I might have been being a teeny-weeny bit sarcastic/ironic in response to what i found an objectionable and offensive line of argument.
Of course language is central to the construction and constitution of pathological bodies of knowledge from which prejudice, discrimination and oppression derive. It is through language that we articulate, understand, explain and strategise for change.
At the same time, and had the Magill's mail sought to reflect on this there is a point here, we (by we I mean at least a significant proportion of the list - my apologies if this is presumptious) are wordsmiths in one way or another. Language, particularly in academia, is the central focus of what we do. There is a danger here, then, that we reify language, as I believe Queer Theory does, at the expense of a more balanced dialectic between language and the material world. We become involved in overcomplex and distracting language games - though I don't think this strand did this overmuch - and dissolve real people and real lives into concepts that we deploy, dissect and dissemble. Elements of 'political correctness' with words are an example of this.
It seems to me that ANY language of disability is problematic - the -ability starts with a DIS! Whilst we should be sensitive to how language creates/reinforces pathology, and particularly amongst those who do not reflect on its use, and we should seek to develop language that empowers and positively represents, we should avoid what i admit to being guilty of - letting my fascination with language and ideas, nuance and concepts, lead me into a language game that constitutes a separate place to the real conditions of the 'lifeworlds' within which disabled people (I use that term because it puts disabled to the forefront - I know that is problematic but it also reminds us disability as a social phenomena is urgently so) live, work, socialise, dream and do what everyone does, except with impairments that additionally constrain within a disabling world.
Bit preachy I guess, perhaps I should stick with the invective!
Paul
Paul Reynolds
Senior Lecturer in Politics and Sociology
Centre for Studies in nthe Social Sciences
Edge Hill College
St Helens Road
Ormskirk
Lancs L394QP
Tel: 01695 584370
email: [log in to unmask]
>>> "MaryAnn O'Toole" <[log in to unmask]> 02/08 2:39 pm >>>
on 2/8/02 5:01 AM, Paul Reynolds at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> After all, language has no bearing on the construction of cultures of
> oppression, prejudice, discrimination etc. It plays no role in reinforcing
> pathological notions of difference, or indeed reinforcing both subjective and
> external notions of belonging, equality and justice.
Paul,
I would argue that our culture is defined by its use and application of
language. The documentation of oppression and prejudice is revealed in the
language as are the very definitions of social groups. If language does not
the main conveyer of social attitudes then please share how you think these
cultural understandings are conveyed?
Mare
--
MaryAnn "Mare" O'Toole
Director of Academic Computing
The Art Institute of Boston at
Lesley University
700 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02215
617 585-6661
otoole@aiboston
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
---
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|