-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson Cheu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 9:46 PM
Subject: lexic. stuff
>Anita-- Respectfully, I disagree with your notion that "ability" doesn't
>have a biological dimension.
Lemme take a shot at this one. Not because it will contribute to the lexic
choice, but just because it's there. ;-)
Anita said:
>[Ableism] isn't parallel with the other notions. Race and sex are
>typically taken to be biological dimensions. Racism and sexism are the
>repression of people with certain configurations of (supposed) biological
>properties. Howeveer, "ability" is not a biological dimension. Impairment
>is parallel to race and sex, but the word "impairmentism" doesn't exist.
I don't think impairment is a parallel to race and sex, either. Race and
sex can be seen as dimensions of variation. Male vs. female, Caucasian vs.
Mongolian vs. etc., are variants on those dimensions. There is no term that
names the dimension on which ability (better "able-bodiedness") and
impairment are variants. That's why I wrote earlier that 'ableism' is more
like Joan's 'white supremacy' or 'misogyny' -- these labels indicate the
privileged variants on each dimension, not just the names of the dimensions
themselves (race and sex).
But I think Anita's point may be that 'ability' is not a logical contrary to
'disability'. One way to oppose disablement is to point out that impaired
people do not necessarily lack ability. When they do it usually results
from social contexts. This depends, of course, on how the 'ability' in
question is defined. Johnson is right that 'ability' is frequently defined
biologically, as the biological ability to perform certain body movements or
perceptual discriminations. In that sense, 'ability' is a biological
dimension. But I don't think we want to endorse or encourage the biological
definitions of 'ability'. Such non-biological 'abilities' as
self-determination are valued by everyone. Under current social
arrangements, the non-biological ability of self-determination is linked far
too closely to 'normal' biological abilities. No one should be ashamed of
being an 'ableist' if it means that they prefer self-determination to
oppression. The term 'ability' stretches to fit both biological and
non-biological achievements, and that's a problem. At least for compusive
semanticists like me.
On the other hand, currency of use has a lot of pragmatic value. The term
'ableism' isn't in daily use on my island. ("Stop blocking the curb cut,
you ableist pig!") But if it is elsewhere, that's in its favor.
Ron
__
Ron Amundson
University of Hawaii at Hilo
Hilo, HI 96720-4091
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|