Surely the point, Phyllis (and yes I do agree with Anita and I disagree
with Lennard)) is that both Black Studies and women's studies have a
sufficient depth and breadth of theorising to represent a larger number of
experiences Phyllis, and these theories have been developed by Black and
female academics and activists. Black theory and feminist theory and gay
and lesbian/queer theory are consequently not unitary nor universalising
theories even if some sections are more dominant at different times in
history. What disabled people have is (mostly) a choice between the
intellectual musings of non-disabled academics, a rigidly bounded social
model (UK and USA versions, but what about non-Western versions?) and
medical/rehabilitation models. I think your remark is rather facaetious.
Mairian
>Anita,
>Do you think that Black Studies and Womens Studies, etc. include a
>sufficient # of experiences "to represent the right theoretical approach."
>Smile,
>Phyllis Rubenfeld
>
>On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Anita Silvers wrote:
>
>> I think there is healthy disagreement about what constitutes a
>> disability studies perpective. Mairian Corker and I would dsagree with
>> Lennied and Simi, among other differences. So the last thing I want is to
>> have any group claiming to represent the "right" theoretical approach.
>> We test the correctness of any theoretical approach against our own
>> experience, asking whether the theory conforms to and illuminates our
>> experience. A theoretical approach that denies certain aspects of
>> experience excludes those whose experience doesn't conform. I have yet to
>> see a disability studies theory that is sufficiently elastic not to
>> exclude some PWDs, but I have seen disability studies scholars attempting
>> to impress (not present ) their theory on others. It reminds me of the
>> othe SDS, of which I was a member for a short time. I don't know whether
>> itwas climbing the stairs to Tom and Casey's apartment, or once there
>> sitting through interminable discussions of purifying theory, that was
>> more dispiriting.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Oct
>> 1998, Phyllis Rubenfeld wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Anita,
>> > I hope that you'll have the opportunity to view the polio film ASAP;
>> > would like to hear your thinking. My opinion of the film has
>> > litttle to do with my personal experiences-I don't think that this
>> > is the issue-it doesn't have a Disability Studies
>> > perspective-I don't think it matters whether our individual
>> > experiences are represented-it does however matter whether the
>> > health/impairment/disability experiences are presented within a
>> > Disability Studies construct. Although we've had different experiences
>> > we experienced many of the same ableist/medical model offenses-we
>> > really share more than not. Don't you agree?
>> > Take Care,
>> > Phyllis
>> >
>> > On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Anita Silvers wrote:
>> >
>> > > The idea of something like an antidefamation league sounds interesting.
>> > > Taking this tack would address the problem I raised antidefamation
>>leagues
>> > > oppose demeaning or false portrayals of the group, but steer very, very
>> > > clear of pronouncements on any representation that is a matter of dispute
>> > > or interpretation withing the community.
>> > >
>> > > Re: the polio film, what I
>> > > know so far is that one post-polio person thinks it
>> > > doesn't reflect
>> > > our experience, one pp person does, I haven't seen it, and there are
>> > > thousands and thousands more pp persons out there, all with their own
>> > > lives and experiences, and all worthy of having their experiences and
>> > > theories respected. It is likely the three of
>> > > us had somewhat different experiences (I know that Phyllis and I had very
>> > > different
>> > > experiences of the same rehab hospital - in different years). It is even
>> > > more likely that the three of us have somewhat different theoretical
>> > > approaches to disability (as is to be encouraged - otherwise, how would
>> > > one refine and otherwise improve theory).
>> > >
>> > > So one would want to impose quite strict groundrules on the proposed
>> > > committee, I would imagine. I imagine the committee could address such
>> > > claims as one I saw recently: "Before 1950, no child born with spina
>> > > bifida lived." That is a false claim that renders all the 7 to 13 year
>> > > olds with spina bifida I met in the rehab hospital in 1950 invisible. I
>> > > suppode the committee also could advise about accurate representation of
>> > > how Renaissance Venetians mobilized when their feet were too sore to
>>walk.
>> > > As for ER, I gave up worrying about accurate representation on that show
>> > > when one of the physicians told a nurse to get an NG tube for a patient
>> > > who needed mechanical assistance to breath. No, this wasn't a plot about
>> > > medical malpractice.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Lennard Davis wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi All,
>> > > > I'm looking forward to the letter from the director of the
>>documentary, as
>> > > > well as to the documentary itself. But I think the main point is not
>>that
>> > > > there were people who were experts about polio, or even people with
>>polio
>> > > > and post-polio who were consulted, but that directors, producers, and
>> > > > writers should feel that they need to talk with folks who are familiar
>>with
>> > > > the overarching issues about disability. I agree with Phyllis that the
>> > > > disability studies perspective is one that needs to be acknowledged as
>> > > > legitimate. I'm not counseling that there be thought police or
>>required
>> > > > oversight by a monolithic group of censors, but that there be something
>> > > > more than the current attitude which is that a writer like the one on
>>ER
>> > > > could talk to, through an interpreter, a few Deaf people and feel as
>>if he
>> > > > or she did his work. In other words, we need to help the media think
>>out
>> > > > loud about the things they are producing; we need to give them
>>resources.
>> > > > The current situation is one in which disability issues appear in
>>the
>> > > > media incredibly frequently, specifically in studio movies, and there
>>is no
>> > > > sense at all of accountability. The same stereotypes are promulgated
>> > > > repeatedly. I just watched "Dangerous Beauty" on video, and one of the
>> > > > Venetian aristocrats, played by Fred Ward, is shown using a wheelchair
>>(in
>> > > > Renaissance Venice?!!). He is doing so because he has sores on his
>>feet,
>> > > > and he is the only one of all the men in the movie who has a "paternal"
>> > > > relationship to Veronica Franca, the courtesan and poet whom the movie
>>is
>> > > > about. All the other men have sexual relations with her. Instead, she
>> > > > washes his feet. OK. That's only one example. I'm sure you all have
>>more.
>> > > > So what is the next step? I think that, through an already
>>existing
>> > > > organization like the Society for Disability Studies, a committee
>>should be
>> > > > formed to look into (sounds pretty bureaucratic already) the
>>possibility of
>> > > > setting up a standing body that would publicize its own existence to,
>>at
>> > > > least, the major studios and television production companies. Some
>>high
>> > > > profile publicity should be distributed to the major print and visual
>> > > > media. There might even be some investigation into what protections
>>are
>> > > > afforded by the ADA for defamatory or demeaning images of PWD (I'm only
>> > > > guessing here).
>> > > >
>> > > > It's always easier to speculate on paper than to take action,
>>but why
>> > > > should organizations that represent other identity groups have
>> > > > anti-defamation committees and PWD not?
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Lennard
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
Mairian Corker
Deafsearch
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]171 226 0539
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTy number)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|