Hi Haighleagh, I agree with your statement that, "Disability in anthropology just as with sociology was a non entity something not worth studying of no academic prowess or glamour." The absence of disabled people in traditional ethnography, however, was also partly due to the incessant need to find representative members of the particular society being studied. It was thought that one's informants had to be average Joe's. That disabled people might also be able to convey the typical beliefs of a culture shows the faulty logic at work here. The marginalization of the study of disability within medical anthropology is, I think, more complex; but one of the primary reasons is that disability's (and also of course impairment's) relationship to biomedicine is problematic in the first place (as disability studies had made very clear with their critiques of the medical model). The term medical anthropology is assumed by many of its faithful to denote the study of different societies medical systems, therapies, illness narratives, etc. Studying disability is always the poor cousin in relation to these (supposedly) grander themes. Moreover, and I think this is also key, the hope at the core of disability narratives is not usually a curative hope like it is for illness narratives (unless you are in the frame of mind of Christopher Reeves). In short, disability is more clearly about exclusion from social contexts than the other focuses within medical anthropology (although obviously this is not always the case). I have known Devva Kasnitz for about 4 years and have worked with her on several projects. When we first met, I began talking to her about what I called the "marginalization of the study of disability in medical anthropology" and showed her my notes that I eventually wanted to turn into a paper. She was very excited and began putting her two cents in. She also told me something that I think illustrates the way disciplines can police their borders, rendering some topics borderline. In her many years of encouraging anthropologists to come to SDS and present papers, few have done so. Of those few, most of them never returned. I myself know of several fellow Ph.D. students in the UCSF-Berkeley joint med anthro program who have entered the program with an interest in disability (two who are disabled), but who have opted to go the traditional route when it came down to picking a dissertation topic. I do not think this is a coincidence. I think there are a plethora of subtle and not so subtle institutional influences that reward students (financially, socially, status in the discipline, etc.) for doing the traditional boogie! When I first started the med anthro program, I opted to study aging, mental health, and culture. Why? At the time, I had been a personal assistant for over 6 years with disabled people. I had also worked as a social worker for 2 years in an apartment complex with both disabled and elderly residents. Simply put, there were fellowship grants available in mental health and aging. There was nothing for disability. The first year of my switch to disability, I was unfunded and worked about 35-40 hours as a personal assistant, while I was doing my interviews. Luckily, my department has seen the light and has come through with some funds to see me through the conclusion of my dissertation. They are beginning to see the importance of disability as topic of study. One reason for this is the increased visibility of disability studies in the media and the curriculum. Hurrah!!! But I think there are many more subtle persuasive influences that make med anthro students not consider disability as a topic of research. I could go on. But suffice to say that my paper got transformed. With the infusion of Devva' ideas, we instead came up with "Engaging Anthropology in Disability Studies," which although it deals to some extent with the marginalization of the study of disability in medical anthropology has a much larger theme: that of opening up a genuine dialogue between anthropology and disability studies for their mutual benefit. I think Mairian Corker correctly characterizes contemporary anthropology when she says, it "has sought to move away from idealist notions of 'authentic culture and from imperialist notions of the researcher/author." While there are some anthropologists who still hold to traditional notions, 'culture' has become a highly contested and open term in anthropology (most other traditional anthropological terms have also been problematized). The researcher/author must be reflexive about what she/he is up to anymore. Although this may lead to higher anxiety levels for researchers/authors, I for one will be glad to see the end of the cookie-cutter ethnography (am I being too optimistic) and a more rigorous (I think Mairian and John Davis will agree) attention to the shifting identities of researchers and participants across the various contexts within ethnographic fieldwork. I think your tutor's reference to anthropology as another methodology rather then a discipline is not quite right. To me anthropology is a discipline because it has a domain of study, ethical tenets, a history of theoretical shifts, etc. Sociocultural anthropology includes both ethnology, which is the comparative study of cultures and ethnography, which I see as anthropology's method. Traditional ethnography consisted in the techniques of participipant-observation and open-ended interviewing. But ethnography is also a product--the finished text. Van Maanen (1995) has addressed the dual nature of ethnography in "An End to Innocence: The Ethnography of Ethnography" (In Representation in Ethnography. John Van Maanen, Ed. pp. 1-35. Thousand Oaks: Sage). I would also add that I believe ethnography is also a process for both ethnographer and research participants (ethnographic subjects). For the ethnographer, a reflexive process of continually questioning one's assumptions and ways of doing things, of questioning both traditional disciplinary tenets and current politically correct mantras, of ethically grilling one's self and one's motivations and of trying to unearth one's own hermeneutical relation to research participant's. Points I tried to convey, I'm not sure how successfully, in a paper I presented at SDS last June, "Anthropological Research on Disability Issues and Ethnographic Process." For the participant's--well, you would be surprised at the answers that the question, "How was this process for you?" evokes. Anyway, as it is getting quite late here in California (or early depending on your perspective), I better quit. Nuff' Said (for now), Russell Shuttleworth PS A copy of my paper on disability and sexuality will be an attachment in a separate email to you. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%