Dear Maria,
As a resident and citizen of Canada who mobilizes against, and writes on,
disability, I would argue that one is not justified in making an overarching
claim like "In Canada, we speak of disability rights". You might do so,
many others who identify as activists might do so, and the official
governmentspeak (in Canada) on disability may use this language, but views,
conceptions, and political positions on disability in Canada are too diverse
to make this sort of appeal to uniformity. (I, for one, don't undertand the
logic behind the term "disability rights").
I think that in terms of politics, practice, and theory, this diversity of
conceptions with regard to disability is probably a very good thing: it
promises to keep the disability studies/theory which is emerging in Canada
interesting, open to revision, and subject to reconsideration and
redrafting. Without multivariance in perspectives, stances, and so on,
there is a tendency for non-mainstream theory (especially when social
movements become institutionalized within the university) to become
entrenched, stagnant, and unimaginative. Imagination, I would argue, is
essential for oppositional politics.
Unfortunately, this sort of conservative entrenchment is what I would say
has happened, and is happening, to British Disability Studies, or at least
the most dominant elements of it. Consider the CFP for a UK disability
studies conference that was recently circulated on this list. The theme of
the conference is basically the same - the social model - as the theme of
last year's conference of British Disability Studies. It seems that, at
most, *the name of the theme* has changed, along with *the name/identity of
the male keynote speaker*. British Disability Studies does not seem (or,
has not been, to this point) able to think 'outside of the box,' nor to shed
its male-dominated and pseudo-Marxist beginnings.
To return to the matter of language and conceptions of disability,... As far
as I'm concerned, when a government (Canadian, British, American, or
whatever) adopts or begins to adopt the language of a social movement, then
we (critical thinkers, activists, etc.) should become suspicious, should be
inclined to regard this as an effect, or strategy, of liberal
governmentality, which continually refashions itself in a practice of
auto-critique and subsequently recuperates that critique in the service of
certain economic, political, and social ends. (To use some old binary
language: "Co-optation".) Given that social existence in an increasing
number of geo-political spheres is conditioned by liberal governmentality,
we need (urgently, I would argue) to think more critically about whether
heretofore disability theory and anti-disability practice has been heading
in the right directions. Are we merely encouraging and contributing to the
recuperative aspects of liberal government? Myself, I think that most
disability theory and politics needs to be seriously rethought and
redirected.
Best regards,
Shelley Lynn Tremain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maria Barile" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: European research agendas
> Now I'm confuse, what is the difference between Civil Rights and
disability
> rights?
> If we look at the 1985 Chatter challenge in Canada of Huck vs. Odeon
> theater. The court made it clear that what was discriminatory was that the
> seating arrangement of Odeon did not provide equality (in terms of
> social model this would be disability not impairment). In Canada we speak
of
> disability rights. So how is that different than civil rights?
> Maria
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Benson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: European research agendas
>
>
> > That is possibly why during the campaign for the DDA in the UK people
> campaigned for Civil Rights for Disabled People
> >
> > Chris Benson
> > Legal Officer
> > The Disability Rights Commission
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shelley Lynn Tremain [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 23 January 2004 19:28
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: European research agendas
> >
> >
> > I think (not surprisingly) that you are both wrong.
> >
> > The term "disability rights" uses the term "disability" in the way that
> > proponents of the social model identify as an aspect of the medical
model:
> > namely, disability as a property of a person. The term "disability
rights"
> > is intended to mean that even people who have a disability deserve
rights
> > (economic, human, social, etc.) equal to those who don't have a
> disability.
> > Similarly, "women's rights" means that people who are women are
deserving
> of
> > the same rights that people who are not women have.
> >
> > This use of the term "disability" is inconsistent with the way that the
> > social model defines "disability".
> >
> > Shelley Lynn Tremain
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Priestley" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: European research agendas
> >
> >
> > Keith wrote...
> >
> > > When we campaign for "disability rights" we are for the human rights
> > of people who have been denied civil rights through no fault...
> >
> > > Mark, maybe you might like to add some more comments.
> >
> > ..err... no, I think that about sums it up for the moment...
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:42:31 -0800 , Shelley Lynn Tremain
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >What could "disability rights" possibly mean under the terms of your
> > social
> > >model? The right to be oppressed? The right to be discriminated
> > against?
> >
> > ________________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.
> >
> > ________________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.
>
________________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.
|
