Very well put - couldn't agree more. I've thought about signing off from
this list recently (not been on it long) but like Paul could see that though
I dislike the style of the argument, there are valid points hidden.
Joss McLeod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Reynolds" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: This one is for the academics and you know who you are- it's
our world too!
The mail that has been flying about over the last week is possibly some of
the most unpleasant, abusive, prejudiced, pathological and divisive I have
read. In no way can it claim to be 'voicing' difference, although it might
be voicing frustration, because abuse and prejudice are the root to the very
thing most people on the list begin with - a rejection of dominant and
prevailing notions of disability. A few thoughts:
1. Deserving and undeserving disabilities - the social model identities a
disabling society. It has a more problematic relationship with individuals
who are shaped and moulded by that society. Disability presupposes
individual difference as a basis for different social inequality, treatment,
regard of dignity and justice or injustice. Personally I have difficulties
with the concept of impairment because as soon as you conceive impairment
you are making implicit assumptions about what is impaired from or in
comparison to, but equally I recognise you need some way of drawing a line
between disability and other forms of inequality/oppression/experience.
Appeals to medicine to distinguish what is real impairment and what is not -
to comment on the dyslexia/invisible disabilities discussion, seems to me
profoundly problematic as it uses a tool hitherto used pathologically to
discrimate and divide. I don't say that there is no medical basis for
judging impairment, but I do say you have to be careful not to make the very
mistakes you criticise in others.
Whilst I have some sympathy with the argument that the contemporary
'therapy' discourse may produce categories of impairment - the US example of
the spread of personal therapy offers an example - but its still problematic
(I apolgise for overusing the term!) to draw a line between deserving and
undeserving disabilities - which, after all, able bodied modernity has
hitherto done that ie locking away disabled people but being more
sympathetic to war wounded people. There are three reasons for this:
A. Its divisive and offensive to those who are disabled by society and
subjectively experience a difference they self-define as an impairment.
Since disabled people have argued that their subjective experience makes
their voice unique and informed, and that it has been suppressed by
able-bodied society, to then say 'you are not disabled enough' is a real
problem. I would never say all disabled people have similar experience and
so should be considered the same, or seek to create a hierarchy that divides
groups into deserving and undeserving. That does not mean I do not have some
sympathy with the argument that some impairments are more invisible and
spoken for or silenced than others - but the answer is not lash out and
disallow other impairments, its to understand their roots, experience and
meaning as a prelude to arguing for a stronger critical engagement with
able-bodiedness.
B. It is politically divisive - if you really think the people on this list
are your enemies and not open to constructive critical discussion - have a
look around!
C. Allowing self-definition of disabled identity does leave disability open
to be colonised by those who are 'not' disabled, but its a difficult call to
'disallow' disabilities. Either you argue the dividing line and thereby
define an objective scale to measure impairment from non-impairment, or you
respect the subjective with its problems and recognise that there is a
constant tension between subjective experience/self-identity, the problem of
disability (and impairment) becoming terrains of dispute, and the need to
maintain the specificty of the politics and identity of disability. Its an
ongoing tension that we can explore in conversation together. One thing is
clear to me, the tenor of the discussion of the last few days is just not
helpful - in tone or rigidity.
2. The Manner of Comment - One thing I am more sure of is that the manner
of discussion on this list should change. Unless you can provide me with
evidence that a particular impairment precludes respect for others and a
sense of decorum in discussion with those who, after all, are attempting to
contribute to a more different friendly world (its why they are here). Being
frank in an opinion does not have to be rude. Disagreeing, quite strongly,
does not have to be abusive. This is NOT a disability or impairment issue.
It might reflect anger, but is it really appropriate to be venting anger
here, withy potential allies? Three things (again) I can say with some
confidence
A. Someone looking at the recent list thinking about joining it and not
being very confident would say - no way - especially if the first thing they
read id, you are not worthy of recognition
B. It always alienates rather than advances your position if you abuse.
C. Abuse detracts from the value of your voice. I've actually re-read a lot
of the last weeks mails, and there are some really interesting things we
should listen to, but 'kill me now' and '[you are not disabled' just
obscured the value of the comment.
3. (Yes, I am obsessed by three's) - Not all academics are parasitic
bastards! - Some are disabled. Some have spent a substantial amount of
personal and professional time trying to contribute. Some, yes, are
insensitive and careerist, but not all - and resorting to 'This one is for
the academics and you know who you are- it's our world too!' is offensive,
prejudiced and pathological, the very attitudes that sustain disability
prejudice and discrimination. Yes, there are a whole set of issues around
non-disabled people's participation in disability research and politics, but
'This one is for the academics and you know who you are- it's our world
too!' is not raising issues, its sloganising. Let me let you into a secret
most of you will know - researching in the area of disability in not
swimming in money or status, and most careerists would find better fields to
plough. Intellectuals always have a particular role to play in debate and
politics - and it should never be an easy and comfortable one for them.
Academics are often professionalised and institutionalised intellectuals
(and both of those are often substractions from their thinking!) but they
are human's, they do care, they do try, they do feel. In short, 'This one is
for the academics and you know who you are- it's our world too!' is really
not helpful.
Sorry if I have been long on this - I just hate to see good people screw up
an otherwise important, nay vital tool for developing a common strategic
politics whilst accepting and understanding difference in identity,
experience and politics. Those who know me will know this sort of optimistic
and gentility is through grated teeth and Shopenhauerian miserableness and
nihilism, but I am trying!
Best Wishes, even to those who disdain academics!
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.
________________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.
|
