Cameron, C., French, S., & Swain, J. (2003). Whose model?. In Controversial issues in a
disabling society, (pp. 20-29).
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).
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 (2nd ed.). (pp. 34-39).
Hughes, B., (2004). Disability and the body. In Barnes, C., French, S., Swain, J., & Thomas, C.
(Eds.), Disabling barriers – enacting environments (2nd ed.), (pp. 62-68).
Priestly, M. (2003). Concepts. In Disability: A life course approach, (pp. 11-34).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment