Hi everyone
Sorry to copy the whole message(s). Dona, I feel as does John that
to censor any part of the lived experience or its interpretation would
be wrong. I see an opportunity here to change the discussion
questions that move both the tutor and the reader toward a response
that criticises the mythologies, not with propaganda but good old
fashioned intellectual rigour. Get those creative juices going!
> Good morning Dona,
>
> When you write toward the end: > ." Sorry, but I feel these writers
> have understood nothing but the medical, the individual loss, the tragic
> perspective on their "transformed vision" of themselves.
>
> I get the same uneasy feeling when the pros, the pollies, tell me ( with
> exasperation in their voice looking at the heavens for salvation) 'If
> only you understood' These people don't know anything about any of the
> learned social theory and bagage you carry, nor should they. They write
> about how they feel about the most important person in their life,
> themselves, and where and how they perceive they interact, fit and feel
> about the world around them. You don't tell Van Gogh that he should
> paint like Rembrand van Rijn, Mozart to compose like Bach. Don't use a
> committee approach, it is committees who come up with a camel when
> trying to design a horse. Like them or not like them for what they are.
> Individuals with thoughts and feelings and opinions that may not be new
> or politically correct in your world, but are new, original, and at
> times likely mindblowing to them.
>
> Have a good time, rgds John
>
>
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > Okay, all; new dilemma to ponder. I just got the textbooks I am to use for
> > 1st-year Composition (freshman English, for the un-PC), and I was alternately
> > appalled and excited by one chapter in particular.
> >
> > In this anthology (Janet Marting's *The Voice of Reflection: A Writer's
> > Reader), Chapter 5 is called "Self-Portraits," and includes essays by Gloria
> > Steinem (her adolescent chagrin at being fat and too-tall), Elizabeth
> > MacDonald (on anorexia and the tyranny of slenderness), Joseph Epstein (on
> > being a short male), Linda Ellerbee (on alcoholism), and Scott Russell Sanders
> > (male heroes of the upper class, vs. broken bodies of the laborers). So far,
> > so good: makes for lively discussions of performativity,
> > media-and-beauty-ideals, self-improvement vs. self-satisfaction.
> >
> > Now comes three essays IN A ROW, which, by their presence here with the
> > others, and by the rhetoric they employ, make me verrrry uncomfortable--not
> > only as to whether I should assign them or censor them (or both, which I will
> > probably do), but as to HOW they will be dealt with by our corps of teaching
> > assistants who--like many people--may be unaware of the harm these essays may
> > enact, if taught without sensitivity to the social model of disability.
> >
> > LEONARD KRIEGEL uses phrases and images such as "surrender myself"
> > (to polio), "absence," the monster of Dr. Frankenstein, "the contempt I felt
> > for my own weakness," "badge of normality," and "shame."
> >
> > MATTHEW SOYSTER's essay is introduced with the editor's comment: ". . .the
> > passion that once 'defined' him are gone and...confined to a wheelchair, he
> > must search for other passions." The author himself writes, "What disturbs me
> > most [about MS] is not how others see me, but how I've lost my vision of
> > myself."
> >
> > JOHN UPDIKE's title is "At War with My Skin." He writes about how psoriasis
> > tends to "singl[e] you out from the happy herds of healthy, normal mankind. .
> > . ." And this: "self-examination is endless. You are forced to the mirror,
> > again and again; psoriasis compels narcissism, if we can suppose a Narcissus
> > who did not like what he saw." He uses "monstrosity," and "handicap [his
> > abilities]," and refers to himself as "leper," and admits to wanting to "cure
> > myself." He says he "counted myself out of any. . .jobs. . .that demand being
> > presentable." But he found someone who could love him: "a comely female who
> > forgave me my skin.
> >
> > Even the 'Questions for Discussion' bother me. After Ellerbee's essay, we are
> > to discuss her tone: "Is she angry? bitter? hateful? conciliatory? confused? .
> > . .Do you think Ellerbee will stay sober?" For Epstein's essay, we are asked:
> > "Do you feel sympathy for Epstein['s being short]? Do you feel scorn and
> > embarrassment for him? Or is your reaction one of amusement?. . .Explain in
> > what ways Epstein's dealing with his height is similar to or different from
> > John Updike's reconciliation to having psoriasis or Leonard Kriegel's to
> > having polio." And for Soyster's writing, students are asked, "Do you think
> > Soyster wants his readers' pity? sympathy? compassion?. . .Do you think
> > Soyster's thinking is representative of most people when they become
> > disabled?"
> >
> > The editor claims that these essays "provide unusual and powerful examinations
> > of what it means to be physically challenged in a world designed primarily for
> > people without restrictions." Fine. But then: "you will see something much
> > different from self-absorbed or egocentric descriptions. . .You will be
> > invited to witness epiphany: how the writers' understandings have taken shape.
> > . . ." Sorry, but I feel these writers have understood nothing but the
> > medical, the individual loss, the tragic perspective on their "transformed
> > vision" of themselves.
> >
> > So I put to you my position: Is there something I can do to ensure that some
> > 40 English MA students (generally) and a handful of seasoned English
> > profs treat this section with care? I've thought of arranging an 'awareness
> > session,' or an in-service training period--with someone like fellow-Arizonan
> > Nancy Mairs as guest speaker. Provided our department chair agrees that this
> > section of the text is loaded with issues that need guided discussion.
> > At the very least, is there something I can do while teaching 22 students
> > in my classes--short of spending ALL semester on this one power-pack of 8
> > essays?
> > Is there something I'm overlooking...do you all agree that this selection
> > of essays seems warped? I'm *thrilled* to see disability make an appearance
> > in an English text... but perhaps THIS representation does more harm than
> > good?
> >
> > Apologies for the length of *this* essay; I get rattled, therefore I
> > write.
> >
> > Dona
>
Best regards
Laurence Bathurst
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Sydney
P.O. Box 170
Lidcombe NSW 2141
Australia
Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Please visit the School's interim web site at
http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
