Hi Jim,
I've just been discussing this with Lynne, and I think P perception cannot
be separated from P practice. This is because what is sayable produces what
is visible and what is visible reintroduces what is sayable. The sayable and
the visible have a double relation that produces things like disability. We
can call this practice or discourse. The problem isn't images, films and TV
documentaries etc. The way disability is perceived negatively is nothing to
do with how people perceive, it is to do with what they have been equipped
to perceive, the discursive formation of the present.
Another example, criminology makes statements which produce prisons. Prisons
also make statements which reintroduce what is sayable about crime. How we
perceive crime is very observable and simple, it is how we have been
equipped by the sayable and the visible. Perception isn't magic and it
doesn't materialise from nothing.
Regards,
Adam
> I have been on this list for less than a week and there has
> been some pretty impressive stuff floating about. When I
> get unsure of what things are all about I try to go back to
> some early principles - but I cannot be as allegorical as
> Adam - who seems to have put it into straightforward terms
> at least (for my straightforward mind). Didn't Vic
> Finkelstein write something similarly about two different
> societies some time ago?
> However I Digress - my main point was that an early
> principle I adhere to is the recognition of being human;
> I recognise I share this with others; yet I also
> understand I am not identical to anyone else; but (as far
> as I experience the world) I am not discriminated against
> on the basis of perceived difference which is considered by
> a large swathe of others to be negative in affect {at least
> not in a way that I find limiting to participation in full,
> if I choose};hence I think Adam's P is not just process it
> is Product of a further P -that of Perception.
> Jim
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|