Hi Ron,
I suggested ableism since this seems to be the most accepted/used
descriptor at this time-politically/organizationally speaking "labels"
change over time therefore in an effort not to be excluded-once more- let's
use what we have and continue our discussion re. coming up with a term
most of us feel somewhat comfortable with. Don't you agree?
Phyllis Rubenfeld
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Ron Amundson wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|