The Disability-Research Discussion List

Managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds

Help for DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH  March 2004

DISABILITY-RESEARCH March 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Casus Shelli Belli [?]

From:

Shelley Lynn Tremain <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Shelley Lynn Tremain <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:09:58 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (300 lines)

Bruce,

In my posts (which have motivated such emotive, and near frantic,
responses), I used the terms "disingenuous," "dishonesty," and "abuse of
power".  Thanks to Dan Goodley who "poisoned the well" (as philosophers
would say) these terms were given the rendition of "a personality attack," a
rendition that was (uncritically) adopted by others, including yourself.

In your post below, you use the terms "lowest," "least persuasive," and
"least ethical".  Thus, my question for you is this: what constitutes the
salient difference in the moral character of the words you chose in your
post and the ones I used in mine?

Best regards,
Shelley Tremain

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Henderson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Casus Shelli Belli [?]


> Thank you for a wonderfully balanced (or so it seems to me) rehearsal of
> the background to what feels like a war zone at the moment.  As a relative
> newbie to the list and to the field, I have been disheartened by the
degree
> of personal sniping of some of the posters.  While I now understand the
> history, I still feel that such ad hominem attacks tend to get in the way
of
> good rhetoric--rhetorical theorists from Aristotle on up all agree that
the ad
> hominem is the lowest, least persuasive and least ethical mode of
> argument.  I'm not against the use of emotions in posting--but there is a
> difference between expressing emotions and launching attacks--
> particularly when many of us don't have the same history and it seems
> like some posters are simply rehearsing old wounds, perhaps continuing
> fights (not arguments) that might better be conducted in private
> correspondence.  No doubt I, in turn, will be dragged over the coals for
this
> posting.  Oh well.
>
> In any case, I found m99m's acccount a really useful lesson in disability
> studies history--one I'll save for when I prepare for my prelims (no irony
> intended).
>
> Thanks again,
> Bruce Henderson
> Professor of Speech Communication, Ithaca College
> Ph.D. Student in Disability Studies, UIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: m99m <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:09 pm
> Subject: Casus Shelli Belli [?]
>
> > Casus Shelli Belli [?]
> >
> > One reason for continuing unease and possibly 'aggressive'
> > behaviour on
> > this list is the perception that there are certain 'no-go' areas, i.e.
> > topics of importance, that have been approached intermittently by
> > variouscontributors over the past nine years, and from which they
> > have been thrown
> > back by vigorous, perhaps abreactive, force. And if some well-
> > mannered and
> > consensus-seeking lurkers think they have seen anything nasty
> > recently, "they ain't seen nuttin" compared with the shenanigans that
> > occurred much earlier!
> >
> > (Older denizens might recall a certain rabbi, whose habit during
> > severalmonths on the list was to hammer his opponents into the
> > ground with any
> > available blunt instrument, then haul them out again by the hair
> > in order
> > to apologise for this treatment, and then hammer them in again to show
> > there were no hard feelings. Some of his actual arguments were quite
> > reasonable, or at least interesting; but the quality was often
> > overlookedin the general panic when he was cleaving someone's head
> > in twain).
> >
> > A longstanding hot topic has been the Social Model(s) of
> > Disability, or
> > SMODs. When this list started, it specified a particular interest
> > in, or
> > desire to serve, discussion among people working in or with the
> > SMOD (which
> > was, in that period, supposed to be one, rather than multiple).
> > However,because the list took (or commandeered...) the title
> > "Disability-Research",
> > it was not always obvious that the space was expected to be used
> > mainly by
> > users of, or believers in, a SMOD or SMODs.
> >
> > Further, while the use of a particular model is hardly obnoxious
> > in itself,
> > on several occasions when questions were raised about SMODs, a
> sharp
> > polarisation appeared, because SMODs were being used basically in
> two
> > different ways by their adherents. Some participants were willing to
> > discuss SMODs as models that could and should be used for doing
> better
> > research, more inclusive, participative and emancipatory research, as
> > against various other models which they considered gave poor or false
> > results because of the weak or superceded paradigm on which they were
> > based. There were other list participants for whom the SMOD was
> > not a model
> > for research, but a battle cry, the slogan on their banner, the
> > idea that
> > had turned their life around, and was now a sacred dogma,
> > definitely not up
> > for discussion.
> >
> > The 'Believer' position could (though it never did, to my
> > recollection)have drawn upon the historical fact that a central
> > idea in SMODs has been
> > around for some millennia in various parts of the world, i.e. the
> > view that
> > society, or the behaviour of a local community, or the (mis)design
> > of the
> > social environment, can play a significant part in generating
> > disability.Believers could have taken comfort from the fact that
> > the 'explanation'
> > embodied in SMODs had proved enlightening to people in many places
> and
> > generations, so it was unlikely to be much harmed, or to
> > disappear, merely
> > through a little discussion in an academic research corner. (But
> > Believerswho feel that someone is scratching their central plank
> > are seldom easily
> > comforted).
> >
> > On the other hand, there were (and are) people doing disability
