Tom,
Following my previous email, which I wrote before reading your reply, I
realise that you are involved in grass roots action.
But have to agree with Liz's points around the way we develop our theories
and how we express ourselves. As all of us are responsible for developing
theoretical positions, it is important that we do not "slag off" (to use
your term) any organisation or person, and be disciplined in explaining our
positions and our reasons for doing so. We would not want anyone or any
other organisations not treating us seriously, and so we should seriously
engage with each other and not suggest that others are not similarly
seriously engaging with us, especially if we don't agree.
Best wishes
Flick
At 14:59 24/01/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Re. Jules comments
>
>Many people would say the roots of Stalinism are found in Lenin's work
>such as 'State and Revolution'. But let's not go there. We can agree
>to disagree about Lenin and Stalin, and obviously there are different
>schools of thought.
>
>Of course, we need both theory and action. Everyone should agree on
>that! I am interested that you argue that people are co-opted by the
>state and bureaucracy. In my view, if you work with the state and
>bureaucracy, you have the chance of changing things. You also risk
>dilution and submergence of course. I would argue that people like Judy
>Heuman and Paul Miller and their many disabled colleagues in the US have
>made a huge difference to disabled people's lives by taking up
>leadership positions within government and the state. But we still need
>people outside developing indedendent critique and mobilising on the
>streets!
>
>"DAN has its problems, but please don't attack those elements of the
>movement which are still doing something."
>
>Many people in the movement are doing many things. The Direct Action
>Network does not have the monopoly on action. We need constructive
>debate on all the things we are doing. I would like to see a
>constructive debate on DAN's strategy. In my view, it seems to have
>lost its way since the undoubted achievements of the early days. I hope
>I am wrong in that view.
>
>It is easy to slag off people who do theoretical work, and argue that
>only action can make a difference. At the risk of misappropriating Mao,
>this sounds a rather Maoist approach!
>
>Many people who do theoretical work also work in local organisations or
>contribute in other ways to make the world a better place for disabled
>people! In my experience disability academics are much more engaged in
>grassroots politics than many other academics, and that's how it should
>be. Yet it is fashionable to disparage academic work. What a shame.
>
>Of course, Liz, every social movement has its problems. The disability
>movement is no different. That's why we need constructive criticism and
>debate on lists like this one. I am sorry you think that to offer a
>challenge to particular activities or positions is the same as slagging
>the movement off. If the movement is to grow and survive, I would say
>that openness, and willingness to debate are critical factors.
>
>Tom
>
>________________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.
|