Hi
I think there is a danger of turning this into a static identity thing -
when in fact these issues are played out on a daily basis between people
(even where it is an access issue and the architect has long since left
the building). If our theorising becomes too static then we won't beable
to explain situations where people empower themselves and resist
descrimination of any kind. My worry about the oppression angle is that
all those people percieved to be in one group may be thought of as bad
oppressors, the people in another group ar believed to be the poor
oppressed and this relationship may be put forward as a permanent
feature of our social world. This thinking ignores that there can be
descrimination and hierarchies within groups and that peoples lives are
fluid. It ignores the potential for social change to be stimulated
locally and smacks of dogmatism.
Since begining to work in the field of disability research, as well as
the depressingly usual abe v impaired inequalities, I have observed
disabled adults and children treat each other terribly and I have
observed accademics who spout off about emancipatory research disempower
disabled poeple. My conclusion is that we are all capable of oppressive
acts and that it takes a lot of reflexivity to recognise where your own
practices disable other people.
I'm not arguing against any other mailings here - just putting my
tuppence worth in
Cheers
PS - Ive just read Jasons view about negotiating power relationships and
I think that fits well with what I'm saying
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|