 |
 |
Perhaps you'll be surprised but I actually agree with Susan. However I think there is a serious question here about the relationship between disability and agency, which is the term I use in place of Susan's 'ability'. If we only look at structural accounts of disability (and by that I mean accounts that say disability is 'out there' and we are passive 'victims' of it) then this suggests that the very concept of agency is socially created. In other words, - the the answer to the question 'does advocacy create victims?' is no, disability creates victims. It may well be true that impairment prevents some people from being activists of the 'in your face' kind, but it is also true that the structures of disability work to stamp out activism by making us fearful for our jobs, families, quality of life and so on. That must mean, however, that disability has a cognitive dimension and that problematises the structural account. I think that is one very compelling reason why the structural account is limited and I welcome further discussion about this. However, when Jennifer writes: >Scholars who teach and write are being activists, and I think those of >us who choose to advocate for disability rights in this manner are to be >commended. this seems a very blanket comment. I think there is a big difference between a 'scholar' and what Gramsci calls 'an organic intellectual', though they can merge in the same person. There are a lot of disability studies scholars whose writing does NOT engage with disabled people, except on the intellectual level, and they do not care whether their work makes a difference to disabled people's lives, only whether it makes a difference to their own lives. Note, I'm not talking about people who write about and try to unravel complex ideas - something that does take time - because 'there's nothing so practical as a good theory'. The point of course is that, by and large, it is those who succeed in objectifying disabled people through this 'scholarly' writing that are most accepted/respected by the academy, and that just keeps elitism in place. So when Jennifer asks: >Is it necessary to rank who's "the best activist?" No it shouldn't be necessary but we do need a discussion about what activism actually is - activism for what and why? - and we do need to be very careful about dishing out commendations too liberally. Constructive critique and reflexivity keeps people on their toes and makes them ask questions. There have been a series of articles about the relationship between the academy and the movement (i.e. 'activists') in Disability & Society in the last two years. They're worth a look, as is Mike Oliver's account in 'Understanding disability' (1996), and Simone Aspis' in 'Disability Discourse' (1999). Best Mairian >Dear Phyllis and all, >Phyllis, thank you for participating in the Singer protest. I appreciate your >willingness to be arrested for that cause. I hope that I can learn from your >example and your strength. > >I think, though, that there's another way to look at the activism issue. It >seems like activism can take many forms and that from the outside looking >in on >someone else's experience, it might be difficult to know what they can and >cannot >do and what they consider activism in their life. Some folks have just enough >energy (physical and mental) and just enough time to be good advocates for >family >and self. I suspect that we all go through stages in our lives when we >can and >cannot be involved in protests that lead to arrests, etc. There probably are >many reasons for these phases but I'll bet they're often related to >constraints >or other commitments in our lives: children/family members who need us >present, >impairments that prevent or interfere with certain activities (my >depression, for >example, can be quite constraining at times and I must carefully manage my >environmental stress), jobs that cannot be missed, selves that must be tended >to. I'm sure my list isn't exhaustive. > >Can we find ways to value everyone's contributions and accept that we will all >contribute differently but to the best of our "ability"? Susan Gabel %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%