The Disability-Research Discussion List

Managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds

Help for DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH  September 2004

DISABILITY-RESEARCH September 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: impairment

From:

"Simon Stevens (CEO, Enable)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Simon Stevens (CEO, Enable)

Date:

Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:01:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (161 lines)

Shelly,

I find your remarks offensive at say the least. By your zenophonic desire to
abolishment the social model because it does not justify the medicalisation
of rudeness and arrogance, I can only assume you are against human rights
(you are neighbours to America!) and disabled rights. If so, why?

If you hate disabled people and think disabled people who believe they are
the rights to exist and define themselves positively are evil mentally
deformed beings than you I please suggest you re-evaluation your position
and what it means?

The social model in the UK is no longer an academic theory but a reality and
a way of living for many disabled people. Your arrogance destruction of the
social model is no less than genocide of the worst form.

Simon
--
Simon Stevens
Chief Executive, Enable Enterprises

-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shelley Tremain
Sent: 03 September 2004 15:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: impairment

Hi Carol,

I think that Goodley mischaracterizes my own position too.  He lumps me in
with a group he claims are producing "social theories of impairment".
Anyone who has read my work and thought about it carefully should recognize
that I'm not advancing a "social theory of impairment".  My argument is that
the naturalization and materialization of impairment is a mechanism of
disability.  This is a theory about disability, not about impairments (which
do not "exist"), just as the claim that races are naturalized and
materialized through racist scientific discourses, etc. is a claim about
racism, not a claim (or, theory) about races (which do not exist).

I also object to Goodley's claim that the social model with its
impairment/disability distinction "is not somethign (sic) to moved beyond,
but from and and with".  This is a very cozy and covert way of saying that
we should all look up to the British disability studies people who have
provided us with a framework in which to conduct our work.  I , for one,
object to having my work pigeonholed by that imperialist gesture.

It's interesting: now that the (British) social model has been undermined
and shown to be incoherent (by non-British people especially!), one is
increasingly told that "people outside of England just don't understand the
social model, just don't understand how important it's been to us," and "the
British social model has been renewed (and we can all keep doing what we've
been doing for the last thirty years)"; yet, anyone who has been around
disability studies long enough should remember a time, not so long ago, when
Barnes, Shakespeare, Priestley, Watson, etc., etc., were so "cocksure" (on
this list, at conferences, in publications) that their social model was the
only worthwhile game in town, that is, everyone, everywhere should learn the
UPIAS principles and go out and preach them.  (This of course alienated many
of the leading American disability theorists who won't have anything to do
with this list.)  Now things are different.  Now we should all acknowledge
the cultural specificity of the social model, we shouldn't
overintellectualize it, and we should, nevertheless, allow our work to be
conceptualized within its rubric.  Is this "renewal"?  Or is this
entrenchment and conservatism?  Cultural relativism or a fortress mentality?

Myself, I am suspicious about the integrity of these claims with respect to
the "continued relevance" of the social model, furthermore.  I suspect that
what these claims actually do is disguise professional interests.  Some
people in British disability studies have built their careers around
"applications" of the social model, and that is all that their careers are
built on.  They haven't done anything else.  To make matters worse: now we
not only have to contend with them, we also have to put up with their
offspring who don't want to think outside of the box.

Best regards,

Shelley Tremain

______________________
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: "Carol Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: impairment


>Hi Dan re your post
>
>There are many writers who have engaged with the social model and
>developed many
>important and exciting ideas in relation to social theories of
>impairment (e.g.
>Abberley, Scott-Hill, Tremain, Hughes and Paterson, Titchkosky)


I was caught by the reference to Scott-Hill here, as I don't always
interpret her writing as engaging with the social model in order to
necessarily expand from and within it as you suggest. She is someone
who had made sense to me about the uses of a social model position as
a social constructivist 'position', one epistemic idea among a number
to choose from if strategically necessary. Like her, I am not always
convinced that the interrogation of material realities of social
oppression always does the trick in initiating change for disabled
people at a local level, and I am particularly concerned that people
with intellectual disability (NZ term) remain at the short end of the
stick because of a lack of a broader analysis of gender and sexuality
issues that material realities can miss if they are not careful.

The primacy of how what is said is said as the significant vehicle
for social change is what gets me going.  I really enjoyed reading
the following

"S to interpret (the world) convincingly is to change itS" (Corker
2000.447).




cheers Carol






________________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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager