It had been my intention to stay away from the Tom Shakespeare/Anne Rae
debate but have found it increasingly difficult to do so.
As Mark had helpfully posted Anne's original article and Tom's response to
the archives, I have now had the chance to review both again. Before going
any further, I must emphasise that what follows are my own views, rather
than those of my employer or any other organisations with which I am
involved.
I am afraid that I have been dismayed by the, at times, jingoistic tone of
comments made around Tom's disagreement with Anne. Although I would far
rather that these issues were resolved in a less public forum, I feel
compelled to respond in the manner that Tom appears to have chosen.
Although I have no first-hand knowledge or experience of it, my
understanding is that the growing dispute between Tom Shakespeare and
members of the disability movement (particularly in the north-east of
England) is not new. Whilst Tom criticises Anne for not interviewing him,
is it not equally compelling to ask why Tom, conscious of the growing storm,
did not seek to make his position clear?
Tom decries the disability-movement that: 'sometimes seems to spend as much
time attacking its own members' and bemoans what he sees as a personal
attack, leading one to presume that he might rise above such technique, I
regret that I found his comments about Anne Rae and the wider movement
little different.
I have felt for some time that Tom has choices to make.
In accepting invitations to appear in the media, is Tom accepting as a
researcher, a theorist or as a 'representative' disabled person? If he
presumes to speak for the movement he, like the rest of us, may be called
upon to express views that, as a matter of personal preference, he may not
agree with - that's democracy. If Tom is writing as a researcher, then
surely he is bound to respond on the basis of empirical evidence, rather
than personal opinion?
It is, in my opinion, only where Tom accepts invitations in a private
capacity or as a purveyor of his own theories, that he has carte blanche to
express whatever views he pleases - albeit whilst accepting that others may
be outspoken in their condemnation of those views.
Finally, the generalised critique of the 'disability movement' conceals the
fact that some of us within it (I have no way of knowing how many), perhaps
irrespective of our personal opinion, vigorously defended Tom's freedom to
work where he pleased when approached by the media, thereby taking the
'sting out of the tail' of what appeared to be a potentially unhelpful
story.
Those of us who inflict ourselves on a wider audience (as I have done here)
need to be careful about clearly identifying those for whom we presume to
speak. I would defend Tom's right to say (pretty well) what he pleases, but
I would afford the same courtesy to Anne. If Anne's article is wrong in
material detail, say so, but Tom, please avoid bemoaning personal attacks
and then responding in a similar way.
To make my situation clear, I have also been on the end of unpleasant and
materially inaccurate personal attacks. I don't like it, I find it unfair
and, for those of us who do not have an unshakeable faith in our own
talents, it can also be enough to ensure our silence. I get no pleasure
from Tom's predicament, but I would rather that this wasn't seen as another
'us' against the 'disability movement' issue - it aint.
Best wishes one and all
Richard Light
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|