I guess the issue is closely related to identity. Human societies tend to
establish identities in relation to the position of the person in the
production process. For example John Smith is a milkman or doctor, his ggg
father was a smith and so forth. People with differentiations called
impairment/disabilities are defined in relation with their 'condition'. No
other human is subject to such categorisation without some type of
embarrassment. Relatively recently women managed to get their categorisation
as housewives removed, not without fighting in two world wars. It is my
guess but it may be related (categorisation) to the fact that for 300 years
disabled people were excluded from proletarisation (due to the
standardisation of the work place).
Having said that, I believe that DP or PWDs is a bit like a chicken and egg
situation. Whatever you come up with reinforces the dichotomic locker such
categorisation place nearly one billion individuals in the planet. Hence the
issue is not about h what type of hat the monkey wears but why it has to
wear it. Tom Shakespeare 20002 has made a remarkable contribution, following
strategically postmodernism (Derrida deconstruction) to suggest that perhaps
we should turn the table around and ask why people have to categorise his
inabiolities. In othewords, the idea is to dismantle the system (the binary
code+the lock) and ask who is normal?
Perhaps the United Nations could help organising banquets and conferences
to provide the standardised concept of the normal person. At that moment we
will realise that the monkey doesn't have to wear hats.
best, Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Stephenson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:53 PM
Subject: Impairment/PWD/Disabled People
> As a disabled person or person with an impairment working at the so called
> coal face, supporting DPOs I cannot believe or perhaps I can more than
> believe that academics are still discussing the 'correct' use of language.
> I personally dislike the use of 'people with disabilities' but note that
> since moving up North in Uk it is more often than not used. The concept
> of 'people first, 'disability' second' is quite pathetic really, kindof -
> 'oh dear, i thought you were vegetable'. Of course you are a person first
> but unless your impairment is invisible/hidden/whatever then you are a
> Disabled person.
> Like Larry's Haile Salassie's Bob Marlyesque verse!
>
> ________________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 list administration should be sent to
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to 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 list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|