An Excellent Video

Hi Everyone, below is a video that I found very interesting, it is a woman talking first hand about her life and titles that she has been given. I think that it is very informative as we have been discussing social aspects of disability in class! listen to this excellent source!

Thanks! Lesley

Talk

http://www.drc.org.uk/citizenship/talkvideos/index.asp

disability dance

Jimmy/ Radiohead

testing 1,2

Hello Everyone :)

Southpark and Stem Cells

Just in case you sat through todays lecture and didn't manage to catch all the subtleties of Dr. Sharon-dale Stone's lecture, the issue of Stem Cell research was mentioned.

Allow me to add some fuel to the fire for a potentially contentious discussion on the topic.

First, let me mention that I have been collecting media references to depictions and representations of disability, especially on television and film. I'm especially interested in television representations because these forms are so widely disseminated and their influence is unmistakable.

So, even though some of you may think the the television show 'Southpark' is nothing but low-brow potty mouth humor, and some may think its the greatest show on earth, I suggest that screening a few episodes to analyze content and issues may serve us well in terms of debate. We are not debating the show itself, rather, we ought to take a critical point of view, in terms of content and issues of ethics in order to form a critical discussion.

This is not a requirement.

Watch: Southpark:

Season 5 - 'Kenny Dies'
(http://allsp.com/)

& Season 7 - 'Krazy Kripples.'
(http://allsp.com/)

Once you have screened the episodes return to the blog to post your comments and thoughts.

a

Week 3 comment paper

Cynthia Anne Tighe. (2001). ‘Working at Disability: A Qualitative Study of the Meaning of Health and Disability for Women with Physical Impairments.’ Disability and Society 16 (4): 511-529.
French, Sally. (1993). ‘Can you see the rainbow?’ The roots of denial, pp. 72–77 from Swain, Finkelstein, French and Oliver (eds.). Disabling Barriers: Enabling Environments. London: Sage.
Murphy, Robert. (1995). Encounters: The Body Silent in America, pp. 140-158 from Benedicte Ingstad and Susan Reynolds Whyte (eds.). Disability and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Spina bifida, multiple sclerosis, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disability, Down syndrome, paraplegia and schizophrenia. It may be hard for some to believe that I have committed a grave injustice by placing these words side by side and if I were to ask what is wrong with this grouping some may have no answer. Robert Murphy’s Encounters: The Body Silent in America and Sally French’s ‘Can you see the rainbow?’ The roots of denial were written to not only address this unfairness but to correct it with awareness. Both Murphy and French emphasize their denial of their impairments and disgust with the treatment by others, which may seem to others as illustrating similar intentions. However it is made known that we cannot treat the readings or authors as such. In Cynthia Anne Tighe’s article we see firsthand how a non disabled person learns about being impaired and struggles with this idea of their individuality. In actual fact in order for us to understand disabilities we must recognize every person as an individual with different needs and wants as illustrated in their personal stories.

Robert Murphy and Sally French have both chosen to write about living a life labelled as being disabled. Each can account for many times in their lives when they would be forced to deny their impairments in order to ‘fit in’ in society. French who is partially sighted explains this by saying, “As a child, explaining my situation without appearing disagreeable, sullen and rude was so problematic that I usually denied my disability and suffered in silence.” (French 1993: 70) Murphy who is quadriplegic tries to explain this feeling in a general sense by saying “The disabled in America are pulled back into themselves by their own sense of loss and inadequacy, an impulse to withdraw that conspires with their devaluation by society to push them further into isolation.” (Murphy 1995: 157) In French's work she talks about the pain that the disabled often encounter as a result of living a life of restriction and not having the ability to do specific things. It is clear that both authors are very passionate about their quest to relate to others the discomfort they constantly feel living in a world where it is frowned upon when you are not ‘able’ or ‘the same’ as others.

It is a sad reality that we ‘abled’ must face in the fact that the point of denial for an individual is only reached when they are made to feel so alien that they must cover up the truth. French and Murphy illustrate the reality in which our society relates and treats the disabled. “To the extent that people look on the disabled as an alien species, they cannot anticipate their reactions; the disabled individual falls outside the ken of normal expectations.” (Murphy 195: 144) It may also be shocking but none the less true that these individuals with impairments are often seen, not only by the general public but also by their own doctors, as being of a lower social position. It was illustrated in French’s writing that when she attended a school for the seeing impaired that the instructors were pleasured by the “slightest glimmer of hope that our sight could be improved.” (French 1993: 71) It becomes clear that we must shift our thinking from fixing impairments to accepting them. However we must be careful not to embellish this in the form of viewing the disabled with a sense of pity. French indicates that it is extremely aggravating when others try to make the disabled feel better about themselves. After reading these articles it is clear that the authors want the public to treat them as they are literally and with no more or less attention than they would give to anyone else.

