----- Original Message -----
From: "Shelley Tremain" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Mark Priestley" <[log in to unmask]>;
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:39 AM
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.
|