Hi, Mark. Although I have not read neo-Marxist theory (but have read a
little Marx), I think your approach is very interesting and quite
comparable to my own, although I am using other work (Butler, Bakhtin,
Foucault et al) in thinking about disability. Sorry; I have to be very
brief on email; my voice input doesn't work well in this application. I
especially agree with this:
>What is acknowledged as “disability”
>reflects a complex and historically-specific outcome of
>cultural, political and ideological struggles. Disability
>studies needs to emphasise indeterminacy, complexity,
>agency, and the autonomy of political and cultural
>developments.
Disability is not a stable category; we need to investigate its
instability and the ways it's altered through history and in different
contexts. This is obvious in terms of official/legal definitions of
disability, which are in a sense counterintuitive, but the idea of
disability as a shifting category sometimes goes against disability as an
identity politic, when it relies on common experience. I think the
experiences we have in common are important but they are often based on
exclusion/discrimination/ difference from perceived or enforced norms
(which are also, of course, historical and culturally specific), not just
on similarities to one another.
I agree that disability works as a relationship (as do race and
ethnicity). I think this idea is also inherent in definitions of
disability, around levels of function or injury (in compensation or
insurance claims, for example) and in the term itself; dis-ability is a
negation, the negation, of course, of a norm.
Perhaps we need better work on Marxism and disability. But I don't think
we should worry too much about early work that simplifies, or only
suggests, connections between disability and other theories; if there were
nothing left to think about/ tidy up/ follow through/ critique, what would
academics do?
regards,
Kate
>
>
>Unfortunately, within the 'materialist theory of disability',
>the influence of a crude form of Marxism is often evident.
>This often has meant that poorly-theorised notions of class
>have been utilised within disability studies. Unfortunately,
>the failure of sociological thinkers to engage in any
>meaningful way with the social model for many years has
>meant that a rigorous debate on these issues never
>really occurred.
>
>A classic example of the poorly-theorised notions of class
>within a great deal of disability studies was provided by Mike
>Oliver in Critical Social Policy in 1984. In an article
>entitled "The Politics of Disability", Oliver suggested that
>"all social relations under capitalism are characterised by
>oppression - one class oppresses another, and that disabled
>people are therefore inevitably part of that oppressed class".
>Although Oliver's later work was less economistic, I still
>believe that there are remnants of this crude economism in
>the materialist theoriy of disability which Oliver supports.
>
>An alternative to economism is an emphasis on human agency. In
>this regard, I have found a great deal of inspiration in the
>work of E.P. Thompson. Thompson wrote on labour history, not
>disability, but his seminal work "The Making of the English
>Working Class" radically reshaped the thinking of many scholars
>on class. For Thompson, the notion of class entailed a
>relationship, enmeshed in real people and real contexts.
>Rather than suggesting that social policies developed
>according to 'the needs of capitalism', Thompson stressed
>the need to study local social relations, institutions
>and values. Thompson's emphasis on the cultural, experiential
>and ideological elements of class resulted in increased
>attention being placed on human agency. Thompson stressed the
>need for studying local cultural, political and ideological
>struggles.
>
>In my own thinking on disability lately, I have been wondering
>whether it would be possible to view disability as a
>relationship also. So I am wondering whether there is any value
>in focussing on this issue of disability as a relationship,
>rather than a structure, or a barrier experienced by disabled
>people. What I am suggesting is thatdisability is a
>relationship which is fluent, changing, and culturally-specific.
>Agency would obviously be fundamental to this relationship.
>Disability could be considered a relationship both in the
>macro sense (between disabled and non-disabled people in
>society) and in a micro-sense (in individual relationships).
>
>An essential element of this conceptualisation is that
>disability is viewed as a relationship rather than a structure.
>This theory is perfectly consistent with an argument that
>people’s ability to struggle is determined by many social,
>political and economic factors, but it focuses attention onto
>the complex and contradictory processes which lead to the
>development and maintainence of a disability identity.
>Social relations, institutions, government policies and
>broader cultural values play a particularly important role
>in this process. The cultural, experiential and ideological
>elements of disability (and conversely, ‘normality’) have
>profound implications for the study of disability. This
>means that increased emphasis must be placed on the
>cultural and political activities undertaken by disabled
>people and more attention paid to human agency.
>
>It has recently been acknowledged within disability studies
>that the language within which people understand disability
>is an important factor in the development of shared experiences
>and identities (Corker and French, 1999). So an emphasis on
>the discourses used within disability may be warranted here.
>Through language and discourse, people define and re-define
>disability; they challenge certain labels, outline
>opportunities for improvement, and indicate which obstacles
>they perceive as significant. Language is not just a passive
>medium for expressing interests, it actively constitutes
>social identities.
[snip]
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|