less than what it should be, you are by calling me
impaired, measuring me against a standard of what is not impaired therefore
constructing both my impairment and disability
Disability as socially constructed does not arise from impairment because it
is a quality that can be ascribed to a person purely by adverse judgement,
guilt by association as it were. If one is genetically vulnerable to certain
conditions, one might not per se be impaired but one will still be disabled
if one cannot get insurance.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mark Priestley
> Sent: 01 September 2004 17:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: impairment
>
>
> I suppose what I mean is that having differing views about the
> ontological nature of impairment is not necessarily inconsistent
> with making good use of a social model of disability (rather than
> a social model of impairment) since, in a social model view,
> there is no necessary causal connection between impairment and
> disability - i.e. if social model research is about disability
> then it probably won't engage much with the nature of impairment,
> instead focusing on the identification and removal of disabling
> barriers and relationships.
>
> Assuming that... 'Disability is something imposed on top of our
> impairments by the way we are unnecessarily excluded from full
> participation in society...' (UPIAS)
>
> ... then the challenge for most people seems to be arguing about
> what they believe is 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' exclusion from
> full participation - rather than what impairment is (I guess
> Simon is saying these two arguments are connected here). Carol
> Thomas' distinction between disability and impairment effects
> (social and individual properties) is one stab at that
> distinction I guess (there are others).
>
> Only a personal view of course.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shelley Tremain
> Sent: 01 September 2004 18:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: impairment
>
> This is of course a tendentious misconstrual of the (hegemonic) social
> model.
>
> That version of the model holds that there is a strict division of
> impairment and disability. As the saying goes, "disability is not a
> necessary consequence of impairment" (a view which you reiterate in your
> latest book). However, if, as you state below, " impairment is itself a
> social construct" and as you further state
>
> "The definition and labelling of impairment is critical to the process of
> disablement - a long standing technique of surveillance or governance that
> has a real impact on people's lives (e.g. influencing decisions
> about which
> schools people attend, where they live, if and where they are employed,
> whether they can be parents, whether they should live or die, etc.)."
>
> the distinction between impairment and disability breaks down.
>
> The UPIAS document from which the social model apparently emerged makes a
> definite nature/culture distinction. This is an ontological
> assumption. In
> a post in April, you indicated that you agreed with the ontological
> assumptions of the UPIAS document (it may be that you have reconsidered
> your/their view or maybe you simply aren't familiar enough with that
> philosophical terminology). Regardless, in your remarks below,
> you collapse
> this distinction. I'm afraid that in neither case can you have it both
> ways.
>
> I would think for your students' sake (if not for the sake of
> others on this
> list) you would try to be more consistent in your stated views.
>
> Best regards,
>
> ______________________
> Professor Shelley Tremain
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Toronto at Mississauga
> Erindale College
> Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
> L5L 1C6
>
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Priestley" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:39 AM
> Subject: impairment
>
>
> mmm... it's a well trodden debate but my own view, for what it's worth, is
> that it's more helpful to think about social model analysis as a tool to
> expose the oppression experienced by people with 'perceived
> impairments' or
> people 'labelled as having impairments' (since impairment is
> itself a social
> construct). The definition and labelling of impairment is critical to the
> process of disablement - a long standing technique of surveillance or
> governance that has a real impact on people's lives (e.g. influencing
> decisions about which schools people attend, where they live, if and where
> they are employed, whether they can be parents, whether they
> should live or
> die, etc.).
>
> In a social world constructed and governed around shifting expectations of
> normality those impairment labels change over time and in response to
> changes in the social relations of production and reproduction (hence
> disability changes too). From a social model perspective it would be the
> construction and regulation of human normality and social norms that gives
> rise to disabling barriers (e.g. norms developed in response to the
> emergence of capitalism, industrialization, modernity, cultural
> imperialism,
> nationalism, eugenics, medicalisation, etc.).
