The fact that L. Davis is credited with writing of others is something
that you can ascertain for looking it up.(I assume you are familiar with
his work. That article was/is on mainstream Internet, general public will
make the same assumption I did. What you stated below only discredits the
writer more.
Two points
1)Disabilities studies(those of you that have it in political terms are
perhaps, unaware that it does not exist everywhere. In most countries
where it even exists disability studies still equates rehabilitation. taught
by medical/rehabilitation professional (outsider to the struggle). All of
whom are non-disabled and some who teach the course as though they were
teaching math
"objectively" they claim
2) Regardless of how good or bad disabilities studies may be in the UK or
elsewhere it is not mainstreamed enough to warrant that article. It is the
voice of a minority, representing oppression. Anger is appropriate tool
for eradication of oppression. But Mostly, what I see out of your country is
sound academic by comparison to others stemming from medical rehabilitation
side which affirms that each of our impairments are the problem and only
solutions is in us trying to be as "normal" as one can. This may no longer
be the norm in the UK thanks to Oliver,M and company. Still very real
the"norm" in the other 1/2 of the planet.
Nothing, I have seen (I have been selective in my reading) has shown me that
disability studies is more or less controversial cultural, feminist,
racial studies. Yes, in each areas there are differing opinions. In both
cultural and feminist studies that I was involve with in the 1990's there
were difference and constructive criticism. That article was not
constructive in any way.
Maria
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Miles" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: A Sceptical Look at the Disability Studies Industry - J C
Lester
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:25:24 -0400, Mariab <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >I've read other 'attacks' accounts of this nature, just never so
> >obvious against one specific writer, Lester's continuos citation of
> >L.Davis sounds rather personal.
>
> No.
>
> Lester cites or quotes L.Davis pp. 1, 8, 9, 28, 29, 154, 172, 174, 200,
260
> and 275. But these are pages in 'The Disability Studies Reader' edited by
> L.Davis, with many contributors. At the end of the main essay, Lester
> admits the restriction of mostly citing only four books, in the belief
that
> these are typical disability studies baloney. Lester also notes
> specifically that reference is made only to the first editor or
> contributor, (e.g. L. Davis, even where the actual writer is someone
else).
> This is poor scholarly practice - and perhaps evidence that Lester does
not
> consider Disability Studies worth taking serious - but the essay clearly
> states that this has been done. (It is also stated that the essay has
> changed format - possibly, in the original format, there may have been a
> restriction on the number of authors cited).
>
> It is untenable to suggest 'personal' motivation, and being 'obviously
> against one specific writer', when that is quite clearly not the case, and
> where a specific explanation has been offered.
>
> Lester's paper does seem hasty and poorly expressed. It underestimates the
> range of what might be counted as 'disability studies', and is dismissive
> without adequate examination. Nevertheless, the rapid impression Lester
has
> gathered of this field is not entirely inaccurate. There is a great deal
of
> disability studies writing that is fairly irritating if one is looking for
> evidence and reasoned argument. Much of this sort of writing can, however,
> be understood better as cries of misery and anger. As such, it would be
> unreasonable to expect the dispassionate argument of a mathematical proof.
>
> Whether it is appropriate for British taxpayers (many of whom have had no
> opportunity to engage in academic study) to fund the reproduction of cries
> of misery and anger on an academic website, under the guise of 'research',
> is a moot point -- though probably one on which Lester would have a
> negative view.
>
> One could try the question the other way round -- If disability research
> were to take place in a protected enclave, into which no cries of misery
or
> anger could penetrate, would this be a benefit? It seems to me that there
> would be very little benefit, and very likely some serious disadvantage to
> the realism of the research.
>
> Psychlit, ASSIA, Index Med and Ingenta Whatever, which index and abstract
a
> lot of disability research, could perhaps use a few more cries -- while
> this site (which was once about disability research, and is now mostly
> cries) could do with rather less. But that's life - the thing is never in
> balance.
>
> m99m
>
> ________________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.
|