Bob
We all know the 'hidden-agenda' here from Tom Shakespeare and he as a
'self-interest'.
Is it that Tom, himself, at a deep psychological level is transferring all
his 'internalised-anger', about how he feels psychologically 'within' his
own mind, body and spirit about his 'own' 'identity' as a disabled person.
He's found the appropriate platform to cope with his own
'internalised-anger' and is doing this within the medical/eugenic models,
through these 'dominant ideologies, where he can feel he's got some
'power'( and feels safe, like an abused little child) with his mates to
'bully' other disabled people and Society into accepting their 'ideologies',
but he is living in 'denial' of how his own 'dominant-ideologies' are
causing so much pain and hurt towards others, but as I said he's living in
'denial' and he's not conscious of this and he's projecting his own
'internalised-anger' on to his 'victims', other disabled people, who he is
denying them their basic human and civil rights to their own
'disability-identities' .
He does not speak for the majority of disabled people who celebrate their
'disabled identities' within diverse disabled communities.
All I can say Tom, it's time to 'stop' living in 'denial' and your own
'little fantasy world' which is causing so much damage to disabled people
and disabled communities.
It's time for you to 'accept' your own 'identity' as a 'disabled person' and
come and 'speak to us' and ask 'us' how we feel about our 'disability
identities'?
Who can 'ACTIVELY-LISTEN' to our 'alternative discourses', that makes us
all feel proud to have a diverse range of 'impairments' that embraces
creativity within the disabled people' movement.
As, I have invited you along in the past Tom, to come and talk to some
disabled people and 'ACTIVELY-LISTEN' to their ''lifestories', instead of
disempowering them with your own ideologies that are around 'cure', cure
from what? We don't want you 'tea and sympathy'.
We don't want your 'pity'. We want to feel 'empowered', within
'anti-oppressive' environments and a Society that enables us to have
'Independent Living' with a legal framework of 'full' human and civil
rights.
Many disabled are 'proud' and will 'shout this out loud' about their
disabled identities'. Why don't you listen to these 'VOICES'?
FREEOURPEOPLE
Colin Revell ( proud of his neurodiverse disabled identity, but ashamed of
the continued discrimination against other ND's and all disabled people,
because of these dominant ideologies professed by Tom( the other-Shakespeare
and his mates.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Williams-Findlay" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 7:25 AM
Subject: To Be Or Not To Be
To Be Or Not Be? - The Other Shakespeare
Writing on Ouch - a UK website belonging to the BBC, Tom Shakespeare wrote
an article on why the Disabled People's Movement should've embraced
Christopher
Reeve's agenda.
Not for the first time, I find myself at odds with Tom Shakspeare. Some of
Tom's views expressed in the article concerned me greatly, therefore, I've
taken
this opportunity to respond to them.
Shakespeare writes:
Many cures don't work. Some treatments have dangerous side-effects. Indeed,
an obsession with cure stops some disabled people getting on with their
lives.
But none of us want our impairment to get any worse. And many disabled
people
would welcome medical intervention which restored function or reduced pain
symptoms. To me, while a sceptical assessment of medical hype is necessary
for
balance, total rejection of the concept of cure seems self-defeating.
Before addressing any of the above, I need to question the unproblematical
manner in which Tom uses the the term, "cure". This word isn't merely
associated
with a 'remedy for disease or illness' - it's roots are Biblical, thus
making
it intrinsically part of many ancient belief systems which tie disease,
illness and impairment to the notion of banishing that which is evil.
Returning to Tom's actual words, I wouldn't challenge the first two
statements. The third, however, is open to debate. My problem with:
Indeed, an obsession with cure stops some disabled people getting on with
their lives.
Is that it implies that the 'obsession' is purely that of specific
individuals - therefore, what it doesn't address is the societal pressures
that
currently feeds this debate. By not acknowledging the fact that this debate
triggers
both individual and societal responses, Shakespeare tries to present his
argument largely from within an apolitical framework - thus making it
extremely
political!
