As Rioux and Valentine point out, the disability community and the Canadian government disagree on the meaning of the most basic terms like "citizenship" and "inclusion." The result is administrative and judicial documents that sound progressive, seeming to recognize disability as a human rights issue, but because the official interpreters of these documents theorize in disparate and often regressive ways, the reality on the ground is confused law and policy and the perpetuation of unequal and often inhumane treatment. The theory that this collection cares most about is theory, theory that changes reality by affecting laws, policies, and practices.
It is clear that editors Pothier and Devlin required all the contributors to provide, whenever possible, practical solutions and policy suggestions for the issues they each raise.
Moreover, its recognition of the double-bind effect noted above captures more of the complexities and significance of the language through which society comes to (mis)understand disability. Here the complexities arise not because the terminology is negatively inflected but because it is unavoidably ambiguous and therefore open to conflicting and potentially oppressive interpretations.
What members of the disability community interpret as rights — rights to services, access, and inclusion arising from rights of citizenship encoded in laws — governments tend to interpret as "'discretionary benefits'" to be constrained by budget considerations and political winds. Eliot) is an apparently successful theory, and as Rioux and Valentine demonstrate, so long as people with disabilities do not enjoy the full powers and privileges of the people making, interpreting, and enforcing the legal policies, then of course theory matters.
But of course the biomedical model reinforces mistaken beliefs that disability is primarily or solely a personal and physical pathology; that society's responsibility, if any, is limited to charity and welfarism; and that full citizenship for the disabled is (unfortunately but ineluctably) limited to participation in a nation's health care system.
Or take economic definitions (as the authors do): These do locate disablement in the social sphere and can provide for people with disabilities desperately needed economic assistance.is published by The Ohio State University Libraries in partnership with the Society for Disability Studies.If you encounter problems with the site or have comments to offer, including any access difficulty due to incompatibility with adaptive technology, please contact [email protected] only would this avoid the frequent cuts in services labeled "not medically necessary," but it would also reduce the costs, as much assistance requires little if any medical training of the provider.Ultimately, distinguishes itself not by breaking new ground, at least for Anglo-American disability-studies scholars, but by covering relatively familiar ground clearly and succinctly, by substantiating its theorizing with concrete examples, and most of all, by proffering specific, pragmatic suggestions for effecting change.This is perhaps a major difference between and many of its Anglo-American predecessors.Even the most abstract philosophical analysis, the critique by Ravi A.Still, though 's table of contents may look (too) familiar it would be a mistake to dismiss the collection for lack of thematic originality.Original topics are far from crucial in a field whose fundamental tenets are still not well known, especially by this text's ideal audience: North American legal scholars and policy analysts.But when they analyze five major population-based surveys conducted in Canada between 19, Mc Coll et al.demonstrate how data are inevitably affected by the methodological approaches used to collect them, and these methods are themselves affected by which definitions of disability are assumed. It is not just that no single definition can capture the complexity of human subjects but that some definitions of disability are notoriously oppressive in their stigmatizing and stereotyping effects. highlight the other side of this well-known critique: The very terms that perpetuate pernicious myths about disablement produce data that may grant people with disabilities access to life-sustaining financial and medical resources.