Mark,
Thank you for your pertinent contribution below. I am in the position at
the moment of trying to get people in my immediate working environment to
broaden their view of disability to encompass other areas of social
exclusion, since I believe that collective action facilitates a move
forward.
What I'm getting from this discussion feels like a repeat of my current work
experiences of this nature. I'd like to pass comment on the fact that
whilst we can arbitrarily dissect areas of society and 'life' - and for
meeting day-to-day targets this is invariably necessary - the picture is
larger. I believe that one cannot talk responsibly about any area of social
exclusion without acknowledging other areas.
Each of us will have different commitments to different areas work,
commitments based largely on personal experience. (Not wanting to be too
fluffy here, I think that this is to be celebrated - it makes the world go
round!) However, I also think it's important to recognise that whatever
one's commitment/s - to disability/feminism/race/age/etc - we are all
working towards a mutually inclusive society. In my opinion we should never
lose sight of that, regardless of the labels that are used and how we feel
about them.
Kind regards,
Sian McClure
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Priestley <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 24 January 2000 10:14
Subject: RE: Feminist Geography
>Hi Henry and all
>
>Point taken, but it's worth remembering that the UK academic
>mailing lists weren't set up and funded simply as free chat spaces.
>They differ from Listserv, Onelist and so on, because their content
>and target membership goes to vetting before the list is established
>and we have codes of content etc. Consequently, list administrators
>do intervene in debates occasionally (both privately and publically).
>
>I think my point was that people took the piss out of disability
>studies as a discipline for years (and still do in many North American
>universities, so far as I can see from stories on this list). It seems
>unwise for us to get involved in similarly panning something perfectly
>legitimate, and highly relevant to disability studies, just because a
>few peope haven't heard of it.
>
>The organisation and occupation on place and space are quite
>clearly gendered (and to assert otherwise would be bizarre in the
>extreme). A gendered approach is an entirely logical, and well
>established, tradition within social geography. So, I suppose I'm just
>a bit surprised by the reaction. We all seem quite happy to think
>about spaces and places as being central to disabling geography
>within a social model, so why on earth are people bothered by the
>notion of feminist geography?
>
>Or is it just because it's labelled 'feminist'?
>
>:-)
>
>
>Best Wishes
>
>Mark Priestley
>Disability Research Unit
>University of Leeds
>LEEDS
>LS2 9JT
>UK
>
>Tel: +44 113 2334417/2334418
>Fax: +44 113 2334415
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/dru/dru.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|