I absolutely agree that Mairian's question is valid and politically
important. I was simply pointing out certain assumptions that underlay it,
as well as its implied answer in relation to disability studies texts. I
also think that your point about the fluctuating nature of in/visibility is
crucial. But I guess I was also questioning whether the way Mairian's
question was phrased and/or contextualized did not implicitly lead to a
politics of 'outing' and compulsory 'out-ness'. And questioning whether
that is in fact a political regulatory regime of disabled research and
disabled movement that everyone wants to support? And I think that these
too are important questions.
Natasha Kraus
At 02:42 AM 10/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>The difficulty of answering Mairian's question, with perfectly accurate
>numbers -- about who controls disability studies == does not subtract
>one bit from the question's validity, or political importance.
>"Invisibility" can be an opportunity to hear bias stuff, which you
>otherwise might not hear. But it's also not necessarily a fixed
>condition, always "on" (or "off") in an individual's life... nor one
>totally under the person's control, if they're trying to be invisible.
>With some disabilities, sometimes the situation removes any element of
>disclosure choice, and "outs" the person. So what's "invisible" in the
>morning, may become "visible" in the afternoon.
>
>But that fluidity of reality, in no way subtracts from the importance of
>Mairian's question.
>
>
Natasha Kirsten Kraus
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
430 Park Hall
Box 604140
University at Buffalo-SUNY
Buffalo, NY 14260-4140
[log in to unmask]
(716)645-2417 x 457
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|