|
on 11/11/00 10:24 am, Shelley Tremain at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Mairian Corker wrote:
>>
>> Point of clarification. The 'offensive' comments were *extracted from* a web
>> page and not all of those reading will have had access to that web page nor
>> the history of it.
>
> Actually, I don't regard this as a point of clarification at all. I
> said above as well as in my initial post that the remark was on a web
> page (not an email discussion as you suggested in your post); hence, it
> is implied that it was "extracted from" that page. Similarly, if I say
> that some remark is in a book it can be assumed that I am *extracting*
> it from that book. When I quote from a book in order to make an
> argument, I don't always (in fact, seldom) know the author's biography.
> I don't think that means I can't make a criticism of an act or a remark
> I regard as offensive until (if ever) I get that information. Indeed,
> you insistence that one have that sort of information seems to conflict
> with your own concern about "knowing" whether one is straight or gay,
> etc.
If you or anyone else were accused of being offensive, wouldn't the context
of their accusation matter to you or them? I take allegations of
discrimination very, very seriously and so I tend to be careful (because of
my own biography - which you don't feel it necessary to know) before making
such allegations public. That is because, if the allegations turn out to be
false, someone has been very deeply wounded by my actions. Fortunately, that
does not appear to be the case here, but extreme hurt has been caused by
similar allegations on this list before. Note - this is not saying that
discrimination does not exist, nor is it saying that you or anyone else does
not have a right to draw attention to these issues - just that your concern
that we take care in how we express ourselves applies to everyone, though
not necessarily equally.
In this particular instance, your extraction was used to make an allegation
of homophobia - in my view, because I have experienced direct homophobia and
disablement, a very serious allegation. This is not the same as extracting
from books for the purpose of academic research and writing, although there
may be some parallels. Of course we all extract from books and articles
written by others whom we do not know, and often we do it in a way that is
based on a narrow and literal reading of the original text. The extract is
moreover taken out of the context of the whole text. In academic work,
that's something of a fact of life as those of us who have had our work
misinterpreted and misrepresented will testify to. I have found Dorothy
Smith's work very helpful in this area. I'm quite sure that many of us don't
do it intentionally - again that word 'intent'. However my point, again, is
that we do not always do this in order to make an allegation of the kind you
are making, but to produce academic critique, and I'm suggesting that we
need to be careful about making such allegations in public fora.
Once the said extract enters into the forum of email discussion, it not only
leaves its original context but it enters into the conventions of email
discussion. To say otherwise is to say that the text is fixed, irrespective
of where it comes to be located.
>
>> This is where you and I differ in some respects, and again context is
>> important. The statement about 'the heterosexism of the institution of
>> marriage' is another totalizing statement that veils the fact that gay
>> marriage is legal in some countries, and other countries are taking steps to
>> eliminate the problem of unequal benefits that accrue from being in
>> different kinds of committed relationships so that people don't have to
>> "marry" if they want these benefits.
>
> It is true that lesbian/gay marriage is legal in some countries, that
> some have taken measures to equalize benefits, etc.; however, your
> remark that my statement is "totalizing" is misdirected and is in fact
> reductive. Although you have reduced my claim about benefits to one
> which refers to those conferred by the state and its institutions, my
> remark above also referred to *social* benefits.
I think that is your assumption because In fact my intent was to expand your
original term 'social benefits' to include other kinds of benefits such as
economic benefits. I should, however, have been specific. Can we always make
a connection between social inequalities and benefits accrued? Focusing on
economic benefits, one thinks of the so-called "pink pound/dollar/whatever"
and Mike Oliver has also written some interesting reflexive commentary on
the question of his social/academic status and the benefits he receives from
it. Focusing on the Deaf community, we see the huge social benefits of
community and culture being used to de-stabilise an accredited position of
inequality in the social hierarchy.
> There are *social*
> privileges to being in a heterosexual* relationship that do not accrue
> to others, regardless of what governments say or do. Analogoously, the
> fact that the government outlaws discriminatory hiring practices, etc.
> does not mean that white skin privilege disappears.
Yes, I agree the distinction between de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact)
is very important.
>
> I sense that this discussion (like so many others on this list) is
> dividing up into British vs. North American loyalties. Perhaps I'm
> wrong and jumping to conclusions. Nevertheless, let me say that I am
> not prone to participate in that sort of veiled nationalism and
> imperialism. I think there is far too much of that sort of violence (in
> seemingly non-toxic form) on this list.
>
On the last point we agree, but I don't actually see the dividing line
clearly in this instance unless we assume that people are making remarks on
the basis of their nationalistic or imperialistic tendencies. I'm not
convinced that they are as the people in question, including yourself, spend
a great deal of time talking to those of other nations and trying to create
dialogue.
Best wishes
Mairian
--
Mairian Corker
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Language Group
School of Education
Kings College London
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
