I don't know about prejudice (as Gill Dixon suggests is directed
against people like him) but I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of
involving parents of children with disabilities (who, after all, know
their children, typically, better than anyone else) in important ways.
In the US we generally do well in this area in the Early Intervention
field (0-3) and progressively get worse as the child gets older, though
there are signs that that is changing, if only because parents are
becoming more knowledgeable.
I also agree with involving children. Children with disabilities
generally grow up to be adults with disabilities: they need to learn
what their rights are and how to exercise them, from an early age. To
do this they need not only the active cooperation of other pwds, but
also the active cooperation of same-age peers, teachers, community
members, and so on: almost all of whom will be (at least) "temporarily
non-disabled."
At a guess, I would imagine that most people could (if they wished)
claim a disabling condition: the ADA alone (originally) estimated that
44 million Americans with disabilities would be covered. Sometimes, as
well, it is good to draw on the insights of normally able-bodied people
with relatives with disabilities or "temporary" disabilities (like a
broken leg), who often are just the people who are in a position to
"spread the word" about disabling conditions and what they are really
like.
None of this alters the fact that pwds themselves have perhaps the
largest stake in the future of the field of Disability Studies. One
historical figure (Randolph Bourne) and two or three contemporaries
(Paul Longmore, Billy Golfus, Lucy Gwin), who have head-on examined what
it means to be disabled have been very influential. PWDs themselves
will generally be in the leadership of this field, so long as it is
about access and jobs and political influence and so on. Peter Singer
would not be an object of some controversy if people with disabilities
themselves had not demanded attention for their story.
TL
Gill Dixon wrote:
>
> It should also be noted that as an able bodied person who is studying
> disability studies, my passion stemmed from the disability of one of my
> children. Although I have heard/read the past comments relating to parents
> in disability issues, we are at times in an excellent position to promote
> positive models/ideas relating to disability, and surely it is better than
> we are well informed in order to do so.
> I felt it was appropriate to look at some of the theories relating to
> disability and to attempt to understand the construction of disability, both
> to learn and to address my own attitudes.
>
> Parents can be an excellent (or otherwise) springing board for discussion
> and can challenge views and relate information that might be considered at
> least 'reasonable' from the disabled person's point of view. Indeed, one of
> the issues I am trying to raise in my interest in education is how little we
> hear the voices of the children who are labelled as having special
> educational needs. Who is asking them? Very often...no one.
>
> I percieve an enormous prejudice from pwd's towards people like me.
> Discrimination from an angle I had not considered (naively).
>
> Gill.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dan
> > Goodley
> > Sent: 28 October 1999 09:40
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ABs in disability studies; ableist bias in textbooks (long,
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Non-disabled people in disability studies. It is interesting to view
> > the role of men in feminist studies as a useful parallel / though
> > different context. There are not many critical male researchers that
> > I know who would admit to being 'bearded feminists' - indeed to do
> > so, would in some ways fail to recognise 'ontological priviledge' of
> > women (see Stanley and Wise, 1993). However, I have met many
> > non-disabled people who would say that they are 'proponents of the
> > social model'. Does this challenge the ontological priviledge of
> > disabled people and reproduce notions of 'non-disabled as
> > expert' (which we know is nonsense, but is a core component of the
> > surveillance by professionals in the lives of disabled people) or is
> > this problematically fitting with 'interdependence' and individual
> > and collective responsibility of all social actors (as argued for by
> > Oliver, Corker, etc)?
> >
> > Just a thought ....
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Goodley
> > Bolton Institute
> > Department of Psychology
> > Deane Campus
> > Bolton BL3 5AB
> > Tel : 01204 903676
> >
> > "Revolution is necessary ... the class which
> > overthrows the ruling class can rid itself of
> > the accumulated rubbish of the past and become
> > capable of reconstructing society". (Marx 1845)
> >
--
____________________________________________________
Timothy Lillie [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|