Good morning Alden,
I enjoyed reading your interpretation and subjectivity about opression and
all that Jazz.
As I am neither disabled nor an academic, but a retired hands-on engineer, I
have a somewhat different view of the world than you have.
Oppression to me implies a force. Delving into high school physics, a force
is made up of two components: mass and accelleration: f = m x a.
The way oppression is being presented is as a directional force which means
that the accelleration component which is directional as well as quantative,
is quite substantial. It also implies that the accelleration component
represents a deliberate act.
The effect of a relatively large accelleration factor and small mass can be
quite devastating, as Guderion proved at the beginning of WW2 with his Blitz
Krieg. It is however also vulnerable as the accelleration component can be
eroded, change directionally, or be scattered.
The alternate scenario is where an equal force is made up of an
infinticimally small accelleration factor, and hence an enormous mass.
Oppression just sits there, it is not going anywhere, nor does it intend to.
Why should it?
I believe that the oppression we are dealing with is of the latter type: a
very large rock of public indifference and ignorance sitting in the middle
of the road. With the very limited mass the disability movement has it would
take a very large accelleration component to move the rock out of the way.
Not a realistic option. What is a realistic option however is to keep on
chipping away at this rock, breaking bits off, and reducing its mass over
time to a level where it can be moved. It will take a lot longer, it may be
generational, but - to mix my metaphores - the bits chipped away may form a
sound basis for the construction of our yellow brick road into the future.
A great new year to you all, rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: Alden Chadwick <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking out against oppression
> Hello everyone and a best wishes or 2001
>
> In order to understand why some disabled people don't 'speak out' it might
> help if we were to use some of Foucault's ideas about power and knowledge.
>
> Foucault argued that oppression itself is a problematic concept.
> Oppression assumes the existence of an alienated human potential that is
> squashed or repressed by people with power. In this view, disabled people
> would be the hapless victims of some all-powerful non-disabled group that
> prevents us from expressing our essential selves. What would be required
> to counter this oppression is lots of individual courage and the political
> will to speak out about the truth of our existence.
>
> I would argue that we should heed Foucault's observations, and step back
> from this position and re-think how power works.
>
> Power does not oppress it constructs. Power creates subjectivity, it
works
> with knowledge to invest, to train and to discipline our bodies. The
> prevalent individual / medical knowledge of normality and disability
> encourages disabled people to articulate their subjectivity in terms of
> abnormality, inability and exemption; the individual discourse available
to
> disabled people (together with some of the many other identity creating
> discourses available to humanity in total) creates and constructs a
> subjectivity which does not (cannot) perceive of itself as unequal, and
> therefore does not feel the need to speak out.
>
> Yet, the Foucault has pointed out that the very existence of power
> relations presupposes forms of resistance. The task is not one of
> liberating the assumed human potential buried inside disabled people, but
> of constructing an alternative discourse which people can use to create an
> alternative subjectivity. Given an alternative discourse people might
> speak out.
>
> However, discourse hangs in the air in the same way that bricks don't.
> Discourse is embedded in the very material structures of social
> organisation. For example, a discourse of normality lies in the
techniques
> of measuring eligibility for goods and services; the techniques and
> processes for measuring merit and reward, and countless other
> organisational techniques and practices. It is at this level (the micro
> level where power directly impacts on the subject) - the level of diaries,
> schedules, timetables, forms and letters, appraisals and assessments where
> much disability originates. It is here, where conferences and events are
> planned, and where any 'speaking out' needs to take place - such speaking
> out will include the identification and meticulous reformulation of
mundane
> and tedious disabling organisational practices; the application of social
> model discourse(s) to everyday organisational activities.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Alden
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|