As a result of this approach, Tom is able to make this bold and I would
argue, extremely questionable statement:
To me, while a sceptical assessment of medical hype is necessary for
balance,
total rejection of the concept of cure seems self-defeating.
The main issue isn't whether medical research or the search for "cures" is
hyped or not,
it is the ideological and political terrain on which this is taking place
that concerns many of us. To speak of 'balance' within this context, quite
frankly, is laughable.
The reason Shakespeare believes the 'total rejection of the concept of cure
is self-defeating' stems from the view that there is:
… no reason why disabled people can't support medical research, as well as
campaigning for civil rights and barrier removal. We should prevent
impairment,
as well as preventing disability.
Again, where's the political assessment of what it means to live in a
disablist society? Nowhere is there a serious engagement with the notion of
'preventing impairment' or the impact this would have on the production of
disablism.
Is Shakespeare advocating medical intervention and/or social engineering?
To what extent would the agenda for 'preventing impairment' be compatible
with the social acceptance of people having a desire to live with their
impairments? Who would draw the contours around the meanings given to
'preventing'?
In an attempt to 'justify' his approach, Tom argues:
Disabled people are not their impairments. And aiming to prevent or minimise
impairment effects is not like trying to turn black people white, or gay
people straight. It's not an attack on disability identity, it's a rational
response to forms of embodiment that are often painful or limiting.
Quite right Tom, Disabled people are not their impairments. But neither are
most impairments like an annoying pair of shoes that an individual might
have
the desire to kick off. What is completely missing here is any contextual
framework: we return to Shakespeare's unproblematic use of the concept of
'cure'.
It is difficult to address abstract and generalised statements such as:
prevent or minimise impairment effects - how long is a piece of string?
Having a
drug to remove a tremor isn't the same as altering the complete make up of a
foetus. Medical interventions can change people completely; sometimes this
doesn't alter who or what someone is, at other times it can.
Shakespeare has written extensively on the question of 'disability
identity',
but I find it hard to accept that he feels totally at ease with the
pronouncement that: aiming to prevent or minimise impairment effects is not
an attack
on disability identity, it's a rational response to forms of embodiment that
are often painful or limiting.
What are the determining factors that mean we are witnessing 'a rational
response'? Is Shakespeare really trying to argue that medical research has a
completely "shared" agenda and ideological stance?
Perhaps the most telliing and damning aspect of the article comes when
Shakespeare argues:
Many disabled people, particularly those with static or congenital
impairments, are happy the way they are. That's fine. But for people with
degenerative
impairments, or those who feel that their lives have been disrupted by
acquired
disability, the pursuit of cure will always be as important as the
achievement of civil rights. Respect for the achievement and contribution of
disabled
people is not incompatible with a desire to reduce the impact of impairment.
Sorry, Tom, but this doesn't cut no ice with me. I have a congential
impairment, I am happy the way I am, but my life has also been disrupted by
acquired
disability, (if we are employing a social model definition), because I am
viewed and treated as if I'm a freak!
I also resent the implied implication that underpins this type of approach
that people with static impairments, particularly those of us who are
Disability
Rights activists, have a dog-in-a-manger attitude.
In my opinion, supporting my brothers and sisters with degenerative
conditions is very much part of the struggle for civil rights - but not
along the
simplistic, reductionist lines advocated by Shakespeare. I am not opposed to
all
forms of medical research or interventions; I am looking for those who carry
out
this work, solidarity with Disabled people's opposition to "normality", the
promotion of the medical model of disability and the eugenics agenda.
I believe Shakespeare's "cake and eat it" approach is a political nonsense.
In my opinion, the pursuit of cure is not an agenda I will ever sign up to.
Developing a non-judgemental approach to the human condition is a different
story altogether.
Bob Williams-Findlay
________________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.
____________________________________________________________________________
This email and all attachments have been electronically scanned by Kingston
Communications' email Anti-Virus service and no known viruses were detected.
____________________________________________________________________________
________________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.
|