That does not mean that a certain consencus view should be adopted as an
absolute paradigm in the face of challenge from new thinking introduced from
the psyciatric surviors movement or from neuro-diversity.
Any healthy movement has not to fossilise at a particular state in its
development but be responsive and not alienating to those whe find it almost
as hegemonic as what it sets out to replace
Perhaps I used the wrong images of a one party state. Let us compare it to
the catholic church which may have replaced orthodoxy but does not see the
reformation as a necessary and good thing.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Hazel V. Peasley
> Sent: 23 July 2002 11:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 2003 logo
>
>
> I haven't denied anyone their right to 'independent thought', freedom of
> speech etc. I have asserted the individual's right versus the
> collective if
> they choose to 'stand' alone. But then they face the consequences of
> 'standing alone'. My only denial of this would be to those who incite
> others to hatred & violence against others (racists, eugenicists,
> fundamentalists - of all faiths, including Christians etc.)
> whether alone or
> collectively.
>
> It is my view that in any social / political movement there has to be
> accountability - not only from the leadership to the body of the movement,
> but also from individuals to the body & leadership. I have just said that
> if Disabled People want a voice within the Movement or claim to
> be a part of
> it, then they need to belong to it at grassroots level. I have also argued
> for people being heard within the Movement & agreeing to abide by the
> collective view in matters that are pivotal to the Movement. I've argued
> against Disabled People riding with it when it suits & in their own
> individual interest but attacking it as soon as there is something they
> disagree with. If the tenets of the movement become untenable to the
> individual then the individual can leave. If they become untenable to the
> majority the movement will collapse.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lillie,Timothy H [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 21 July 2002 15:30
> To: Hazel V. Peasley; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: 2003 logo
>
>
> >
> > If individuals 'opt out' because they don't like their local
> > organisation,
> > or whatever, then they, in my view forfeit their say with
> > respect to the
> > Movement.
> >
>
> This seems needlessly doctrinaire. Whatever happened to at least a nod to
> independent thought, even if it is not appreciated by the
> dominant paradigm.
> Those who refer to themselves and their friends as "the" Movement ARE the
> dominant paradigm for themselves and their friends.
>
> Tim Lillie
>
> ________________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.
|