I agree with Sharon in that homosexual issues should be an open and active
discussion within the parameters of Disability Studies. For a student in
disability studies, your "minimal resources" upon which you illustrated your
points were most compelling.
There was also something that John stated that particularly generated my
interest, especially in light of current debates that swirl around the
Disability Community establishing coalitions with other oppressed minorities.
John stated,
'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.'
What exactly are "disabling conditions?" In this example it seems to portray a
situation in which the social environment causes a disablement of social
function - not because of a difference in physical body or cognitive ability -
but because of a difference in gender preference. If one does not have an
impairment, can they still be socially disabled in light of how society
determines just how far outside of its perfect circle of hegemonic acceptance
one stands? If we consider Disability to be a social construct, apart from
impairment, then who's to say that Social Disability couldn't be experienced
by others who are oppressed by the reigning social power structure?
What would happen in the term "Disability" became more global in its
interpretation - I've used "Social Disability" here - and in doing so
included those in "disabling conditions?" Without for one moment minimizing
the experiences or validity of those individuals with impairments, could such
a concept be promoted with a goal of unification and impact towards the
dismantling of social oppression for all people?
Ann Cameron Williams
University of Illinois
Disability Studies PhD student
>===== Original Message From [log in to unmask] =====
>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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|