I don't agree that this discussion is circular and without potential
for progress. However, this is not exactly Richard's concern, his word
was 'argument', not dicussion. In following this compelling discussion
I am struck by the points at which frustration is manifested by the use
of subtle but powerful language. For example, the use of the word
"vehemence", or references to the Spanish Inquisition. Both of these
examples reflect subjective positioning that speaks to the ontologies
of the writers. I would suggest that when the focus of a discussion
becomes directed towards protecting ontological positioning, there is
little to do besides argue with increasing frustration.
In certain postings there seems to be fear that progress accomplished
by and for people with disabilities will revert if the social
constructionist model is criticized. THis is based on a dichotomous
viewing of models of disability, and reflects a vulnerability in
creating either/or, winner/looser, right/wrong, male/female,
medical/social polemics. A more fruitful approach would be the
elaboration of many models of disability through the the articulation
of many ontologies, including feminist ontologies. In this way, the
field remains free to grow and change in concert with world events,
theoretical and technological development, etc. Further, it is my
experience as a student of thought that theories are built out of what
has come before for the theorist, and the resulting unique sythesis.
Seems there is little chance that the published theories of now will be
scrapped, but rather transformed.
For me, the discussion around the argument has been valuable. I am
curious and optimistic about forthcoming discussions.
Heather MacDuffie [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask] writes:
>We are now in an entirely circular argument that can go nowhere.
>I have tried to make it as clear as I can that I am not trying to
>inhibit
>new theories - what I fear is a vacuum that can only be filled with
>dominant (mainstream) theory - let's hear it for the medical and
>tragedy
>models folks!
>Colin may be sexist - but only he can 'really' 'know' if his response
>to
>Simi was a conscious attack premised on gender. Ann is right, I cannot
>'really know' this, but neither can she.
>It would be unquestionably impossible for Colin, or any man, to
>interpret
>the world as a woman does. Presumably the converse proposition is also
>accepted? If so, what we appear to have is a claim that one gender
>based
>insight is inherently 'right', or at least beyond challenge from the
>other
>gender.
>How can Ann 'prove' that her motives are not borne out of sexism? How
>can
>I prove that my motives were not based on xenophobia, a bad day at the
>office, bad Feng Shui (apologies for any spelling errors) or negative
>ions?
>Ann inteprets my 'off-list' message as a personal attack. I interpret
>my
>off-list posting as an attempt to diffuse a potentially unpleasant
>situation by writing to her directly, thereby avoiding a 'public
>attack' on
>her. A third (and actually entirely accurate explanation) is that
>having
>hit the 'return' button, it was her address, and not the list address
>that
>appeared.
>Is Ann 'right', am I 'right', is there mala fide or merely conflicting
>but
>equally compelling interpretations?
>Had the initial proposition been: 'was Colin's response to Simi Linton
>influenced by his gender?' I would have had no argument, indeed, I
>would
>have willingly learned from the perspectives brought to bear on the
>proposition.
>I concede, as I am sure most of us do, that what I think must be
>influenced
>by what I am. Thus, my writing may be influenced by my status as a
>man, a
>wheelchair-user, or any number of other variables. The proposition
>that I
>subconsciously interpret and describe the world as a man, although
>difficult to 'prove' one way or the other, would be entirely
>uncontested by me.
>The use of the phrase: 'sexist' goes beyond subconscious, gender
>induced,
>bias, it has a pejorative quality; the Oxford English Reference
>Dictionary
>defines sexism as: ' prejudice or discrimination against women on the
>grounds of sex'. Prejudice and discrimination are then both defined in
>terms of intolerance.
>This list is not the place for polished academic treatise, no argument
>from
>me. My contention is and has always been that it is also not the place
>for
>unsubstantiated innuendo.
>Issues not personalities, why is that so unfathomable?
>I am not trying to gag or suppress your views Ann - although I have no
>way
>of 'proving' that - I am merely asking that perfectly reasonable
>propositions are not posed in a pejorative manner. I welcome
>passionate
>debate, I fear a return to the Spanish Inquisition.
>Richard Light
>X-SMTP-From: [log in to unmask]
>X-SMTP-To: [log in to unmask]
>Received: from mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk
>[128.240.226.11]) by voyager.umeres.maine.edu with SMTP id MSGATLST;
>Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:03:01 GMT
>Received: from naga.mailbase.ac.uk (naga.mailbase.ac.uk
>[128.240.226.3]) by mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP
>id MAA18302; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:17:09 +0100 (BST)
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by naga.mailbase.ac.uk
>(8.8.x/Mailbase) id MAA17363; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:16:38 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from mta3-svc.virgin.net (mta3-svc.virgin.net
>[194.168.54.144]) by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) with ESMTP id
>MAA17357; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:16:36 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from richard-light.virgin.net ([194.168.71.43]) by
>mta3-svc.virgin.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with
>ESMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>
>for <[log in to unmask]>; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:13:26 +0100
>Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
>Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 12:11:27 +0100
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>References: <[log in to unmask]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Subject: Re: What is Simi's name had been Sammy? Or welcome to Salem
>From: Richard Light <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Disability-Research <[log in to unmask]>
>X-List: [log in to unmask]
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave disability-research' to
>[log in to unmask]
>X-List-Unsubscribe:
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Errors-To: [log in to unmask]
>Precedence: list
Heather MacDuffie
Center for Community Inclusion
University of Maine
5717 Corbett Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5717
581-1239
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|