I came to the conclusion long ago that while discourses promote
disability, there is only so much that a label(s) contributes in
reinforcing our circustances. Consequently, reconstituting labels
brings about only so much good for disabled people.
When it comes down to it, labels promoting disabilty are simply
one means of naturalizing our "condition", albeit a very important
one (Here, I use the word condition to denote a set of
circustances). Anyone at any given time will live under particular
conditions. For the most part, the conditions are not of our
chosing, rather, they are determined by social forces outside our
control
Conditions are constantly fluctuating, and not just because of
'improvements' in, say, tecnologies or even technological
discoveries, but because of the array of factors/conditions affecting
the consitution of the society (leadership, for example). The way
that a person's social position is deterimed is based on the
societal conditions affecting him/her.
Likewise, then, how one's "disability" is determined will be based
on such factors as: how one's society is organized economically,
who the leadership of the society is, what the state of resistances
to the society's conventions are, as well as fortuitous factors and
traits particular to the individual.
Change (or conversely statism) will come about by said factors
interacting -- NOT by one factor alone.
Reconstituting a label will not so much as change or deconstruct
an oppressive condition as it will propell the possibility for ridding
society of it. This it not to suggest the inevitability for change by
using 'positive' labeling. Change comes about largely through
fighting over resources between competing groups -- those trying to
do away with the status quo and those trying to maintain it.
Consequently, labels used to reconstitute an opressive condition
may initially bring about some positive benefits for an oppressed
indivdual/group -- only to later be coopted by poweful interests.
David
Date sent: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:44:20 -0400
Send reply to: Maria <[log in to unmask]>
From: Maria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Opression and Pooh.
To: [log in to unmask]
> Sara/Steve
> Allow me a difference explanation of oppression. If we accept that it is the
> way the system(s) is(are) set up that oppress people, then the further an
> individual or groups of individuals are from the rules set up in that
> structure, the more likely it is that the said individual/groups don't fit
> the rules. How one explain's the not fitting is important: If we say the
> individual does not fit we are staying in the individualist paradigm If we
> say that it is the structure that is built to keep groups thus individuals
> out we are speaking a different paradigm could be structuralism, or any of
> the others including but not limiting to Social model.
>
> For those of us with disability impairments that have not yet been
> de-constructed from negative, and remain in the individualist paradigm, yes,
> we live at individual and collective level the lack of pride. However, if
> post-modernist are correct and de-construction is possible simply by
> changing of the way we name things why is it that in regard to impairment we
> have not yet de-constructed it.
>
> This is in fact a way to talk about oppression without competing one
> form of oppression against the other.
>
> I'm now reading a book, called Post-modern Pooh. by Frederick Crews, et al .
> hope I get some answers here.Would love to exchange with post-modernist on
> the list, re Pooh and a possible connection to impairment.
>
> Who is less intelligent, witty Tiger or Pooh?
> Or should the Question be: How do we see Tiger's intelligence and Pooh's
> witty-ness. If not my dyslexia, then what?
> What or who is oppressing / controls whom?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Stevens (CEO, Enable)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:43 AM
> Subject: Re: New Book
>
>
> > Sara,
> >
> > I agree with your point. My concern is that people seem to want to remodel
> > learning difficulty, which is socially constructed, and then apply it to
> all
> > disabled people.
> >
> > I find it difficult where I hear remarks like neurodiverse people are the
> > most oppressed group of disabled people and I do not understand the basis
> > for this. If oppression were to be measured and I hate comparing the
> > experiences between impairment, I would argue the most oppressed group
> were
> > people with severe or profound multiple impairments who were in
> residential
> > care without a voice or the luxury of moaning about their plight. They are
> > denied access to the basic rights we all wish to enjoy, including
> > masturbation....... something few people will openly accept.
> >
> > Can the divide be resolved? Not just yet! I do not find the term
> impairment
> > offensive but if Larry does, that's fine but do not devalue those who are
> > happy and proud to use the term.
> >
> > Many thanks, Simon
> >
> > --
> > Simon Stevens
> > Chief Executive, Enable Enterprises
> >
> >
> >
>
> ________________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.
|