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:

[Fwd: Re: impairment]

From:

"Alex J. Lubet" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Alex J. Lubet

Date:

Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:35:31 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (208 lines)

Hi Simon,

That mostly works for me, but it depends on a richly nuanced examination
of what is meant by "regarded."  While we're on the subject of voices,
one of my concerns is the passive voice.  Someone has to do the
regarding.  The same is true for the social contructing.  For example,
we musicians form a bunch of very tightly-knit social clusters with our
own protocols and we construct disability and impairment differently
from non-musicians and each other.  Of course, musician identity is
socially constructed as well.

About low vision and "regards".  Here in the States, it's pretty widely
accepted that our Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a sort of
benchmark for who is/isn't.  The ADA is fraught with flaws, but it
actually acknowledges the distinction between socially constructed
disability and embodied impairment, although in different language.  It
doesn't go as far as an awareness that impairment is also socially
constructed, but that's hardly the worst of its flaws, a topic for
elsewhere.

What the ADA does here, though, is to de facto create a range of
departure from the (imagined) norm.  Within the range, even at some
distance, no impairment.  Outside the range, impairment.  I'll spare you
the many, many details, which often get parsed in court, but I hope you
see that the ADA imposes a perspective that defines mine.  If we accept
the idea of social constructions, and we do, we acknowledge that there
are distinctive societies that do the constructing and that we do it
differently here.  The ADA has an iconic status here that seems to be
shared by the disability community and just about everyone else.  The
concensus absolutely collapses in the interpretation, much like any icon.

I would also submit that vision is only low if people think it is.
There may indeed be places where, for example, my vision would be fine
without my glasses, as no need would arise that would make my
farsightedness noticeable.  I suspect we all understand this.

Here in the States, it's now become possible for parents to obtain human
growth hormone for their short children on prescription.  Were I a much
younger man, mom and dad could get it for me (not that they would).  I
didn't used to be a little person, but by one benchmark I am now, at
least here.  Yet one more social abomination, curing short-phobia by
poisoning the shorties themselves.



Simon Stevens (CEO, Enable) wrote:

>Alex,
>
>Thanks for this. I would argue the disability/impairment relationship is
>similar to gender/sex. You argue that low vision is not regarded as an
>impairment but I would argue it is and that everyone has one or more
>impairments if we define an impairment as any difference from the perceived
>norm.
>
>However, not every impairment results in disability.. hence low vision in an
>impairment which is resolved by wearing glasses. Take away glasses, and the
>impairment becomes a disability.
>
>The debate here is what is socially constructed and what does that mean.
>Okay, I could argue I have a speech difference rather than impairment, I
>prefer to argue others have a listening impairment.
>
>If impairment is socially constructed, is that always wrong? Can disabled
>people not be empowered by the construction. Equality is my goal but in
>order to achieve me, I must be different to fight for it.
>
>Many thanks, Simon
>
>--
>Simon Stevens
>Chief Executive, Enable Enterprises
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alex J. Lubet
>Sent: 02 September 2004 14:25
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: impairment
>
>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.
>
>________________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.
>
>.
>
>
>

--
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)




--
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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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