 |
 |
Mairian makes a good point. Discrimination is a fluid mix of factors. Discrimination against people on the grounds of disability implies that disability/ability is the primary defining characteristic in the power engagement, which may often be correct, buti t is a blunt instrument. If the person being discriminated against starts to so define themselves, then they have surrendered some power at the outset. Race, sexual preference, gender and class all contribute to the composite that defines the power interaction. Geographical/political context also plays a part. I, as a white male could feel oppressed in Capetown by a black ANC member with a disability. They have social status and access to the ability to wield power in several senses over me (geographical, political, social). What I am getting at, I hope, is that it is a pointless exercise to start the bidding game in a round of social poker ( my black person with a disability, but with an income under $50,000, but who is on a Congressional committee beats your non-gay white person with an income over $50,000, but who has adisability that requires a full time carer etc) As long as the debate remains in terms of civil rights alone, then there are always identitiy politics competing for ascendency. As long as the debate remains about social oppressin alone, then it is hard to break out of the class paradigm. It might be fair to say that a black person with a tertiary education and an income over $50,000 with a disability has a lot more in common with a white academic who happens to have a disability than with a prson of similar disability, same race, but without the education and the social status. The perceived and real unity implied in the term disability and the unity we all cling to in the face of perceived and real oppression rests on one thing only in my view. It rests on the assumption that whatever is done to us is premised by the discriminators on the basis of their perceived unity of disability as a descriptor of a victimizable population. The irony and paradox is that what is set up is an inevitable and unresolved conflict when communities of interest become plural. In the early days of any of the major civil rights movements, the membership criteria and allegiance identification are often relatively easy to establish and maintain. 'Race', 'gender', 'disability' are the major issue. In the mature phase of civil rights movements, plural memberships within the movement start to really emerge. Perhaps they were always present, simply subsumed. That poses the issues which the current debate touches upon. How does the disability movement and its activist core manage plural memberships in its community of interest and how does it form a more sophisticated idea of the power relationships that act on disability. Chris Leach %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%