My opinion remains unchanged, you do not demonstrate to my satisfaction that
you are other than I suppose you to be, then again perhaps I do not
demonstrate the same to you, we have a mutually ireconcilable stance I fear
which is not resolved by you judging my judgements to be insults when you
know nothing of the intent.
If you did know something about AS yu might realise my comments are not
intended to cause offence they are simply the way that things apper to me,
and I am saying what I sincerely believe needs to be said.
If you do not like it I am sorry.
This is precisely where AS and NT conflict in that, that which we call
blunt, calls into being a sort of NT paranoia where one presupposes the mind
state of ones opponent in a discours whereas when we enter into a discours
we do not unconciosly call into our minds the mindstate of our opponent as
we have a defecit in this area which is well reserched.
Incidentally I am using the word paranoia not as an insult but a supposition
of mind state based on observation of taking things to a greater extreme
than they were intended. I cannot as I have said really know what you are
thinking.
Any way that apart please attempt to clip the old quotes from your replies
as they tend to pile up and clog bandwidth.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Reynolds
> Sent: 19 September 2002 17:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Disability Studies: Theory, Policy and
> Practice
>
>
> I feel constrained to comment, though I do not wish to extend the
> less constructive part of the discussion, on the recent line of
> discussion.
>
> Madeleine, I agree with much of what you say - indeed I seem to
> remember saying broadly similar things in my mail. There is a lot
> about academia that we can address critically and as an academic
> I do. You are right that rigour should not be a means of
> promoting 'elitism' and oppression. I think academic conventions
> are followed to help show where knowledge is from, but I agree
> some academics use both them and their language to reinforce
> closures, and institutions are only a small step along the way of
> fully responding to the diverse needs of different disabled
> people. I do not at any time, as represented by Larry, claim
> academia is equal at access or in its culture or processes of
> operation. We do need to act to ensure these excesses are restricted.
>
> At the same time, it does no service to let a blanket and rather
> careless, sweeping set of generalisations that are pathological
> rather than evidenced and accusatory rather than inclusive to
> remain unanswered, partly because it is inappropriate for that
> sort of statement not to be contested politically and partly
> because it allows stereotypes and slogans that other far less
> sympathetic souls use ideologically. It is that which I object
> to, not critical discussions about the structures and
> institutions of academia.
>
> Larry, according to you, I personally am ill-informed, elitist,
> lacking in understanding, superior and typical of an exclusionary
> culture. You know nothing of me or my work or views other than
> probably three postings I have made on the list. These are
> insults, not criticisms and I am surprised the moderator has not
> commented. I do not claim expert knowledge of the disabilities
> you identify, though I would not regard myself as totally
> ill-informed., and there is nothing in what you say about your
> learning that can support these as anything other than insults
> intended to cause offence.
>
> I have never claimed you to be anything, and singularly did not
> claim you to be intellectually inferior, and that again is a slur
> and an insult. What I will say, quite openly is that I feel your
> mail adopted an unfair position to a lot of people who are
> committed to equality and social justice and who try to
> contribute to that through academic work, and who do not deserve
> this misrepresentation, and a number have responded by
> associating with this position.
>
> None of your claims challenge me - because there is a difference
> between denegrating and insulting someone and questioning them,
> and its not an academic distinction, and its not a disability
> issue. It is an issue of not pathologising people and having
> human respect for others that you engage with unless they act in
> a way that indicates contrary - issues important to all people
> but particularly resonant in respect of disability. It is both
> ironic and a pity that this is the position you choose to take.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Reynolds
> Senior Lecturer in Politics and Sociology
> Centre for Studies in the Social Sciences
> Edge Hill College
> St Helens Road
> Ormskirk
> Lancs L394QP
> Tel: 01695 584370
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
________________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.
|