Hi all,
I would have thought that most people were aware of whether the stage was
accessible or not as much as the social.
In addition, hypothetical questions are interesting as they often make
people think about the personal dilemmas of the people we research and
their multiple identities and lives, and also own as researchers. They also
make us discuss research findings in ways that may show further avanues to
explore.
I think the built environment should be considered along with the social.
However, what many researchers in disability studies have failed to connect
is the two: the social and built environment. These two categories only
exist in academic analysis and do not reflect the reality of people's
thoughts and feelings about how they move through space.
As I have argued before, how we experience socio-space can be just as
limiting as the physical environment.
Feelings of fear and the possibilty of emotional distress caused by the
cultural and social relationships assocaited with a particular place can
easily prevent people from moving through space, just as much as the built
environment.
The preference placed on physical limitation over emotional limitation
caused by politically constituted social-spaces is something I do not see
on this list.
It has the possibilities, as I have argued before, to include chronic
illness within a political understanding of disability.
I would like to see more discussion about the relatioships about the
politics of emotions and feelings.
I remember reading an article many years ago about a discussion group with
able-bodied people and many of them said, that they felt anger towards
disabled people.
Can denying a disabled persons sexuality be justified by appealing to how
people feel about sexuality in general culture ? For example, in a recent
study by shakespeare some of the men talk about having their sexuality
denied by women, since they are always treated as friends. This happended
in some of my own research.
If 'feelings' are involved can this be understood as sexual prejudice, like
if someone is racist ??
Should the men respond in ways that indicate their feelings of oppression ?
Hypothetical questions, but ones that need discussion 'I feel' as the
politicised research we produce is taken into everyday life.
Some thoughts
Glenn.
At 22:58 31/03/00 +1000, you wrote:
>There seem to be a lot of hypotheticals in this discussion. Not to be
>outdone:
>
>Is it possible that the organizers asked the notsofleetoffoot participants
>what their preference was? A rather outrageous suggestion I know, and so I
>apologize now to those of you who thought that way, and - to be on the safe
>side - to everybody else as well.
>
>Have a good weekend, rgds John
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Laurence Bathurst <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:05 AM
>Subject: (Fwd) Stage Accessibility at the Oscars
>
>
>> Hello everybody
>>
>> Jim has asked me to forward this response to the list after many attempts
>> to do so himself. Technical glitches of some kind, it seems.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>> From: [log in to unmask] (Jim Davis)
>> Date sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:42:08 -0500 (EST)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Stage Accessibility at the Oscars
>>
>> It is odd that DS has been recently characterized on this list, as a
>> field "primarily" concerned with physical environmental barriers, over
>> social kinds. And many others have insisted to me, that they're Social
>> Model-ists who put an equal amount of attention into both social and
>> physical barriers. Hmmmmm.
>>
>> This thread of posts on "King Gimp"s" award presentation, seems to
>> (once again) indicate otherwise.
>>
>> Aside from the way the discussion blasted off, with assumptions that
>> they guy in the wheelchair had to be one of the film's makers, and
>> therefor was suffering from discrimination RIGHT THERE ON TEEVEE!!!, (he
>> isn't, and he wasn't)..... none of the posts reveals even the slightest
>> interest in actually verifying the other "discrimination" part of the
>> story -- the "built environment" part.....the accessibility status of
>> the theatre stage in question. Gee, if we're all so big on considering
>> environmental-barrier factors, how did competent consideration of that
>> area get left out of yet another discussion on this list? We even had
>> a thorough thrashing out of the question of --" Should this guy have
>> protested?".... (which in this case was a purely imaginary question,
>> because he was in fact not suffering any discrimination to protest.)
>> But the "built environment" half of the story, never got any
>> consideration beyond the shallowest kind; mere assumptions.
>>
>> Accessibility in this building, at THIS event, has to be evaluated
>> differently, than if this same theatre were being used for a play or
>> say, a lecture-hall type event.
>> Considering how that theatre is used for this awards show (nominees and
>> others are all mixed in the audience, winners hear their names, bask in
>> the applause etc. of all around them, and proceed directly & quickly up
>> to the stage to get their awards, with a billion people watching, which
>> puts a lot of eyeballs on the person who takes a lot longer to get up on
>> that stage)... I would definitely NOT say that some sort of round-about
>> "back-door" access route to that stage, would constitute "access that is
>> truly equal in all regards" (my phrase; though such a back-way set up
>> might meet "the letter" of how the ADA and other Calif. or L.A. access
>> codes define the much much narrower legal definition of what they
>> misleadingly term "equal access"). Mere "back door" access would be
>> extremely unequal, for a ceremony orchestrated like the Oscars. Of
>> course, if they pre-planted the mobility-disabled nominees backstage in
>> order to have any who win, already up at that level so they can quickly
>> go out and get the award, or if they were to take the award & a
>> microphone directly to a PWD in the audience -- that sort of
>> "alternative" arrangement would deprive these individuals of many of the
>> joys that the AB nominees and winners take for granted.
>>
>> And let's not forget, that there is an equal-employment aspect to this
>> accessibility question. This is not a purely social event. It's about
>> people's work. This is a professional career-building type event, for
>> people who in many if not most cases are essentially freelancers, with
>> fragile careers. Supposing that white-haired cinematographer who won,
>> had been less mobile, and had used a quad-cane, to very slowly and
>> painfully get up those steps. Would this have affected the industry's
>> perception of his continuing employability, for more films? Would
>> some mogul have thought "too old" and crossed him off some list for an
>> upcoming production? In a professional situation like this, one can be
>> almost sure that nobody would ever file an ADA complaint against the
>> Academy; that could be career-suicide. So the situation calls for the
>> institution to do stuff beyond what the access codes contemplate (see
>> below for explanation), in a situation in which there may never be any
>> enforcement of even those weak codes.
>>
>> So I would say the proper question is this: Does this awards program, in
>> that space, provide stage access that is "truly equal in all regards"?
>> Many post-ers to this list claim to know the answer. I don't. I am
>> trained as an architect, and have been working on building renovations
>> for 25 years, and from the information available on my TV screen, I
>> cannot answer that question. That building's old, but does the stage
>> have lifts at either side of the front? (Or maybe even concealed, in
>> locations closer to the middle of the stage front?) I don't know. Not
>> enough information.
>>
>> If I can find out, maybe I'll write an article about it.
>>
>> PS: The 39 minute film "King Gimp" is described on the web site of the
>> International Documentary Association. People wanting to show it can
>> reach the distributor through them.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Laurence Bathurst
>> School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
>> Faculty of Health Sciences
>> University of Sydney
>> P.O. Box 170
>> Lidcombe NSW 2141
>> Australia
>>
>> Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
>> Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Please visit the School's interim web site at
>> http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|