The Disability-Research Discussion List

Managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds

Help for DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH  October 2004

DISABILITY-RESEARCH October 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: To Be Or Not To Be

From:

ColRevs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ColRevs <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:00:21 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (245 lines)

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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager