Dear Ian,
Thank you for your provocative and insightful remarks, with which I for
the most part agree. I should like to point out however that not all of
us who heard Tom Shakespeare speak in Berkeley and at the SFSU
conference "collude[d]" with his over-simplification of disabled
people's sexuality. Over the course of the 3 days, I spoke with a
number of people who felt that he had done little more than rehearse
writing in TSPOD (and papers taken from that research). This was
disappointing, especially given that that research is at least 5 or 6
years old now and has been criticized in a variety of ways (by myself
included) for (among other things) its lack of representation with
respect to racial difference and its neglect of issues with respect to
the sexualities of people with cognitive impairments. Personally, I
would have expected (and had hoped) that Tom would some of these address
these criticisms at the conference; instead, he demonstrated that he has
done little additional work in the area.
If this doesn't answer Adam's question regarding whether Tom is willing
to engage with criticisms of his work, perhaps the following scenario
might. The paper I presented at the conference was a sustained critique
of the binary (and heterosexist) conception of sex/gender, and causal
relation between these, that disabled sexuality studies (and disability
studies generally) currently assumes (ergo, Shakespeare, and Shakespeare
et als). When I was outlining my argument at the beginning of my
presentation, and it became evident to Tom that I would be implicitly
critiquing his work, he reacted by engaging in some rude, childish,
disruptive, and very unprofessional behaviour. To be more specific, he
charged up the centre aisle of the room, stood by the second row of
tables and in mocking laughter announced to his co-author, Dominic
Davies, that I was going to criticize their work. He continued to
engage in this behaviour for approximately 30 seconds. For the duration
of my presentation, I was subjected to outbursts from Dominic of an "I
don't believe this!" "This is unreal!" character.
I await apologies from both of these guys.
I have taken up this incident with one of the conference organizers who
has denied any awareness of these events. Although I am not questioning
the integrity of this individual, I find this difficult to accept given
that s/he and another conference organizer were seated only several feet
away (i.e., the first and second seats in on the opposite side of the
aisle) from Tom when he was engaging in this behaviour. Yet, I could
hear and *comprehend what he was saying* and see how he was behaving
from my chair at the front, approximately 15 feet away.
I am not in any way suggesting that the organizer is dissembling, or has
disregarded my complaint. On the contrary, s/he has responded
responsibly and in a fair and balanced fashion. I think however this
incident, the way Tom and his work were treated during the conference,
and the way Tom was promoted in the lead-up to the conference might tell
us something about how class and class privilege currently operate in
Disability Studies (as elsewhere).
Privilege begets privilege. I do not for a minute think the fact that
one has a disability-consciousness necessarily entails that one has a
class-consciousness; nor do I think the fact that those in Disability
Studies who profess to have a class-consciousness are not (in spite of
their proclamations) 'seduced' by the accoutrements of class privilege,
including those that Tom Shakespeare represents and brings to the field
(e.g., an Oxbridge education, a Cambridge accent, a renowned surname and
a certain family lineage). I think Tom recognizes that he can (and
repeatedly does) present material that is dated, not rigourous nor
particularly insightful, and is exclusionary yet will nevertheless
remain "an authority", and furthermore that he can behave in ways in
which many of us would not be entitled because people in the field,..
well, ... let him and enable him.
But not everyone, for it seems there may be a groundswell in the other
direction. And perhaps some of us who know Tom well have been willing
to put up with his childish behaviour (at least) because we have
recognized its origins in his own internalized oppression. I know that
in the past this has been the case with me. However, as you have
reminded us, people ought to "own," that is, take responsibility for
what is their's. After the recent incident at the Sexuality and
Disability conference in San Francisco, furthermore, I for one decided
that in the future I would not continue to exercise this patience and
compassionate attitude. After all, with friends like that, who needs
enemies??
Best regards, Shelley Tremain
Ian Popperwell wrote:
>
> "Do We Want More Sex?"
>
> I refer to a quote from key-note speaker Tom Shakespear, at the
> Disability Sexuality and Culture conference, the notes of which
> were posted to this list a couple of days ago by Devva Kasnitz. Whilst I am
> aware that what I read was not a transcript of the actual
> speeches, I was appalled at the banal over-simplification of the
> issue of Disabled people's sexuality and seeming reduction merely
> to an issue of access - access to sex!
>
> I think the question "Do we want more sex?" probably sums up the
> level of the thinking. Are we to assume that "more" equates
> somehow to "better" or greater fulfilment? Or is it that "more"
> refers to a desire to achieve this much described "normality"?
> Tom shakespear conveys a strangely ambivalent relationship to
> the "normal" - the notion of "normality" is both quickly
> dismissed and yet continually referred to. My hunch is that
> there's probably something important that the "normal" represents
> to us that is too easily dismissed as being merely "inaccessible"
> and it clearly represents something for Tom too - although any
> reference to the personal is conspicuous by its absence. Could
> we not be exploring our relationship(s) to "normality" - whatever
> it is, its there and won't simply go away by us saying its wrong.
>
> Whilst discussion about sex and sexuality in the mainstream has
> had both political and psychological attention which has, over
> many years of development (particularly from the women's
> movement), attempted to embrace the complexity of human
> relationships and of sexuality, I would have hoped that an
> analysis of how it relates to both impairment and to disability
> would develop that complexity further rather than reduce it to
> rhetoric.
>
> Instead, we are presented with an emerging picture that non-
> disabled people have boring sex (using the missionary position
> only) pick up sexual partners all of the time in bars, clubs and
> on cruising jaunts, are completely confident about themselves and
> about their sexuality and have the money for "sexy clothes",
> dates and getting into where it happens. If this weren't so
> ridiculous in its shallowness, it would be funny. What though is attractive
> in this story?
>
> Surely, the myth is that, as Disabled people, we share a common
> experience of sexuality, of course there are common threads,
> shared experiences - but many will be shared with non-disabled
> people too. Some will find themselves the objects of intrigue,
> of fascination and others the objects of disgust, some will be
> avoided and others abused. If as is suggested, we are treated
> like children, which of us? if Disabled people are often treated
> as perpetual infants, is this a general truth, or does it
> correlate more with some impairments than others? And if so which
> ones? It is too simple to say we're all denied a sexuality and
> treated like children, clearly this is true for some, but denial
> of sexuality does not necessarily equate with infantalisation.
>
> To develop a "social construction" of disabled peoples' sexuality
> that is seemingly based purely upon the assumed experience of
> people with severe physical impairments (particularly when it is
> done by somebody who does not have such an impairment) is, I
> think insulting to those it presumes to define and marginalising
> of those with entirely different impairments who nonetheless have
> questions to explore.
>
> I am interested in what goes on for us in these roles, it is not
> good enough for Tom Shakespear to speak at a conference and spout
> rhetoric, or for his audience to obediently collude with it. How
> do we internalise society's view of us? We live in the same world
> and must to some degree take on such attributes and stereotypes -
> treat somebody as a child and to some extent, they'll have an
> investment in behaving as such.
>
> If we are to indulge some individuals by letting them become
> "experts" or spokespeople, let us at least make demands of them
> to own what is their's, let us engage with them and only allow
> them to generalise when they know something to be generally true.
> We could be forming a new set of theories and ideas that
> encompass the stark complexity of the issue by exploring the
> connections, the commonalities along with the differences.
>
> I hope that this stimulates some discussion here on this list.
>
> Ian Popperwell.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
