Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT A sociology of disablement needs to redefine the meaning of independence. In Western industrial societies, independence is associated with being able to do things for oneself, to be self-supporting and self-reliant. The paper attempts to show that some of our understanding of independence is influenced by views of the subject and personal autonomy stemming from the Enlightenment philosophy. The main target of the paper is to show that the modernist view of the subject is inadequate. What is missing is the notion of interdependence. The paper suggests an understanding of the subject that recognises the human condition as one of interdependence. It is argued that a reformulation of the subject as both embedded and embodied, bears better to a sociology of disablement.
Introduction
Within the progression of the independent living movement, the notion of independence is being examined (Rock, 1988; Brisenden, 1989; Corbett, 1989; Oliver, 1989; French, 1993; Morris, 1993). Disabled people argue that they are victims of an ideology of independence (Brisenden, 1989). This ideology equates independence with the ability to do things without help or assistance, such as cooking, washing, dressing, toileting, making the bed, writing, speaking and so forth. However, real independence has nothing to do with cooking, cleaning and dressing oneself (Corbett, 1989). Oliver (1989) claims that the reason for being trapped in an ideology of independence is a false start. It has been a false start because, in advancing the idea of independence, professionals and disabled people have not been talking about the same thing.
Professionals tend to define independence in terms of self-care activities. So, independence is measured against skills in relation to performance of these activities. Disabled people however, define independence as an ability to be in control of and make decisions about one's life. Independence is then not linked to doing things alone or without help, but by obtaining assistance when and how one requires it (Rock, 1988; Oliver, 1989; Morris, 1993). Subsequently, independence is promoted as a mind process, which is not contingent upon having a normal body (Oliver, 1989). It is argued that an over-emphasis on physical independence can rob disabled people of true independence by restricting their freedom of thought and action (French, 1993). Oliver (1989) argues with reference to the sociologist...