I know I started this thread, but I've been reluctant to engage lately with
the discussion because it's felt pretty unpleasant. But, having discovered
my inner masochist, here goes...
As I understand Susan Wendell's critique of the purely social model, it
seems reminiscent of critiques levelled against second wave feminism by
those who were excluded by that social movement. Second wave feminism,
although effective in making social change, ignored the specific situations
of women of colour, lesbians, third world women, etc. And, in some ways, the
revolution stalled as a result of this.
I think that this is a risk that could be attached to the social model of
disability if it fails to take individual differences into account.
Wendell's (and others) critique of the social model is that it has
totalizing aspects, where the 'person' who experiences disability oppression
is typically a white, heterosexual, physically disabled male. The critique
against this is that differences within are ignored; race, gender, and
indeed hierarchies of disability tend to get erased in this body of work.
(And hierarchies do exist, even within disability 'communities' - think of
the guy in Murderball who when asked if he was going to the Special Olympics
said in horror, "I'm not a retard!")
Of course feminism, and the social refiguring of disability theory have both
had positive effects. That is not the question. The question is whether
there is not room for a theory of disability that would examine the specific
disabling conditions (i.e., social barriers and difference) or impairments
(i.e., embodied barriers or difference) faced by individuals with
disabilities. Late onset, from birth, intellectual, sensory, cognitive,
accompanied by chronic pain, complicated by issues of gender, race,
sexuality, globalization, age - all of these differences need to be
acknowledged, because they matter, they make differences beyond 'disability'
as an essentialized category.
Best,
Claudia Malacrida
----- Original Message -----
From: "A Velarde" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Social vs. impairment models
> Hello Stephen. I myself prefer the views of Tom Shakespeare, from the
> social
> model perspective. Shelly Tremain's point' 'The social model...is a
> paradigmatic example of the juridical conception of power that has
> prevailed
> in disability studies" (Foucault and the Government of Disability 2005) is
> not exhaustive, in my view. Yes she has a point (I.e impairment/disabled
> dichotomy), but from my readings of Michael Oliver's books, I cannot see
> that the social model has that juridical conception of power. In fact,
> Oliver is more than conversant with Foucauldian analysis too. It is a
> chick,
> in my views, to say that the social model has a juricalised view of the
> world. Is Michael Oliver comparable with Roscoe Pound ( 'social
> engineering')?. No, no. The social model is political philosophy of the
> 1960's- 1990s.Disabled people today have some access to
> education/employment
> because the social model! Would that be achieved without the
> impairment/disability dichotomy. NO. Foucault in the same period, lets
> not
> forget made many mistakes of judgements in his life time derived from his
> fascinating analysis I.e Iran crisis). Andy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stephen lee hodgkins" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Social vs. impairment models
>
>
>> Hiya - not sure if this is the sort of thing you might be interested in
> but
>> I recently came across some work by Shelly Tremain that highlights some
>> conceptual problems with the social model. There are a few but see 'On
>> the
>> Government of Disability' 2001 27/4 617-636 in Social theory and
>> practice.
>> It draws on Foucault and asserts problems with the disability /
>> impairment
>> distinction and how modern power relations / political arrangements
> produce
>> subjects who have impairments. I think it makes some good points.
>>
>> stephen
>>
>> ________________End of message______________________
>>
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
> administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at:
>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>
>> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>>
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
> administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
