I'm glad that Mairian brought up the idea of social construction as a
*tool* for examination of a phenomenon. i haven't followed this whole
discussion, but the bits i've picked up seem to use the idea of social
construction as if it were a way of living, rather than as a
perspective for examining the ways that disability (or whatever
label/identity/social positioning is operative in the country under
discussion) functions in a certain place. i don't see how we can
evaluate whether a particular culture/copuntry "uses the social
Individual theorists, policy analysts and others might employ the
model to examine practice, or apply it in the development of particular
interventions (in this case, intervention not geared toward individuals
- e.g. therapy, education, but interventions aimed at systemic change).
We might, i think, be able to evaluate whetehr particular countries
are successful in aiming resources toward systemic change, rather than
charity aimed at individuals or other kinds of actions aimed at
containing disabled people, or even hleping disabled people be
healthier, more productive etc. But again, if we do this kind of
evaluation, we would be *employing* a social model, as a tool, to
ascertain levels of effectiveness of such practice, but could not, i
think, label a country doing such stuff as employing a social model.
--- Mairian Corker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well, yes and no. I can think of a number of ways in
> which (some)
> developing countries, of which India is a very good
> example on the basis of
> language experience alone, are post-modern socities.
> If this is the case,
> then social construction and deconstruction would be
> a useful tools in
> looking at the situation of disabled people. But
> when you say that many
> developing societies see disability in a very
> different way to the social
> model, which social model do you mean, because it
> sounds to me as if Anita
> is very conscious of the distribution of material
> resources in India,
> particularly in relation to who gets what services.
> That sounds very like
> the dominant UK social model to me.
> Best wishes
> >Well, I for one (and one of a few I know) would
> argue that in the US we
> >really do not use the social contruction model of
> disability. This
> >statement will take me a while to elaborate which I
> will do in an article
> >and a book. Stay tuned. But many developing (?)
> societies just see
> >disability in a way very different from the social
> >David Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
> >Resident Scholar
> >Center on Disability Studies
> >University of Hawai`i at Manoa
> >[log in to unmask]
> >Center on Disability Studies....maximizing
> >potential by encouraging independence,
> >and full participation in the community.
> >On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, anitravi wrote:
> >> Dear David
> >> I am not exactly sure which societies are you
> referring to when you say
> >> that social constructionist perspective is not
> applicable? Could you please
> >> elaborate.
> >> Anita Ghai Ph.D.
> Mairian Corker
> Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability
> Department of Education Studies
> University of Central Lancashire
> Preston PR1 2HE
> Address for correspondence:
> 111 Balfour Road
> London N5 2HE
> Minicom/TTY +44 171 359 8085
> Fax +44 870 0553967
> Typetalk (voice) +44 800 515152 (and ask for
> minicom/TTY number)
> "To understand what I am doing, you need a third
[log in to unmask]
212 580 9280 (phone and fax)
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com