Anita --
I think the problem in choosing a term to use in this context is that most
of the readers of the term will be naive about the term's political context.
This is especially obvious with respect to the RPA from the background you
give about the issue came up in the first place.
One important question is how the membership of RPA is going to interpret
the term 'disablement' (or whatever is chosen). My bet would be that, to
them, 'disablement' will simply be seen as referring to the causation of
impairments. Social factors such as pollutants and unsafe cars cause people
to loose their sight or the use of their legs, and those social factors will
be thought of as 'disablement'. In other words, 'disablement' makes
disabled people out of able bodied people, and we radicals don't want that
to happen.
As _we_ all know, the social factors that radical philosophers ought to be
thinking about are the ones that create disadvantages for people who are
_already_ blind, paralyzed, etc., etc., not (particularly) the factors that
lead to blindness and paralysis. I don't think the term 'disablement' is
likely to be understood in that way.
If the members of RPA understood the term 'disablement' the way we do, I
think the term would be fine. But I don't think they do, and I don't think
the use of the term is likely to lead to their enlightenment.
But I don't have any great alternatives. I don't like "ableism", even
though it does fit nicely into the "racism, sexism" rhythm. And "oppression
of people with disabilities" isn't very chantable. We do need a new curse,
I think.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
Disability Studies in the Humanities <[log in to unmask]>;
Martha Stoddard Holmes <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Marta Russell <[log in to unmask]>; Joan Mason-Grant
<[log in to unmask]>; Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, October 31, 1998 8:04 AM
Subject: Request for Lexical Advice - Radical Philosophy
>UNDERSTANDING ABOUT RPA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The current RPA Statement of
>Purpose reads as
>follows -
>"RPA members struggle against capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia,
>environmental ruin and all other forms of domination."
>
>The domination of PWDs is now to be elevated from the catch-all "other
>forms of domination" category to its own place in the list of RPA targets.
>The question is, What word shall be used to describe this form of
>domination against which RPA members henceforth shall explicitly struggle.
>
>My personal inclination is to use the expression "disablement".
>What is of concernis whether "disablement" is the most felicitous
>expression to use in the RPA statement of purpose, or whether there is a
>better expression. I would guess that U.K./Canadian listmembers will be
>more comfortable with identifying "disablement" as the target of
>social struggle than U.S. listmembers will be, but that may turn out not
>to be the case.
>
>PLEASE LET US HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER ASAP.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|