>Hi Andy re postmodernism supporting the medicalised model,
>postmodern writers have suggested that this way of viewing can do
>nothing else than remain with/in a 'symbiotic relationship' with
>modernist views, and as such wil be supportive of those aspects of
>modernism (which includes socio/material and socio/biological
>models) that are beneficial. So no need of strategic alliances. The
>good thing about that is that there is no need to compromise for the
>sake of the alliance. Dissent (rather than criticism) is possible
>without it being taken as disloyalty ... cheers Carol
>This is catch 22 situation as language will always reflect the episteme in
>which it belongs too. The term impairment , and any other term that was
>'constructed' to show the oppressiveness of the medical model will have a
>short life. This is not a revelation. Lets not be confused by the term as
>the term was never intended to be an aim in itself.
>
>Postmodernist writers may want to consider their critics to the social model
>(I.e. Shelley Tremain) as post modernist without political materialism
>(Marxism-social model) is metaphysics, a the philosophy of ideas, as it
>best.
>
>Larry and those that feel very critical to the social model, particularly
>from the post modern front, need to come into terms that without
>compromising, without an strategic alliance with the social model, will end
>up -and this is the irony of life- supporting the medicalised model too.
>Foucault also cannot escape to genealogy after all.
> Andy
>----- Original Message -----
________________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.
|