Mark wrote:
>I would agree with Anita that much of what passes for contemporary
>disability studies does indeeed fail to address, or even acknowledge, the
>socio-economic realities of disability in a global context. If we think
>about disability issues in a global context then war, poverty and economic
>survival are surely the most important issues, yet the contemporary
>disability studies literature reflects a very different world, preoccupied
>with privileged perspectives on reflexive identity and cultural iconography.
I think that in some parts of the world, reflexive identity and cultural
iconography might actually be more important, as would issues of
individualism and collectivism which are often homogenised in Western
perspectives of the 'social', the 'cultural' and the 'economic'. Similarly,
it wouldn't surprise me if there was a sense in which Western notions of
disability studies that rest on materialism are finding it difficult to
sustain themselves in the context of a changing social world and so they
now turn their attention to cultures where pverty, war and economic
survival are more relevant. To take your example of war, I do wonder if
there is a sense in which we in the west, who have not experienced war
directly for many years, project notions of war onto other parts of the
world for whom it is a (not always unpalatable) part of situated practice
and the making of peoples. In the west we can afford to fight war with
words because of our affluence perhaps so there is an important sense in
which poverty and culture are linked.
>
... (snip) few if any of these
>accounts address issues of structural poverty or imperialism. There are of
>course some exceptions (and Emma Stone's new edited book may be very helpful
>here).
Reference?
>
>Where for example are the Western anthropologists' accounts of
>disability issues on the streets of 1990s Nairobi, Johanesburg, Rio or
>Delhi? The imperialist pre-occupation with searching out idealised
>notions of the 'authentic' culture of poorer countries only serves to
>obscure the real relationship between post-colonialism and the
>majority world. Moreover, it fails to recognise that the majority world
>exists in richer countries too.
I wonder if this is an old-fashioned, and perhaps rather unfair view of
anthropology. It may well be true that anthropology has neglected the 1990s
'disability' experience in other cultures, but only in the sense that
disability is marginalised within anthropology in the same way that it is
marginalised in many other disciplines. However, contemporary anthropology
has sought to move away from idelaised notions of 'authetic' culture and
from imperialist notions of the researcher/author.
>
>Take the US for example...For me, one of the most lasting images of
>SDS meetings in American cities, has been the number black
>disabled people begging on the streets.
This is an important point and one with which I totally agree - it hit me
too, particularly in the supposedly cosmopolitan city of San Francisco, but
there I also noticed how many white disabled people were out on the streets
going about their everyday business going to work, shopping and so on - far
more than I ever see on the streets of London. It seems that the rich-poor
divide also splits the disabled population. However, I agree with your
critique of Carol's comments/statistics. So often representation is nothing
more than tokenism and honourable mentions (how many of those papers at SDS
devoted more than two minutes of time to the disabled Other), and it
doesn't 'address the underlying issues of power and oppression that give
rise to under-representation in the first place.' This is because all the
onus is placed on the representative to explain themselves usually to cries
of 'oh that's really interesting, but ...'
I don't know why we have to be so defensive and to pretend that we are
'really nice guys/gals' as if that will solve anything anyway. As a white
disabled woman I have no argument with the idea that I am part of the
institutionalised structures and cultures that create the oppression of
black disabled people in spite of my 'friendships' with individual black
and black disabled people.
But in the academy, there is yet another hidden danger and that is that
there is a huge gulf between talk/intent and practice. I've met many people
who write wonderful books that say all the right things, but treat me and
other disabled people like shit! If we are unable to address that in
relation to disabled/non-disabled - and I think we avoid the issue of power
- I don't hold out much hope in relation to the other 'isms' because
hierarchies are also institutionalised in the disability movement and
disability studies. The fact that we put disability at the top doesn't
change anything in relation to social inequality. Surely the first step is
to accept that inequality is there, and then do something about it.
Best wishes
Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|