30.01.2013 Views

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Etheses - Queen Margaret ...

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Etheses - Queen Margaret ...

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Etheses - Queen Margaret ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

36<br />

the affirmation <strong>of</strong> unique ways <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g situated <strong>in</strong> society<br />

disabled people challeng<strong>in</strong>g presumptions about themselves and their lives <strong>in</strong> terms<br />

<strong>of</strong> not only how they differ from what is average or normal, but also about the<br />

assertion, on their own terms, <strong>of</strong> human embodiment, lifestyles, quality <strong>of</strong> life and<br />

identity<br />

ways <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g that embrace difference<br />

The affirmative model is not about:<br />

all people with impairments celebrat<strong>in</strong>g difference<br />

disabled people „com<strong>in</strong>g to terms‟ with disability and impairment<br />

disabled people be<strong>in</strong>g „can do‟ or „lovely‟ people<br />

the benefits <strong>of</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g and be<strong>in</strong>g marg<strong>in</strong>alised and oppressed <strong>in</strong> a disabl<strong>in</strong>g society<br />

(Swa<strong>in</strong> and French, 2008:185)<br />

However, Swa<strong>in</strong> and French are clear that what is be<strong>in</strong>g proposed <strong>of</strong>fers „no clearly def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

formulas for change‟ and „no comfortable remit‟:<br />

the affirmative model itself does not provide a different set <strong>of</strong> presumptions to<br />

replace those that characterise <strong>in</strong>dividual models, particularly the tragedy model<br />

(Swa<strong>in</strong> and French, 2008:186).<br />

In a chapter entitled Further Towards an Affirmation Model <strong>in</strong> a 2008 Disability Press<br />

publication (written before the issue <strong>of</strong> Disability On Equal Terms), I argued that to avoid<br />

any ambiguity around the mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the affirmative model, a set <strong>of</strong> def<strong>in</strong>itions are required.<br />

Referr<strong>in</strong>g to Swa<strong>in</strong> and French‟s orig<strong>in</strong>al article I made the po<strong>in</strong>t that:<br />

While we are told what the affirmative model is „about‟ and what it is „like‟, we are<br />

not told what it „is‟ (Cameron, 2008:23).<br />

My ma<strong>in</strong> concern had been that, because the precise mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the term had been left<br />

vague, the possibility was left open that the affirmative model could be understood as<br />

suggest<strong>in</strong>g that there are benefits grounded <strong>in</strong> the experience <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g disabled <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong><br />

experienc<strong>in</strong>g an unequal social relationship (Cameron, 2008:20). Further, I was concerned<br />

that a rejection <strong>of</strong> the personal tragedy model might be conceived simply <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong><br />

revers<strong>in</strong>g this picture to emerge with an equally demean<strong>in</strong>g set <strong>of</strong> assumptions. A day centre<br />

manager at a Disability Equality Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g session I ran <strong>in</strong> Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh a few years ago<br />

commented:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!