Lennard wrote:
>I think I can paraphrase your point succinctly by saying that you worry
>that I pay too much attention to Deafness and accept the claim made by Deaf
>activists that their subject position is radically different from PWD's.
I think you lose much in your paraphrasing. There were two main points -
first, have you asked the Deaf (BD) community whether they wish to be
considered under the disability banner? Second, I am critical of your use
of the medical model in relation to disabled people in a way that
reinforces Deaf people's 'special' status. I have also criticised Harlan
Lane's work for this in my book, much more strongly than I have ever
criticised your work, but Lane and colleagues are at least clear that Deaf
(BD) people should not be considered under the disability banner, nor do
they wish to be. Further, I don't think it is just Deaf (BD) activists who
wish to be separate. In our recent childhood research, there was only one
sign language using deaf (SD) child who accepted he was disabled and Deaf
(he was from a Deaf (BD) family). All the others, irrespective of context,
said they were not disabled, and resisted both my self-identification as
disabled and my social interpretation of disability. Looking carefully at
how they contextualised these statements it became clear that the reason
was they thought disabled meant impaired, unhealthy, 'abnormal' and so on
and this was very closely linked to visuality - i.e. Mairian 'looks normal'
so how can she be disabled? These kind of comments are imbued with Deaf
(BD) culture and I therefore suspect that they are extremely pervasive in
the Deaf (BD) community.
>
>If you look at Enforcing Normalcy carefully (and I say that because you
>have in one of your articles misquoted me quite egregiously--a fact you
>admitted to me in a private correspondence but not publically) you will see
>that I wrote on p. xiv
>
>"While I honor that argument [that some Deaf people do not believe they are
>'disabled'] I still see the political benefits of linking deafness to
>disability. I would never say that a Deaf person and a paraplegic were the
>same. They are not. But to the ableist majority, they may be. In
>wiriting this book, I think I can make important parallels with other
>disabilities by talking about deafness. However, I am acutely aware that
>while one can capitalize *deaf*, one cannot capitalize *disabled*. to be
>culturally Dea is a reality; to be culturally Disabled is at this point [in
>1995] perhaps only a Utopian wish that is gaining ground. It is not my aim
>to insult the Deaf by saying they are people with disabilities; rather I
>wish to explore how people with disabilities, at the risk of insulting
>everyone perhaps, can be Disabled. so when I speak of disability, I may
>influce Deafness within that category, although I willtake pains to
>separate the Def experience from that of people with other disabilities."
I have read your book very carefully, and certainly the above statement
appears to contradict the statement from 'Enforcing Normalcy' I quoted in
the last email. I was under the understanding that you did not think it
appropriate to turn things into a personal issue and so I think it is
rather mischievous to bring up something I allegedly said in private emails
to you and to misquote what I actually said in a book, not an article. To
clarify for the list, you did not like my suggestion in 'Deaf and
Disabled', using an example from 'Enforcing Normalcy' that when a deaf
person and a hearing person say the same thing, they not necessarily mean
the same thing, to which I would add now using Bakhtin and Derrida, because
everything we say is simultaneously a statement about our past. Bakhtin
describes it as every utterance 'passing through the gates of the
chronotope' and and Derrida asks 'do we hear, do we understand each other
already with another ear?' I apologised if you were affronted by this
interpretation of your statement and that I would now word it differently
along the lines I have just done. I did not however, retract the original
statement, and it remains an issue for me. This links to the question I
asked you before about our audience and the messages they get, which you
didn't answer.
Even in 1995 there was evidence of 'disability' culture, at least in the
UK, and this is unsurprising because new languages and 'cultures' are often
produced in a linguistics of contact. But there are many, many disabled
people who do not see this as the most overriding factor in our political
struggles. As is the case with many social movements, notions of collective
strength are prioritised over cultural production. To place 'culture' or
the desire for it, at the centre of disabled people's struggles, especially
when culture (and language) are viewed in essentialist terms, risks
distorting the thrust of those struggles, which, for many is citizenship
rights, employment and social inclusion, not social co-existence as a
minority group. It is through these things that 'people with disabilities
can .. be Disabled' and re-claim our rightful place in society as equal to
'normates'. Much of the friction you and I experience could be explained on
the basis of a UK/USA difference, but also, as you anticipated above, I
have been offended; however, I suspect that there are many in the US who
would have some empathy with my perspective.
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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
