Hello again, Maria,
Let me clarify a remark I made in my previous post. I said: "I, for one,
don't understand the logic behind the term 'disability rights'." This was
an unfortunate way to put what I wanted to say because, of course, if one
refers to "people with disabilities," the language of "disability rights" is
consistent. I should have said that if one assumes the social model, uses
the term "disabled people," and defines disability according to the model,
then the term "disability rights" is inconsistent (as I argued in a post
yesterday). I haven't read the decision of Huck v. Odeon Theatre, but I'm
sure that it did not assume this model of disability, and probably used the
term "people with disabilities."
I hope this clarifies the remark in the previous post.
Best regards,
Shelley Lynn Tremain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shelley Lynn Tremain" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: European research agendas
> 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.
>
________________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.
|