PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10798337

Technology, selfhood and physical disability.

Abstract

Much has been written in recent times of the interface between technologies and the human body. The vast majority of this literature, however, focuses on a body that is assumed to be free of physical disability. This article seeks to address this lacuna by presenting findings from an exploratory study using in-depth interviews with fifteen people with physical disabilities living in the Australian city of Adelaide. The dominant research question was to explore the ways in which technologies contribute to the meanings and experiences of the lived body/self with disabilities. The data showed that the interviewees identified several technologies that they used as highly beneficial to allowing them to transcend some aspects of their disabilities. However, the interviewees also identified significant negative aspects to the use of some technologies. They noted that such technologies could serve to mark out people with disabilities as 'different' or 'lacking', acting as a barrier to the achievement and presentation of their preferred body/self.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Lupton, W Seymour. 2000. Technology, selfhood and physical disability.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00422-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On health, ability and activity: comments on some basic notions in the ICF.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to highlight and at the same time criticize the holistic view of health expressed in the "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)". Particular attention will be paid to the idea suggested in the ICF that not only the ability to perform a specified action but also its actual performance is included in the person's health. My argument intends to show that this is an untenable position. METHOD: The theoretical platform of this paper is philosophical action theory. My argument makes particular use of the distinctions between ability, opportunity, activity and will. My analysis also uses some insights from the contemporary philosophical discussion of health concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Ability (or capacity) and its opposite disability (or incapacity) are essential ingredients in the implicit philosophy of health of the ICF. However, the ICF also puts an emphasis on the actual performance of actions. This is entailed by the performance qualifier that is included in the ICF. I give some arguments for questioning the relevance of this qualifier if it is intended to have a place in the concept of health or have a general function for decisions in health care or rehabilitation. Instead I suggest the introduction of an opportunity qualifier, which could fulfill some of the purposes intended for the performance qualifier.

Persons with Disabilities↗