There seems some support for the idea that only the filthy rich can be
eccentric, others are just strange, march to a different drummer, are not
'team players', or are just abnormal, all frowned upon by our peers, and to
be beaten into submission (the lowest common denominator) or rendered
ineffectual by other means fair or foul.
The scarring thing was a very prominent part of university culture in
prussion germany, where getting a facial scar in a duel was near to
compulsory for selfesteem and respect by peers.
Having reached an age which is supposed to bring maturity and wisdom, I am
inclined to go with Ayn Rand (remember her?) who observed: 'Don't look at
yourself through other people's eyes'.
have a good time, rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence Bathurst <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: devision.
> Hi all
>
> Interesting thinking about what constitutes a disbility - where is the
line
> drawn? I know somehow its got to do with what people value and whose
values
> matter to whom. It occurs to me that in youth subcultures if you can still
> call them that, difference is what people strive for. However, it seems
that
> the difference must have some tacit approval from peers. Piercing,
> scarification, brandings and all sorts of fashions from ripped clothing,
> shaved heads, tatoos, gothic looks and stuff like that are cool,
> particularly if it makes you "different" to the wider community and earns
> their scorn. It seems that peer acceptance along with egocentricity allows
> one to look and act as one likes. I feel it is the attitude that is
> considered to be cool moreso than any sort of physical aesthetic quality
of
> the scars, tattoos, piercings etc. I feel sure that if someone aquired
> similar facial scarring in a car accident, the value of that scarring
would
> be quite different as it signifies something quite different. I am not
sure
> what sort of inference or analogy I am trying to draw here, its just
> something that occurs to me in considering the valuing of "difference"
and
> that some differences are valued more highly than others. Maybe there is
> something similar to be said for eccentricism versus mental illness? One
> arouses a non-threatening curiosity and "eccentric" people have a place in
a
> social schema unlike someone with a mental illness. Again, why is one
valued
> and the other not?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Laurence Bathurst
> School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
> Faculty of Health Sciences
> University of Sydney
>
> PO Box 170
> Lidcombe NSW 1825
> Australia
>
> Ph: 61 2 9351 9509
> Fax: 61 2 9351 9509
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> See School Website www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
>
> Home Ph: 61 2 9818 2050
> Mobile Ph: 0407 069 441
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sarah Supple" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:45 PM
> Subject: Re: devision.
>
>
> | HI, when I was referring to us and them , I think what I was getting at
> was
> | that I believe the division of able and disabled does not exist, such
> | categories are a product of discourse. I see there is a diversity of
> | physical states across the world and someone somewhere drew an arbitrary
> | line and said those on that side are able and those on that side are
> | disabled. I recognise that part of changing the stigma attached to
> | disability is to redefine it, which in part comes from identifying with
> each
> | other and wiht disability in order to find new perspectives. However my
> | concern is that in doing so we may perpetuate this random
categorisation.
> I
> | think this dichotomous thinking runs wider than disability but may be a
> core
> | issue in defining the 'other' as bad. Thanks, Sarah.
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> | To: <[log in to unmask]>
> | Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 3:32 PM
> | Subject: Re: devision.
> |
> |
> | Simon:
> |
> | I don't think Sarah said what you seem to think she said. You seem to
be
> | justifying a doctrinaire approach to disability because "other
> | professional[s]" do it!!!!
> |
> | Timothy Lillie, PhD
> | Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> | The University of Akron
> | Akron OH 44325-4205
> |
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: Simon Stevens [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> | > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:01 AM
> | > To: [log in to unmask]
> | > Subject: Re: devision.
> | >
> | >
> | > Hmm yes, and name any other professional which doesn't have the same
> | > unwritten rules.
> | >
> | > Like normal, disabled people must be perfect and deny their
> | > culture and
> | > identity because we MUST be inclusive while everyone else can do
> | > whatever they like and abuse us all the time!
> | >
> | > Please split professional language with personal language.
> | > You can think
> | > what you want but the disability field (not necessary the movement if
> | > one exists) has norms of its rules which are in direct
> | > competition with
> | > the warehousing and death making industries. Too many non-disabled
> | > people pretend to be allies therefore it does make me certainly
> | > suspusious.
> | >
> | > Many Thanks, Simon
> | >
> | > --
> | >
> | > Simon Stevens
> | > [log in to unmask]
> | >
> | > Tel: +44(0)24 7644 8130
> | > Fax: +44(0)870 133 2447
> | >
> | >
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> | > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah Supple
> | > Sent: 20 July 2002 12:14
> | > To: [log in to unmask]
> | > Subject: devision.
> | >
> | > Hi, it concerns me that increasingly I am feeling there is a
> | > sense from
> | > some that if you don't play by certain rules or use certain terms then
> | > you become one of 'them' rather than one of 'us' (i.e. the disabled
> | > movement). Isn't the us and them mentality exactly what the disability
> | > movement is trying to get away from? Sarah.
> | >
> | > ________________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.
> | >
> |
> | ________________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.
>
> ________________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.
|