tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9380316.post7317567783896637190..comments2007-05-25T08:03:30.655-07:00Samnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9380316.post-79905303568458598592007-05-25T08:03:00.000-07:002007-05-25T08:03:00.000-07:00I'm happy to have this debate in an appropriate format, but for now I'll just note that the same charge has been leveled against welfarism.Samhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02297420110444609567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9380316.post-6082445091668961342007-05-23T19:04:00.000-07:002007-05-23T19:04:00.000-07:00I'm with Adam on this one. Social model types rarely bother to even tell us what their normative commitments are and if they were to do so, the policy implications would come from that rather than from a causation story. The standard approach in the disabiility literature is to state the causation claim and then jump immediately to policy, skipping entirely the need to state a basis for the policy. Perhaps it is all implicit, but for any reader who does not share the implicit norm, it is bewildering.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, as Adam shows, the causation story is consistent with any number of normative views (indeed, with any normative view whatsoever). It would seem better to separate the two rather than have a single term that links a claim about joint causation with highly contestable normative claims. <BR/><BR/>Does the social model open up our eyes to new policy options? Maybe but it hardly seems like "the" important disability theory if that is all it purports to do.<BR/><BR/>David WeisbachDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05825791460378048663noreply@blogger.com