 |
 |
Hi Mairian, Well, I don't think I need to reply now since I basically agree with what you've said. I suppose I have somewhat more of a sense that if you ignore history that you are doomed to repeat it. I know you are not ignoring it at all but weighing the usefulness of certain kinds of historical procedures and methods of disseminating information. Again, I agree that we need to be suspicious of history since it can be used to justify anything in the present. On the other side, revisionist history has to a large sense empowered groups, albeit at the price of reinscribing binaries. I like the work of Wendy Brown, (have you seen it?) STATES OF INJURY (Princeton, 1995) who talks about how identity politics comes at the price of ratifying certain norms and maintaining a "wounded" identity to keep the sense of difference alive--the same difference that created the injured state. I just wrote a piece for NOVEL on the subject. I think it will be out within a few months. Another point, the distinction between readers of the past (ie historians) and readers of the present (ie people who live in the present). This has always struck me as a spurious argument since people living in the present are no better readers of "now" then they would have been of "then." Newt Gingrich and I both inhabit the same contemporary moment but read the present as differently as we read the past. Likewise, Sir Francis Galton's reading of his moment is not necessarily more correct than my reading of his moment. I do think that in your work with Deaf children, you have to perform a complex task of balancing what is going on in a particular situation with what you know, what others have known, what others have said and done, and the demands of what is being said and done now. This is the complex dance of theory and praxis, but as Marx said to mother, you can't have one without the other. And part of theory involves a synchronic element but also a diachronic one. Re: binaries. I'm not for them, but they do, according to a Sausurian model, create meaning. OK, Derrida shows us that this model is ultimately false because all meaning comes from deferring difference. But this explanation doesn't mean that we should not think using the meaning that binaries create. It is sort of like the fact that we live in a Newtonian world although the rules of his physics don't apply to off-Earth situations. We maintain that consciousness, although we still operate as if only Newtonian rules apply. It is perhaps certain binaries we don't like because they create or participate in oppressive systems. I like to resolve the binary problem throught dialectics. This gives me a way to understand the binary and transcend it when necessary. Also, here, only a voice, a set of problems, a wondering aloud. Best, Lennard At 12:09 PM 10/20/1998 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Lennard, > >You wrote: >> >>I've read through your comment at least three times, and I do not >>understand what you are saying. Please rephrase. Are you saying that >>academic studies of the discourse of disability and normality only end up >>reinscribing the binary? > >I am saying that certain kinds of academic discourse end up reinscribing >the binary > >- through their objectification of disabled people >- through distracting from disabled people's lives as they are lived now >- through the privileging of particular kinds of 'knowledge' >- through marginalising disabled people because they are inaccessible. > > Are you saying that historical work is >>antithetical to the lived experience of people today? > >It can be if > >- we become preoccupied with it >- we universalise it >- we forget the context of the society/culture we live in today. > >What I mean is that say we discover an historical context when disabled >people were supposedly not oppressed. As an example here, I would use the >oft-quoted case of Martha's Vineyard (where deaf and hearing people >coexisted in a bilingual environment). This is promoted as the >quintessential example of an 'enabling' society and social inclusion (as UK >theory describes it). I am not saying that this is untrue (on the grounds >of historical evidence), nor am I arguing against sign language. > >However, I would argue strongly that contemporary commentators leave out a >great deal of information in order to give credence to versions of this >particular 'truth'. For example, historical evidence tells us that there >were large numbers of deaf people on Martha's Vineyard and this was said to >be as a result of a 'deaf gene'. Secondly, geographically, Martha's >Vineyard was isolated from the mainland which meant it was more likely that >people made the best of what they had on site and that they were >correspondingly less likely to be influenced by the mainland. Thirdly, the >deaf gene died out through an influx of settlers from the mainland and >intermarriage. (If any of this analysis is incorrect then please tell me as >I am working on the basis of what I have read). > >It seems to me that Martha's Vineyard has a number of messages which might >be relevant, namely that (in these circumstances): > >1. Sustained social and linguistic contact >2. Equity in numbers >3. A common, collective, democratically determined economic goal >4. Discrete geographical boundaries > >enable the removal of barriers, economic survival, and the promotion social >inclusion. This may or may not be true in other historical contexts. >Today's Deaf activists promote bilingualism or, more commonly, >monolingualism (using this example as evidence) coupled with segregated >education and social coexistence (which, over here anyway, means >separatism). This is happening at a time when social exclusion is high on >the political agenda. In these circumstances I find it difficult to marry >historical evidence with contemporary lived experience unless the purpose >of historical analysis is curiosity or 'academic interest'. > >However, while deaf people remain oppressed, I also think it is important >the keep in mind the broad gamut of such 'knowledge' in all of its many >interpretations. For example, I have recently been working in schools with >deaf kids. In one school (a mainstream school) there are large numbers of >deaf kids who use sign language. School structures (curriculum, staffing, >architectural and so on) segregate these kids in the academic life of the >school and the kids say they are bullied unless they stay together >(collective strength resulting from the reproduction of these structures). >However, once a term I think, there is an activity week where the >structures are relaxed and the kids have to come together negotiate >collectively particular tasks to achieve a goal. When I observed this, I >saw no sign of bullying - I actually never saw any bullying of the deaf >kids but quite a lot amongst the hearing kids (though this is not to say >that the deaf kids weren't bullied). Though the activities began with the >deaf kids being marginalised, as time went on the barriers began to come >down. The hearing kids were trying to think how to 'include' the deaf kids >and communicate with them. When I commented on this, one of the deaf kids >said 'oh we'll be back to 'normal' next week'. When I went back, the >structures were back in place along with the segregation. I've seen this in >others schools also. It may be difficult for some to make the connection, >but this is what I mean about theoretical knowledge being useful and >translatable. > > How are you defining >>academic--as something of no use to people outside of the academy? > >Again, I wouldn't generalise the term academic. Clearly there ARE some >things that are of no USE to people outside the academy - knowledge for >knowledge's sake - though these same things may be OF INTEREST to many. It >is also true that not all disability research emanating from the academy is >emancipatory for the same reasons. In contexts where disabled people do not >have full civil or human rights in law (and I believe legal enforcement - >formal justice - to be of primary importance in individualist societites), >the emancipatory potential of this research is clearly more important. Some >of these arguments about the role of the academy have also been hammered >out within feminism. Some feminists believe that feminism has retreated >into the academy because it hasn't been successful in rooting out >oppression. Some disabled people feel the same. > > I'd >>like to know what your position is before I respond at greater length. >> >That's fine, though I hope that the moderation of my tone is clear. I am >not in any way arguing a position in the sense that it is THE position, >only that it is one position among many which is reflexively fighting for >'voice'. > >Best > > >Mairian > >********* > >"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye" > >********* > >Mairian Corker >Senior Research Fellow >University of Central Lancashire >c/o 111 Balfour Road >Highbury >London N5 2HE >U.K. > >Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085 >Fax +44 [0]870 0553967 >Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number) > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%