>
> Understanding how this kind of labelling takes place, the assumptions on
> which it is based, and the impact it then has on people's lives
> seems pretty
> consistent with social model analysis as far as I can see. I
> don't think it
> necessarily requires a belief that anyone actually 'has an impairment',
> whatever that is (!), as an individual property (e.g. Carol
> Thomas' book?).
> Sara is right about learning differences for example. From a social model
> perspective, understanding why some but not others are labeled as
> impairments (learning difficulties) exposes how institutions of
> learning and
> teaching fail to accommodate some differences.
>
> To take Sara's and Simon's points, the research literature on learning
> difficulties' seems to have taken this on board more thoroughly than other
> fields by often talking explicitly about 'people labelled as
> having learning
> difficulties' rather than 'people with learning difficulties' (a
> construction that has evolved radically over recent years to include many
> new labels and many new groups of people).
>
> PS. I found Hughes and Paterson's paper on the 'disappearing body' quite
> helpful in highlighting the risk of 'abandoning the body to
> medical science'
> by accepting fixed biophysical notions of impairment.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Arnold
> Sent: 31 August 2004 23:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New Book
>
> Except of course that your version of the social model still discriminates
> because it contains the concept of impairment, which is a personal and as
> negative as any "word" and anglo centric linguistically.
>
> Oh well whats the point of trying to change and challenge peoples
> beliefs as
> they hang onto them anyway, Ossification would be a good word for
> it? if it
> weren't so latinate in construction.
>
> I leave you word people to it, you can't see beyond your personal
> constructs
> because you can't think beyond your language into anothers mind who thinks
> differently.
>
> Larry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Colin Barnes
> > Sent: 31 August 2004 07:39
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: New Book
> >
> >
> > Dear All
> >
> > I hope the following will be of nterest. It is the second in a
> > series of three books documenting contributions to seminars held
> > across the UK last year.
> >
> > Colin Barnes
> >
> > ญญญญญญญญญญ--------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > Disability Policy and Practice:
> > Applying the Social Model
> >
> > Edited by Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer
> >
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Colin Barnes
> > Sent: 31 August 2004 07:39
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: New Book
> >
> >
> > Dear All
> >
> > I hope the following will be of nterest. It is the second in a
> > series of three books documenting contributions to seminars held
> > across the UK last year.
> >
> > Colin Barnes
> >
> > ญญญญญญญญญญ--------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > Disability Policy and Practice:
> > Applying the Social Model
> >
> > Edited by Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer
> >
> >
> > 'Disability Policy and Practice: Applying the Social Model of
> > Disability' contains thirteen chapters on the application of
> > social model inspired thinking on social policy in Britain. The
> > contributors include established figures and newcomers to the
> > field. They raise a range of important issues and concerns
> > central to theorising and researching disability policy and
> > practice spanning employment, housing, higher education with
> > examples from England, Scotland, and Wales, social 'care',
> > independent living and leisure and social relations. Together
> > they provide ample evidence of the continuing relevance of
> > debates emanating from the social model of disability within
> > disability studies and related disciplines. This book will be of
> > particular interest to academics, researchers, professionals,
> > disabled people and lay audiences with an interest in disability
> > issues and the on going struggle for a more equitable and just society.
> >
> > Disability Policy and Practice: Applying the Social Model' is
> > also available on request at no additional cost on CD, in PDF
> > format, for ease of access for people who require alternative formats.
> >
> > The Book and CD are only available by mail order from the
> >
> > Centre for Disability Studies,
> > School of Sociology and Social Policy,
> > University of Leeds,
> > LS2 9JT
> >
> > at: ฃ16.50 including postage and packing (20% discount for orders
> > of four or more)
> >
> > Payment may be by credit card (Visa or Mastercard) via the
> > telephone, fax, email, or by cheque, payable to the University of
> > Leeds. To order contact Marie Ross on (44) 113 3434407 (tel. and
> > minicom), or (44) 113 3434415 (fax) by email:
> > [log in to unmask] or by post at the address above.
> >
> > ________________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.
>
> ________________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.
>
> ________________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.
________________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.
|
