 |
 |
Adam wrote: > >I've just been discussing this with Lynne, and I think P perception cannot >be separated from P practice. This is because what is sayable produces what >is visible and what is visible reintroduces what is sayable. The sayable and >the visible have a double relation that produces things like disability. We >can call this practice or discourse. The problem isn't images, films and TV >documentaries etc. The way disability is perceived negatively is nothing to >do with how people perceive, it is to do with what they have been equipped >to perceive, the discursive formation of the present. When you say its to do with what people have been equipped to perceive, I suppose we could look at the term 'equipped' in two ways, both of which have discursive dimensions. One is historicity i.e where we come from and how we get there, and the other is literally the different 'equipment' that people with different impairments possess and how this impacts upon perception and knowledge construction among other things. The latter can, for want of a better way of putting it, tell the other to go to hell. That is, the experience of blindness, for example, puts paid to the myth of visualism and its input into how we decide what is 'real'. At the same time the corollary is that deafness may reinforce the *experience* of visualism so that the visual is *always* real. That is why I felt that some impairments were very important in examining what we call 'material reality', and not because I happen to be deaf myself. Best wishes Mairian Mairian Corker Senior Research Fellow, School of Education and Social Science, UCLAN; Visiting Senior Research Fellow, School of Education, Kings College London. Address for correspondence: 111 Balfour Road Highbury London N5 2HE U.K. Minicom/TTY +44 [0]20 7359 8085 Fax +44 [0]870 0553967 Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number) ********* "To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye" ********* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%