It becomes apparent in Cynthia Anne Tighe’s article that Murphy and French are quite true in their accounts of disabled people and the stigma they carry with them. Tighe has no impairment herself however, by interviewing a number of women in her article she seeks to have some understanding and aware the public. The stories of the women that Tighe interview echo those of French and Murphy in their sense of purpose such as speaking of the stigma that is attached to their disability, in particular when mothers shun their children from paying attention to those who are ‘different’ and the many barriers they have to overcome in a society built for the ‘abled’. However it is in my belief that Tighe may have sought to aware the public of the impaired’s views and opinions however I believe that she has completely contradicted herself in that she has somewhat lumped her interviewees into a group. I found that in her conclusion she was confused by the fact that each woman could not tell her ‘Their Disability Story’, in this way if they did they would be ‘grouped’. However whether subconsiously or not I do believe that she illustrated very well the fact that those without disabilities do label those with disabilities. She talked about her discomfort in the initial meeting of her interviewers; what to say and what to do, which is precisely the awkwardness that Murphy, French and Tighe’s interviewers talked about, when being forced to associate with the ‘abled’.

It is clear that it is in an impaired person’s best interest to be seen as an individual and not as one of the disabled population. Sarah French and Robert Murphy have addressed the public in their writings to try to create awareness and in hopes for change. Cynthia Anne Tighe sets out to do the same however she writes from a non-impaired person’s point of view and in this way we are not adequately enlightened. Despite this all three authors write to raise an awareness of the impaired and their struggles with disability.

The roots of denial

What did everyone think about Sally's life experiences? Did you see how everyone tried to make her able bodied. She is partially blind and is unable to see many things, when she was nine years old she was always told that if she looked this way or moved over that way she could see the beautiful rainbow in the sky. If she is colour blind as well how in the world did they expect her to see a rainbow in the sky. Well the answer is they did not think of the fact she could not see it, all they wanted was her to see, and if she was to move in this direction of tilt her head this way she would be able to see what they saw.
All through her life and her schooling they had blocks that prevented her from saying that she had a disability. She was being taught to ignore the fact that she was almost blind and to do that she must not use a white cane or a seeing eye dog, for that would be enabling her disability. Even in her special schools for the blind she was not able to say she was sad or tell her parents she missed them, for they would censor all the letters and make them look like they were having fun and enjoying school.
It is a sad thing that we have to hide what is wrong with our bodies, because those who know best tell us it is the right thing to do.
Joanne

September 13/06

This is (some of) what I learned today: well, what i learned on Sept 13, 2006

I figured I would repost this to help grease the ol' blog wheels.

Disability is ubiquitous, meaning that it is everywhere, at all times and all places).

Many feel that we as citizens under governmental rule should remain confident in the belief that medical advancement will eradicate the category of disabled/ disability.

Although from a critical disability perspective, that which I am currently studying, one would argue that: the percentage of those born with a disability is very small –

• meaning that even though some feel that genetic screening is the answer to the eradication of disability
• most disabilities are born out of impairments that occur and are acquired through the course of ones life.
• i.e. a person may fall off a ladder and injure their spine, the damage caused to their own person may mean that they are impaired, the time frame may be short or indefinite.
• also, to ensure that one does not focus solely on physical disabilities, a person who may ‘suffer’ a stroke may be affected permanently, mentally in some way that may cause their cognitive functions to function in a manner that may be somehow different than pre-stroke cognitive function.
• Disability and age, although cultural stigma may prophesize that disability affects old people only, or that with old age comes disability, this understanding may also be challenged by more recent statistics that demographically deduce that there are higher ‘rates’ of disability between the ages of 18-65, then there are in the greater than 65 range. Granted, in Canada right now there is an aging population, though one may argue that the shear volume of individuals in the first group greatly outweigh the population totals in the later group.

