Fair enough never liked the term disability equality training because it
implied an inherent inequaltiy from the start
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Shelley Tremain
> Sent: 18 July 2002 14:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: 2003 logo
>
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> my contribution to this thread is not directed at anyone in particular,
> though I do want to suggest that the consensus among Canadian disability
> activists/theorists/researchers with respect to the term "people with
> disabilities" which Mary E. claims to currently obtain is actually
> "wishful thinking" on some people's part.
>
> Not all Canadians who work in this field endorse or promote that
> terminology, and would in fact like to see its quick demise (for some of
> the reasons others have stated in their posts); nor for that matter do
> all of us (i.e., Canadians, eh) align ourselves with the term "consumer
> movement," with its implicit reference to capitalist economics.
>
> For my own part, I use the term "disabled," though I think the term
> "people with impairments" needs to be trashed for some of the same
> reasons that "people with disabilities" should be put to rest. I think
> that proponents on the social model have not gone far enough with their
> critique of disability and have languished on a rather simplistic
> juridico-discursive conception of social power that does not (and
> cannot) account for the productive forms that power takes in modern
> liberal societies. If anyone is interested in my argument in this
> regard, please see my article "On the Government of Disability" which
> appeared in Embodied Values: Philosophy and Disabilities, a special
> issue of Social Theory and Practice vol 27, no 4, October 2001.
>
> One last thing> I did want to remark on the indignant and rather
> self-righteous tone adopted by some of the UK contributors to this
> discussion... It was suggested by some that those who use the term
> "people with disabilities" err in their "logic;" these UK contributors
> rhetorically (and quite pointedly) asked whether those in the discussion
> who use the term "people with disabilities" (and Mary E. in particular)
> would endorse terms like "people with racism" or "people with sexism".
> In (rhetorical?) response, I would like to suggest that anyone who
> spends any good amount of time reading (social model) disability
> literature (popular and academic) that comes out of the UK can find the
> same sort of (apparently grievous) equivocation. My current favorite is
> the term "disability equality training". I guess proponents of the
> social model would (on pain of logical error) endorse terms like:
> "racism equality trainer," or how about "homophobia equality trainer" or
> "classism equality training"? Shouldn't we rather (on pain of logical
> error) want to use terms like: "racial/cultural equality training,"
> "class equality training" and "sexual equality training," or even better
> "anti-disability equality training," "anti-racist equality training,"
> "anti-homophobia equality training"?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Shelley Tremain*
>
> *Note: as of August 5, 2003, my institutional and email addresses will
> be as follows:
>
> Dr. Shelley Tremain
> Department of Philosophy,
> University of British Columbia,
> Vancouver, B.C.
> V6T 1Z1
>
> [log in to unmask]
> OR
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________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.
|