 |
 |
Is the term "crip theory" used to communicate anything distinct from the term "disability theory"? (I rarely encounter the term "crip", and when I do it is nearly always in the form of the term "supercrip", not "crip" alone. I just happened to be reading through eighteen pages of political statements by 22 people of many if not all ages, genders, sexual orientations and ethnicities running for election to the board of the largest disabled rights organisation in the eastern US, and the term "crip" appears in none of them. Once in a great while I hear "crip culture" or "crip community" being used not to refer to established things, but emerging things which are really little more than things we hope to build. (Fleischer & Zames in their history of the DR movement book argue the the development sequence of large numbers of PWDs may be different than for other groups, with organising around rights having to precede organising community or culture.) Are there situations in which the label "crip theory" describes something being presented more accurately than "disability theory"? I mean obviously, not in a case where someone has studied just people who identify only with the C-word and never with the D-word.) --- (2.) And what are the ethics of academics coming up with what they consider to be "cutting edge" or "transgressive" terms to describe people being studied, subjects who in many if not perhaps even a majority or vast majority of cases, have never described themselves in those terms? ----- There does not seem to be at least in the past decade or two any pressure to rename say, women's studies or feminist studies or Puerto Rican studies with any newly "reclaimed" pejorative terms (gender studies being a different conceptual scope, not just a different name), nor to rename African American studies / Black Studies with any more daring reclaimed pejorative names associated with hate speech.... but there does seem to be a pressure within academia to drop the term LGBT Studies in favor of "Queer Studies" (which is sometimes sold as a slightly different scope, but I'm not buying that spin), and perhaps also there is a little pressure to drop the term "disability studies" in favor of "crip studies"? (Is there some phenomenon going on here, where the smaller and less established a group is, the more vulnerable it is to internal pressure to keep changing it's name? Why would some groups subject themselves to this more than others? Higher levels of internalised self hatred?) The one context in which I have seen that pressure is in a meeting on planning some public lectures on what was originally in the group - termed "the intersection of disability studies and LGBT studies", a meeting in which possible names for these events were being toyed with, and a (heterosexual) disability studies person at the table wondered -- if the word "queer" was going to be used, was the word "disability" somehow not up to speed, not hip enough, and so if "queer" were used would it require something more transgressive than "disability" to be used next to it; like "crip" being used... to sort of (my paraphrasing) "keep up with the Jonses." Jim ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.