On 18.10.98 Simi Linton wrote:
I have added comments below related to my reported use of the term
>"normal." I don't believe that I have ever used it as implied here.
>Simi Linton
>>
>> OK though you would agree that there are others in the USA e.g.
>Lennard
>> Davis, Rosemarie Garland Thomson and Simi Linton who do use the terms
>> 'normal', 'normate' and 'normalcy' without quotation marks which I
>assume
>> means they accept the usage of these terms?
> I DON'T THINK THAT I HAVE EVER USED THE TERM NORMAL TO DESCRIBE ANY
>ONE OR ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE. THE ONLY PLACE THAT I RECALL USING THE
>TERM NORMAL WAS IN A CHAPTER CALLED "REASSIGNING MEANING" - A CHAPTER
>DEVOTED ENTIRELY TO ANALYZING AND CRITIQUING THE LANGUAGE USED TO
>DESCRIBE DISABLED PEOPLE. I PUT ALL THE TERMS UNDER INVESTIGATION IN
>THAT CHAPTER IN ITALICS ON FIRST MENTION.
>(THIS IS ALL IN "CLAIMING DISABILITY")
> MAIRIAN - IF YOU CAN FIND INSTANCES WHERE I HAVE DONE SO (USED
>NORMAL UNCRITICALLY) - PLEASE POINT THEM OUT TO ME. ALSO, I THINK
>ROSEMARIE THOMSON'S USE OF NORMATE (ACTUALLY THIS IS HER TERM) IS
>CERTAINLY NOT AN UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE IDEA OF NORMAL - IT IS A
>COMMENT ON IT.
> SORRY IF THE CAPS SEEM RUDE - I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER TO
>FIND THIS POST. SIMI
Simi
I thought this was about how we present these terms, and whether or not
presentation implies that we agree with them or not and sorry if I have
given the wrong view of your work. I WAS referring primarily to your
commentary on Rosemarie's writing and it seemed to me that you accepted HER
view in your comment that:
RGT (1997) has coined the term *the normate*, which like *nondisabled* is
useful for marking the unexamined centre ... By meeting *normal* on some of
its own terms, *normate* inflects its root, and challenges the validity,
indeed the posssibility of normal. At the same time, its ironic twist gives
a more flavorful reading of the idea of normal (1998: 24-5, * notes words
which you italicise)).
You don't say HOW it challenges the validity of 'normal', though maybe you
mean that RGT's explanation tells us? Personally I find her language so
cryptic that I'm not entirely sure what she's saying. In fairness to you
though you do, later in the book state that '"Normalisation" is a spurious
goal' (ibid: 62).
Hope this clarifies things a little, and you don't sound rude at all!
Please do come back to me if you still think I'm being unfair or have
misunderstood something.
Best wishes
Mairian
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow
University of Central Lancashire
c/o 111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|