Another interesting point, 1981, my birth year, became known as
The International Year of Disabled Persons 1981
as declared by the U.N. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disiydp.htm





Apparently this was also the year when, the now famous stick figure in a wheel chair became internationally disseminated. The effects have been very wide spanning. Obviously the original goal was to raise awareness, promote equality and any number of positive public projections. Another view has been that, the image has become quite ingrained into our respective cultures, meaning that disability is often only seen as or only qualified by, someone in a wheelchair- leading into disability is only physical- and also in this direction a plethora of other effects have caused a ripple effect. A major point is that due to our highly visual culture that we as subjects traverse; disability has been negatively stigmatized and has echoed through subsequent visual fields. Meaning that in the vernacular, disability is thought of firstly as a negative visual stigma, i.e. a stick figure in a wheelchair. Something to be avoided like the plague, for fear that one may ‘catch’ this horrible affliction if they are exposed to it for any period of time.

...

Hi. So I changed the format, the look of the blog, a little bit, hopefully it sits more squarely in common browser windows.

Also, very nice to see that we have some action happening on the blog, posts are being made. Nice work. If blogging is new to you and you find it difficult or you are intimidated by the thought of having your writing accessible by the public, take comfort in the fact that our readership likely does not extend past those registered in the class. Please be patient with the process, and do take time to read your fellow students posts. Make comments, add details, debate, this is a forum for us to use as our own.

Hi... Yah I found if you go into make a new google account and just write in your lakeheadu email that is how you get into this blogging. so hopefully this benefical to anyone who is having problems

Comment Paper - Week Two

Cameron, C., French, S., & Swain, J. (2003). Whose model?. In Controversial issues in a

disabling society, (pp. 20-29). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Crow, L., (1996). Including all of our lives: Renewing the social model of disability. In Barnes,

C., & Mercer, G. (Eds.), Exploring the divide, (pp.55-72). Leeds: The Disability Press.

French, S., & Swain, J. (2004). Whose tragedy? Towards a personal non-tragedy view of

disability. In Barnes, C., French, S., Swain, J., & Thomas, C. (Eds.), Disabling barriers –

enacting environments (2^nd ed.). (pp. 34-39). London: Sage.

Hughes, B., (2004). Disability and the body. In Barnes, C., French, S., Swain, J., & Thomas, C.

(Eds.), Disabling barriers – enacting environments (2^nd ed.), (pp. 62-68). London: Sage.

Priestly, M. (2003). Concepts. In Disability: A life course approach, (pp. 11-34). Cambridge,

UK: Polity Press.

Wendell, S., (1996). Who is disabled? Defining disability. In The rejected body, (pp.11-33). NY:

Routledge.

Wendell, S., (1996). The social construction of disability. In The rejected body, (pp. 35-56). NY:

Routledge.

Wendell, S., (1996). Disability as difference. In The rejected body, (pp. 57-84). NY: Routledge.

The readings for week two provide a comprehensive introduction to and analysis of the concept of disability. Various models and theories dealing with the study of disability are explored, as is the distinction between impairment and disability. The majority of the articles portray impairment as either a defective or absent bodily part/function, while disability represents both social and political barriers to societies resources. Liz Crow (1996) expands the definition of impairment to include psychological, physiological, and anatomical functions (p. 56), and stresses that there is a need for individuals to apply their own meanings to their experiences of impairment (p. 60). Current approaches to impairment are dominated by those with mobility impairments, which serves to marginalize those with other limitations. This is evident in the current use of a wheelchair user as the universal symbol for disability (Hughes, 2004, p. 63).

Each of the readings touch on cultures role in the experience of disability. Cameron, French and Swain (2003) introduce the notion that although one may feel they have freedom of identity within their culture, the range of acceptable identities is actually quite limited (p. 21). Susan Wendell agrees, and feels there is a need for cross cultural comparisons and criticism, which she feels with help to recognize and raise low standards throughout struggling societies (1996, p. 17). There are often very definite expectations about how tasks are to be performed within a certain society (Wendell, 1996, p. 39). These expectations do not pertain to the standards of performance, but to the methods used. As stated by Cameron, French & Swain (2003), “we are free to express ourselves as individuals . . . only within culturally acceptable boundaries” (p. 22).

The most prevalent model among the readings was the social model of disability. While it is agreed upon that people become disabled through encounters with disabling barriers (Priestly, 2003, p. 3), there is disagreement in regards to whether the model provides a basis for disabled people to organize collectively (Cameron, French and Swain, 2003, p. 24). Some feel that while the medical model focuses strictly on impairment, the social model overemphasizes disability (Cameron, French, & Swain, 2003, p. 26). However, impairment plays a large role in determining the life experiences of many individuals, and several of this weeks authors feel the social model’s rejection of impairment as problematic leads to its incapacity to include/represent a full range of people with disabilities (Crow, 1996, p. 63).

Cameron, French and Swain (2003), Crow (1996) and Hughes (2004) collectively call for a renewed social model of disability, in which both disability and impairment are recognized as social constructions, and a “normal” society is seen as possessing a wide range of accepted and valued attributes. In this model, both impairment and disability are seen as social constructs, and the focus is instead on disability over time and circumstances. Hughes (2004) examines disability from several theoretical perspectives, none of which treat impairment as solely a biological state. In Concepts, Mark Priestly proposes instead a view of disability in terms of generational categories, which provides insight as to how disability and impairment are socially constructed and regulated across the life course (2003, p. 27). Susan Wendell believes that terms such as “frail elderly” lead to the assumption that disability is inevitable and caused by nature, not by the failure of a society to meet the needs of its citizens. Likewise, the view of disability as a family matter works against the implementation of social measures to reduce disability, as it places the burden on the individual to overcome their handicap (1996, p. 52).

Several articles touch on the prevalence of the medical model of disability. This model views impairment as an individualized tragic event, and the sole cause of disadvantage. The only solution is seen to be the prevention of the impairment, which often actually means eradication, as is the case with fetal screening and the abortion of impaired fetuses (Crow, 1996, p. 62; French & Swain, 2004, p. 34.) The medical model is often seen as the definitive answer pertaining to disability, and the unquestioned assumption of the need for special care is often used to legitimize separate provision of services for those with impairments (Cameron, French, & Swain, 2003, p. 23). Susan Wendell writes about those with disabilities being labeled as “the other”. This concept makes these individuals objects of the experiences of non-disabled society, rather than individuals to identify with. She believes this is a symbol of rejection and fear of disabled individuals failure to control their lives, as well as the fact that everyone is vulnerable and could become impaired at any time (1996, p. 60). French & Swain (2004) question this tragic view of disability, and argue that this stance is based upon a non disabled individuals view of the onset of disability, as it would likely be a tragedy to them. However, to many individuals with a disability, it is a part of their identity, not a tragedy.

In summary, this weeks readings provide a comprehensive overview of issues arising in disability studies. A struggle for a reclamation of the concept of disability is evident, but it seems as though there is disagreement regarding how to go about this change. Liz Crow (1996) believes that if the structure and strategy for the disability movement cannot involve all disabled people, campaigns lose the contributions of many, and “replicates the . . . exclusionary aspects of the society it purports to challenge (p. 59). I believe this is the strongest point of all the articles, and sets the stage for both the future of the social model and the disability movement.

Hi - 

 To Anyone having a problem using the invitation with their existing account - 

please try this,

https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount?sendvemail=true&followup=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogger.com%2Floginz%3Fd%3D%252Fhome&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogger.com%2Floginz%3Fd%3D%252Fcreate-blog.g&service=blogger&naui=8&hl=en

and the email me (andriko) as opposed to Dr. Stone, and I will send you a new invite.

Remember, news and updates will be communicated on this blog.

a

Setting up

Hi.  Andriko Here.

Alright So you should have all received an invitation to join the blog.

Please act on it, as your invitation will expire in a few days.

If you were not on the list and you need to join, email me.

How to Join

1- write your lakeheadu email adress on the sheet in class
2- i will send you an invitation
3- your user name and password will be exactly the same as they are for your name@lakeheadu.ca account. (Lu uses Gmail as their email server, Blogger is part of the same faction, thus the user name and password will be the same).
4- Please follow the following pattern when contributing blog posts that are comment papers:
Comment Paper
Week _
List the articles you are speaking about in a recognized reference manner, I.e., APA.
Then add in your writing.

5- Have fun, think of this blog as a resource for people interested in disability studies
everywhere.

Welcome

Welcome to the Lakehead's disability studies blog. An interdisciplinary forum for discussion and conversation about the topic of disability.