|
Dear John,
I wanted to respond to your email...in a non-hostile way of course. I
found some of your statements to be problematic and exclusionary.
You wrote:
>my understanding is that this list is for the discussion of issues relating
to
>disabilities and research and thinking within that specific area. Unless we
are
>going to suggest that homosexuality and marriage are disabling conditions,
>I am not sure that the current discussion is wholly appropriate.
It is my understanding that the focus of disability studies is not (or should
not be) as myopic as you suggest. An email sent to Philip on this listserve
by [log in to unmask] sums up this point:
"I think that disability studies deals with people who have been and are
marginalized in our societies. Lesbians, gay men, transgendered people
bisexuals --not so long ago the term of art was "sexual deviants" -- have
been and are similarly marginalized. There is significant overlap between
the power to define "sexual deviance" and "cripple." And of course, the
scholars and the studied in Disability studies are not exclusively
heterosexual. While I may not yet understand all the ins and outs of this
marginalization, its history and continuing strength, I do firmly believe
that people engaged in disability studies must respect people in their full
diversity."
Homophobia and heterosexism are extremely valid issues for discussion in this
venue. Not only valid, but imperative! There is little research present in
disability studies that is inclusive of individuals who experience multiple
layers of oppression; specifically lesbians/gays/bisexuals/transgendered with
disabilities.
"Corbett (1994) argues that disabled gay men and lesbians experience a form
of 'double invisibility' because they feel that 'I am invisible in the
lesbian and gay community as a disabled person, as lesbians and gays are in
the straight community and I feel I am invisible as a lesbian in the
disability community' (p. 355)" (Shakespeare, 1998).
"To date almost all research on disabled men and women seems to assume the
irrelevance of gender, race, ethnicity, *sexual orientation*, or social
class. Having a disability presumably eclipses these dimensions of social
experience" (Fine and Asch, 1998).
"The majority of literature on disabled women assumes them to be Caucasian
and physically disabled...voices of disabled lesbians were minimal if at all
present...the lives and accomplishments of disabled lesbians are completely
invisible." (O'toole and Bregante, 1993)
This lack of research and validation in disability studies is exclusionary
and adds to a general feeling of 'disconformation'. Marginalization and
hierarchy within the majority group occurs as a result. It seems to me that
disability scholars are playing a complicit part in societal discriminatory
practices. The resulting departmental compartmentalization within disability
studies is disheartening to say the least.
"While many disability organizations support other human rights and equality
seeking groups, they are not exempt from being part of the hegemony of
discrimination against 'others'." (Barile, 2000)
Therefore, John, when you describe your understanding of this list as
involving 'discussions relating to disabilities and research and thinking
within that specific area'; I agree with you completely and this 'specific
area' most definitely includes (or should include) issues of multiple
minority status and experiences of layered oppression which queer disabled
persons are all too familiar with.
In regard to your statement 'Unless we are going to suggest that
homosexuality and marriage are disabling conditions, I am not sure that the
current discussion is wholly appropriate'.-- "Homosexuals" experience very
real "disabling conditions" on a daily basis at the hands of societies
homophobic and heterosexist attitudes and actions. Again, this fact is
demonstrated within disability studies scholarship and disability community:
"Disability theorists ought to consider, therefore, how heterosexism and
homophobia skew the design of research projects in disability studies."
(Tremain, 2000)
"Building on the premises brought forth by the social model (Oliver 1990,
1996) which positions the primary problems in the disabling society, the
process can begin by reviewing how direct and indirect discrimination based
on gender, race, class, sexual orientation and specific impairment that
exists in the external social structure was transmitted into our movement
creating exclusionary practices therein." (Barile, 2000)
In the case of Sharon Kowalski: "One of the leaders in the disability rights
community told me, 'We think Sharon's rights are being violated, but we
can't afford to get involved in a gay rights issue' (Thomson, quoted by
O'Toole and Bregante, 1993)
Queer persons with disabilities experience invisibility within greater
society...why should that be so amongst supposed comrades in disability
community and within disability studies? This invisibility is precisely the
'disabling condition' that prompts my argument that this list serve is the
appropriate and necessary place for a discussion of this kind.
This post is not meant to be taken as hostile or deprecatory. On the
contrary, it is meant to raise awareness for the need of more inclusive
research and practice within disability studies. As a student in disability
studies who is quite interested in this area, I have minimal resources to
draw upon for my research. Tremain, O'Toole, Corker, Shakespeare, Barile
have contributed a tremendous amount, but it seems that the issue of
queerness remains absent in much of the disability scholarship that is out
there. Hence my question for my critical literature analysis in Carol Gill
and Joy Hammel's Disability 501 class....WHERE IS THE QUEER VOICE IN
DISABILITY STUDIES?????? (Sorry about the oralist metaphor)
Respectfully,
Sharon P Smith
U of I at Chicago
Disability Studies PhD student
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