> > researchwho have felt uncomfortable with what has sometimes
> > appeared to be the
> > exaggerated importance attributed to SMODs, the elevation of
> > Believers to
> > become thought police, and the tendency to fence off large areas
> > of life
> > and declare it out of bounds to all research not approved by a small
> > section of the research community. Normally-reasonable researchers
> > can turn
> > very stroppy when they see part of 'their' patch thus being
> > sequestered or
> > (mis)appropriated, and when they perceive that terminology is being
> > manipulated in a way that ejects them smoothly down the trash chute.
> >
> > Further, significant changes have occurred during the past nine
> > years, so
> > that conflict over SMODs in 2004 is not identical to conflict in
> > 1995. (But
> > this is where it gets very difficult to give a fair and neutral
> > account...)
> > Five years ago, two major figures published views about SMODs.  Vic
> > Finkelstein, long one of the most combative proponents of the
> > British SMOD,
> > denounced what he saw as a sneaky tendency to take the cutting
> > edge off the
> > SMOD and rectify it to fit comfortably into a society that was
> > just as
> > unfair and disabling as it had ever been. He saw the need to
> > insist on the
> > cutting edge, the need for radical restructuring of society.
> > Meanwhile, the
> > French philosopher and disability historian, Henri-Jacques Stiker,
> > suggested that the British SMOD had served its turn and was now
> > past its
> > sell-by date - its particular construction belonged to a certain
> > era, but
> > the world was moving on. There was also a groundswell of voices
> > complainingthat people's bodies were important, but they weren't
> > being allowed to talk
> > about them in ways they wanted to do, because some people feared
> > that to do
> > so would bore holes in the SMODship, and let the dreaded Medical
> > Modellerscome pouring in again.
> >
> > Soon afterward, SMODs took some further jolts from researchers. From
> > debates focused around ICIDH-2 revision (which was looking into
> > ways of
> > accommodating Disability Movement inputs, while not giving up the
> > basicbiomedical paradigm), Jerome Bickenbach and colleagues
> > suggested that SMODs
> > had been useful as campaign slogans to achieve some Disability
> > Movementobjectives, but the dyadic approach (Impairment /
> > Disability) was not
> > sufficient for describing the complex observed realities of people
> > withimpairments as they undertook activities for themselves or
> > attempted to
> > participate in a social environment, nor was the SMOD
> > operationalisable as
> > a research tool. Tom Shakespeare, who had earlier engaged in vigorous
> > defence of SMODs, did some rethinking, decided that there had been
> > enoughexaggerated thesis / antithesis battles, and published an
> > appeal for moving
> > forward to positions that better represented the realities as now
> > perceived.
> > These last few paragraphs are grossly truncated as an overview --
> > and I've
> > omitted references, for the moment -- but anyhow, there seems to
> > have been
> > some significant shift of academic ground over a decade. Further,
> > recentyears saw some shifts of emphasis among North American non-
> > biomedicaldisability studies. I won't attempt any description -
> > but it appears that
> > the "British SMOD" c. 1970s to 1990s has had a rather modest
> > impact on
> > North American disability discourse, and that impact is hardly
> > growing; it
> > might be declining.
> >
> > These trends (which could be much more accurately described, and then
> > heavily argued about, in 50,000 words rather than 500) have left
> > quite a
> > number of believers bruised and bloodied, and researchers
> > uncertain how
> > things are going to pan out, or how they ought to pan out. The
> > trends have,
> > however, had very little calm discussion on this list. There has
> > only been
> > some intermittent sniping, and an occasional flare-up.
> >
> > Mark Priestley, who really has spent a considerable part of the
> > past decade
> > tending to the more tedious aspects of keeping the list wheels
> > turning,unjamming the technical glitches, assisting people who
> > want to join, or
> > leave, or get their dog registered, or whatever, posting good-humoured
> > housekeeping notes, and very occasionally asking specific people
> > either to
> > cool it or to take a break and come back when they're feeling more
> > cheerful, has (I think) no less right than anyone else to post
> > information,as well as to express his personal views about
> > disability and research, on
> > the list he co-founded.
> >
> > Shelley Tremain has the advantage of being trained in philosophical
> > argument and experienced in turning a radical gaze on disability
> > research --
> > but these assets have not seemed to find workable ground,
> > traction or
> > counterpart on this particular list recently. That's a pity. There
> > havebeen earlier debates here, in which the input of a trained
> > philosopher was
> > badly needed to untangle things, point out the different usage of
> > terms,drop some further ideas in and so on. We didn't always have
> > a philosopher
> > to hand, unless Anita Silvers spared the time for it.
> >
> > Participants out there may not agree that SMODs are at present in
> > a phase
> > of decline; but I think a lot of people would agree that there is
> > turbulence in this area, and it is not easy to discuss. That is, I
> > believe,a major factor behind the recent sniping and discomfort. I
> > didn't achieve a
> > neutral and balanced account above, but as some recent participants
> > asked "what's going on?!", and I feel some empathy with both Mark and
> > Shelley, I gave some sort of account.
> >
> > Feel free to disagree, either with the account, or with its
> > pertinence to
> > recent business!
> >
> > [But, as Mark sometimes pleads:  you don't have to take up
> > bandwidth by
> > repeating this over-long post underneath your further remarks!!]
> >
> > m99m
> >
> > ________________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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager