I'll brace myself and throw some replies into the discussion.
Mark said:
> 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.
Wondering what you think of Jim Charlton's book, Nothing About Us Without
Us, in this regard. Do you think it departs from "the contemporary
disability studies literature" in its focus on the global disability
experience? Do you regard it as a valid effort in the right direction?
Also, I think your comment on identity is a bit dismissive. When you say
disability studies reflects a preoccupation "with privileged perspectives
on reflexive identity," are you suggesting that an interest in disability
identity is a luxury for the comfortable elite, or that it substitutes for
real action against oppression? I think Steve Biko's work counters that
notion. Identity can be (and has been) a tool of survival for the most
oppressed as well as a mighty weapon against injustice. Self- and
group-definition are potentially revolutionary acts, fueling the drive to
prevail. If, however, you are criticizing traditional identity models that
issue from a narrow privileged experience of the world, we have no
conflict--I agree.
Mark further said:
>I can understand what Carol is getting at in her review of
>representation at SDS, but I don't think it's a very convincing case.
>So long as we fail to go beyond the seemingly innocuous language of
>'diversity' we will never address the underlying issues of power and
>oppression that give rise to under-representation in the first place.
>
>The presence of a few 'visible minorities' at conferences may go
>some way towards salving the conscience of white, minority world
>academia but unless we are prepared to contemplate the institutional
>racism (and other 'isms') that exist within the academy then there is
>little chance of change.
Exactly! Although I apparently didn't say it well, that was my main point.
SDS meetings have some sessions on race, class and poverty. SDS meetings
are attended by a small proportion of participants from marginalized groups
and developing countries, some of whom are even funded through SDS to
attend. But that doesn't fix things! Even when the "other" is NOT ignored,
increasing "diversity" in scatter shot ways does little to address the
deep-seated roots of racism and classism and their intersection with
disability discrimination. Without denying our own contribution to these
oppressions and without shirking our own responsibility for change, we need
to have the humility to admit we are going to need the guidance and help of
scholars and activists from underrepresented communities to change the
equation in disability studies. Maybe we will learn that what we have
created simply cannot invite/sustain the interest and support of these
scholars and activists because they were not included when the foundation
was established. If so, it will certainly test our commitment to diversity,
globality, etc. It's complex, it's deep, and it's going to take a huge
concerted effort. But again, we need to be humble about the importance of
one organization. The efforts of SDS as a group and disability studies as a
field must be joined by efforts in other cultural studies fields where
disability has been overlooked and disabled people have been marginalized.
There is need for change all around and it needs to be brave and rigorous,
not self-congratulatory and trivial.
Carol
Carol J. Gill, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Human Development
Director, Chicago Ctr. for Disability Research
Dept. of Disability and Human Development
University of Illinois at Chicago (M/C 626)
1640 West Roosevelt Road - Room 236
Chicago, IL 60608
(312) 355-0550 (voice)
(630) 920-0928 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|