If I saw a paper using that term "pressure groups" in the title or first
page, I would immediately perceive a greatly reduced degree of
credibility in the paper and it's source.
Terminology like "pressure groups" is the stuff of radical right-wing
yahoos like Rush Limbaugh. For whom a pressure group is anyone that
disagrees with him, or who cares about anything that he doesn't care
about.
There are "civil rights groups" that do advocacy, there are civil rights
groups that do activism, and sometimes both intersect in one org.....
though this can potentially puts the integrity of the activism at risk
if getting cosy with those in power becomes addictive. (On the other
hand, groups that are mostly activist, can often do the best advocacy
because of their position of independence from both careerism &
grant-seeking which allows them to speak truth to power.)
There are "service-providing organisations" that dabble in a bit of
advocacy (such a giving testimony at hearings, or getting priority
invitations to meet with officials), or which contribute money to some
consortium of similar groups to do the activism in order to keep it at
arm's length (such as the AIDS Action Council in the US, formed so
individual service providers could always say "we didn't say that", if
some politician got annoyed at certain facts being exposed, and was
tinking of retaliating by cutting off a grant.)
--
"disabled pressure group"
Diane Ravitch of Columbia's school of education ha a crossover book now
selling big, the educational equivalent of one of those boks written to
demonise all corporate regulation, written by a corporate lawyer or
right-wing think tank (like "The Excuse Factory", which by the way,
bashes disabled rights.)
I think it's in the current harper's magazine or Atlantic, that she was
allowed to write an article summing up the book. THe article consists of
a list of terms and whats recommended or not in current guidelines for
textbooks. Creationists who want to make sure the kiddies never hear
about evolution, is right up there with saying "person using a
wheelchair " is preferable to "wheelchair bound"..... that may not be
the exact disabled example, but close to it.
The article contains maybe a five to eight word explanation of "why"
which Ravich always phrases in terms of "pressure groups" .... and
contains not one paragraph, and not one word of discussion at all about
-- the fact that racism exists, sexism exists, homophobia exists,
ableism exists, etc. Ravich evidently thinks that it's not worth even
one word - to mention that there is a pre-existing situation or context
in which textbooks have to function.... wrongs and harmful stereotypes
to be educated out of future generations, etc. Not one word about the
hateful neo-fascist epithets like "retard" and "faggot" that are still
being yelled by kids on playgrounds across America. (And still being
signed on Gallaudet's campus, according to reports after the murder of a
gay and physically disabled student in a dorm, a few years ago. As in
the ASL sentence seen from a distance by LGBT witnesses, being signed
in outdoor conversations shortly after the murder: "That's one less
faggot on campus.")
The whole Ravich "pressure groups" article (I'll have to hold my nose
and look at the book some day) is written in Rupert Murdoch-tabloid-type
"It's Ridiculous" style, as if the whole world is just a bunch of a
crackpot pressure groups... and she's the one and only sane person or
"voice of reason" (as Ed Koch used to call himself, after he went
conservative; even bragging in his memoir about asking President Reagan
to conspire with him to evade The Rehab Act of '73's Section 504)... she
presents herself as the one and only sane person in the rational middle.
Reading that artice, my only question was "Do I file this under B, or S?
--
I am a board member and committee co-chair of a "civil rights
organisation", Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York. It does
activism, and advocacy which breaks down into lawsuits and negotiations
in the absence of lawsuits.
DIAMNY is not a "disabled pressure group"; it is a civil rights
organization that is a struggling part of what many now call "civil
society", which I guess is close to what Habermas called "the public
sphere."
So, your emphasis on the term "disabled pressure groups" offends me
personally, tends to defame civil rights organisations, and it damages
the credibility of your research adn whatever orgs may be funding it.
Jim Davis
________________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.
|