Hi Lennard,
You wrote:
>
>I've read through your comment at least three times, and I do not
>understand what you are saying. Please rephrase. Are you saying that
>academic studies of the discourse of disability and normality only end up
>reinscribing the binary?
I am saying that certain kinds of academic discourse end up reinscribing
the binary
- through their objectification of disabled people
- through distracting from disabled people's lives as they are lived now
- through the privileging of particular kinds of 'knowledge'
- through marginalising disabled people because they are inaccessible.
Are you saying that historical work is
>antithetical to the lived experience of people today?
It can be if
- we become preoccupied with it
- we universalise it
- we forget the context of the society/culture we live in today.
What I mean is that say we discover an historical context when disabled
people were supposedly not oppressed. As an example here, I would use the
oft-quoted case of Martha's Vineyard (where deaf and hearing people
coexisted in a bilingual environment). This is promoted as the
quintessential example of an 'enabling' society and social inclusion (as UK
theory describes it). I am not saying that this is untrue (on the grounds
of historical evidence), nor am I arguing against sign language.
However, I would argue strongly that contemporary commentators leave out a
great deal of information in order to give credence to versions of this
particular 'truth'. For example, historical evidence tells us that there
were large numbers of deaf people on Martha's Vineyard and this was said to
be as a result of a 'deaf gene'. Secondly, geographically, Martha's
Vineyard was isolated from the mainland which meant it was more likely that
people made the best of what they had on site and that they were
correspondingly less likely to be influenced by the mainland. Thirdly, the
deaf gene died out through an influx of settlers from the mainland and
intermarriage. (If any of this analysis is incorrect then please tell me as
I am working on the basis of what I have read).
It seems to me that Martha's Vineyard has a number of messages which might
be relevant, namely that (in these circumstances):
1. Sustained social and linguistic contact
2. Equity in numbers
3. A common, collective, democratically determined economic goal
4. Discrete geographical boundaries
enable the removal of barriers, economic survival, and the promotion social
inclusion. This may or may not be true in other historical contexts.
Today's Deaf activists promote bilingualism or, more commonly,
monolingualism (using this example as evidence) coupled with segregated
education and social coexistence (which, over here anyway, means
separatism). This is happening at a time when social exclusion is high on
the political agenda. In these circumstances I find it difficult to marry
historical evidence with contemporary lived experience unless the purpose
of historical analysis is curiosity or 'academic interest'.
However, while deaf people remain oppressed, I also think it is important
the keep in mind the broad gamut of such 'knowledge' in all of its many
interpretations. For example, I have recently been working in schools with
deaf kids. In one school (a mainstream school) there are large numbers of
deaf kids who use sign language. School structures (curriculum, staffing,
architectural and so on) segregate these kids in the academic life of the
school and the kids say they are bullied unless they stay together
(collective strength resulting from the reproduction of these structures).
However, once a term I think, there is an activity week where the
structures are relaxed and the kids have to come together negotiate
collectively particular tasks to achieve a goal. When I observed this, I
saw no sign of bullying - I actually never saw any bullying of the deaf
kids but quite a lot amongst the hearing kids (though this is not to say
that the deaf kids weren't bullied). Though the activities began with the
deaf kids being marginalised, as time went on the barriers began to come
down. The hearing kids were trying to think how to 'include' the deaf kids
and communicate with them. When I commented on this, one of the deaf kids
said 'oh we'll be back to 'normal' next week'. When I went back, the
structures were back in place along with the segregation. I've seen this in
others schools also. It may be difficult for some to make the connection,
but this is what I mean about theoretical knowledge being useful and
translatable.
How are you defining
>academic--as something of no use to people outside of the academy?
Again, I wouldn't generalise the term academic. Clearly there ARE some
things that are of no USE to people outside the academy - knowledge for
knowledge's sake - though these same things may be OF INTEREST to many. It
is also true that not all disability research emanating from the academy is
emancipatory for the same reasons. In contexts where disabled people do not
have full civil or human rights in law (and I believe legal enforcement -
formal justice - to be of primary importance in individualist societites),
the emancipatory potential of this research is clearly more important. Some
of these arguments about the role of the academy have also been hammered
out within feminism. Some feminists believe that feminism has retreated
into the academy because it hasn't been successful in rooting out
oppression. Some disabled people feel the same.
I'd
>like to know what your position is before I respond at greater length.
>
That's fine, though I hope that the moderation of my tone is clear. I am
not in any way arguing a position in the sense that it is THE position,
only that it is one position among many which is reflexively fighting for
'voice'.
Best
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)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|