Thanks Mairian for this note letting people know that I had been *invited*
to respond to Colin Barnes. (My response should be out by now(?). I don't
fault D & S for printing his piece because they placed it in the Current
Issues section, not in the main section of scholarly articles. And they have
printed my response in tact.
Simi (ne Sammy) Linton
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mairian
Corker
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 7:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is Simi's name had been Sammy?
Dear All,
I'm writing this as an Executive Editor of Disability & Society though in
doing so I must emphasise that I am not speaking for anyone else on the
board. First I want to say that the Current Issues section of the journal is
not the responsibility of the board as a whole but is delegated to one of
the editors. This means that the board does not always get to see things
before they go to press, and this is true for the detailed contents of the
journal as a whole. Second, I would ask you all to bear in mind that Simi
Linton *was invited* to respond to Colin's article and to have a look at
what Simi herself said. In the circumstances, whilst it is inappropriate to
be discussing Colin's motivations for writing what he did, it is even more
so to do this out of the context of Simi's response. As Greg's helpful
comments suggest, this is an indicator that the board does have editorial
integrity, and although Richard was being hypothetical, I am annoyed at the
suggestions.
I am absolutely in support of the various comments about the need to avoid
personal slanging matches in public fora, and I think it is possible to
disagree without being so personal and without being wishy-washy. However, I
am angry that this has turned into a personal slanging match because I agree
with Susan that the issue of where disability studies is going, who dictates
the academic agenda, and whether this agenda is exclusionary are serious
issues. But they are issues that every discipline has to face up to at some
time, and I think they *should* be discussed publicly. It seems to me that
the voices of dissent are getting louder and growing in number, and the
tension between activists and academics remains all too apparent. I would
suggest that this may be because these voices have not been heard in the
past and so they are becoming increasingly angry, and because activists and
academics do not dialogue enough with each other in a climate of mutual
respect. I think an overview of the disability studies literature and its
hierarchies over the past three decades bears witness to all of this.
On the relationship between feminism and disability studies, I think there
is evidence of a hierarchical organisation in both spheres. Though it is
true that some male theorists (including Colin - see Exploring Disabilty,
1999) acknowledge that feminism has an important contribution to make to
disability studies, I have yet to see evidence of a concentrated and
up-front attempt by dominant male theorists to include feminist work into
disability theory. When feminist ideas are used, this is often done without
crediting the source of these ideas. When this is done on a sustained basis
it must be seen as anti-feminist. Generally, feminism gets a token mention
and is often misrepresented, misinterpreted and decontextualised because
men's accounts of feminism often fail to see, or don't want to see that
feminism comes 'from women's lives' (to quote Sandra Harding). Though
feminist scholarship in disability studies is undoubtedly on the increase,
it is seen to be 'women's stuff', and as such it is marginal unless it toes
the malestream line. It is common to see comments such as 'feminism has lost
its way'. What I think this means is that feminism has lost its anger and
its passion and its political clout and so it is seen to be no longer
politically radical. There is of course no mention of the fact that maybe
feminism has recognised that the strategies it employed in the past no
longer work and so feminism has had to regroup in order to continue to chip
away at inequality. Personally. I think feminism has matured in that it
recognises the plurality of women and it seeks to dialogue across
difference. Feminists of different persuasions are generally very careful
and considered in their critiques of each other in academia and as a result
I find these critiques to be richer and more progressive because they don't
shut down debate.
If it is true that disability studies can only grow from a (narrowly
conceived) centre, and that students are told what to think rather than
allowed to ask questions, then I fear for disability studies because that is
a mark of a closed system and closed systems very quickly meet their death.
I personally think that disability studies has a great need for its margins
because without them, the centre cannot be radical and visionary enough in
achieving its stated inclusionary goals.
Best wishes
Mairian
--
Mairian Corker
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Language Group
School of Education
Kings College London
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|