Good evening David,
Returning to the point you made earlier that many of the people on the
list are both disabled and researchers/professionals/academics in the
field. I take your point, but a chicken or egg reality check will tell
us where we really fit I believe: 'Are we researchers/professionals
because we are disabled, or are we disabled because we are
academics/professionals?' Carers can ask themselves the same question
with equal validity.
rgds John
David Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> But Gill, Homan's message set up three separate classes of persons
> interested in disability studies. I only said that some of these classes
> overlap. There is no us and them in terms of people with disabilities,
> people with a professional interest in disability, and carers. Actually
> all three groups overlap. Where is the US and THEM? David Pfeiffer
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Gill Dixon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David
> > > Pfeiffer
> > > Sent: 10 March 1999 20:12
> > > To: Disability Studies Research List
> > > Subject: Re: dismay at terminlology
> > >
> > >
> > > David wrote:
> > > What about most of the people I know personally on the list who are people
> > > with disabilities AND people with a professional interest in disability. I
> > > am becoming more dismayed at "professionals" who do not know that many if
> > > not most disability studies scholars are people with disabilities.
> > >
> >
> > >I tend to think David that this is the way you would like to keep it too!
> > I am a student of Disability Studies, and fifty percent of my particular
> > course do not have disabilities themselves (that includes me) but are
> > extremely interested in the construction of disability in our culture and
> > the injustices therein.
> >
> > I'm trying to get away from the 'us and them' scenario.
> > How about you?
> > Gill.
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|