 |
 |
Received: from mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.97) by storefull-175.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]> Received: from mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk [128.240.226.11]) by mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8-wtv-d/ms.dwm.v7+dul2) with ESMTP id WAA14866 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from naga.mailbase.ac.uk (naga.mailbase.ac.uk [128.240.226.3]) by mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA28362; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:13:10 +0100 (BST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) id AAA20116; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:10:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu ([log in to unmask] [128.205.7.120]) by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) with SMTP id AAA20081; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:10:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 9015 invoked from network); 20 Oct 1999 23:10:24 -0000 Received: from ubppp233-170.dialin.buffalo.edu (HELO default) (128.205.233.170) by joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 20 Oct 1999 23:10:24 -0000 Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> X-Sender: [log in to unmask] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:10:43 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Singer/Asch debate From: natasha kraus <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] X-List: [log in to unmask] X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave disability-research' to [log in to unmask] X-List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask] Sender: [log in to unmask] Errors-To: [log in to unmask] Precedence: list I absolutely agree that Mairian's question is valid and politically important. I was simply pointing out certain assumptions that underlay it, as well as its implied answer in relation to disability studies texts. I also think that your point about the fluctuating nature of in/visibility is crucial. But I guess I was also questioning whether the way Mairian's question was phrased and/or contextualized did not implicitly lead to a politics of 'outing' and compulsory 'out-ness'. And questioning whether that is in fact a political regulatory regime of disabled research and disabled movement that everyone wants to support? And I think that these too are important questions. Natasha Kraus At 02:42 AM 10/20/99 -0400, you wrote: >The difficulty of answering Mairian's question, with perfectly accurate >numbers -- about who controls disability studies == does not subtract >one bit from the question's validity, or political importance. >"Invisibility" can be an opportunity to hear bias stuff, which you >otherwise might not hear. But it's also not necessarily a fixed >condition, always "on" (or "off") in an individual's life... nor one >totally under the person's control, if they're trying to be invisible. >With some disabilities, sometimes the situation removes any element of >disclosure choice, and "outs" the person. So what's "invisible" in the >morning, may become "visible" in the afternoon. > >But that fluidity of reality, in no way subtracts from the importance of >Mairian's question. > > Natasha Kirsten Kraus Assistant Professor Department of Sociology 430 Park Hall Box 604140 University at Buffalo-SUNY Buffalo, NY 14260-4140 [log in to unmask] (716)645-2417 x 457