Hello Dan,
I see it as having gone the other way - from initial misunderstandings and dismissal to an extent to something of a debate. For me what Larry was saying was partly a joke, and partly had a serious point about keeping track of the proliferation of theoretical concepts within a field. Academics do have a tendency for neologisms conceptually - for example 'D&G' seemed to come up with a few every time they wrote something. Learning the practice language of a community of practice can be difficult, but to keep up 'interactional expertise' and with ongoing changes, one needs to be highly involved in said communities of practice. This can be difficult in academia due to the very abelism you have mentioned.
Interesting what people read into what is being said eh?
Damian
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 25/4/18, Daniel Goodley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Subject: Re: dis/ability
To: "Damian Milton" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 25 April, 2018, 9:41
Hi
folks
The
perhaps inevitable move from debate to dismissal over the
last couple of days has reminded me why I rarely post to
this list. But, I am a sucker for a discussion so here goes
...
In claiming
dis/ability as a useful conceptual tool I am not downplaying
disability activism nor disability language or the political
discourse of disability. In contrast, I think dis/ability
adds something to the politics of disability. One of these
contributions is to think about ability and ableism at
exactly the same time as we think of disability and
disablism. So, in order to think about inclusive education,
dis/ability reminds that schools function to promote
(particular kinds and narrow forms of ) ability that work
against the inclusion of diverse learners (including, often,
disabled young people). To challenge disablism (the
exclusion of disabled learners from mainstream schools) we
also need to smash ableism (on which the school system is
based): we need to engage with dis/ability. I don't this
is a particularly controversial statement and, to reiterate,
offer it as an additional conceptual tool to disability
studies and activism.
There is nothing more useful than a
good theory. And, of course, some will find dis/ability
useful while others will consider it to be distracting.
Either way I hope we can continue to debate together, to
look after each other when we disagree and to create a
community in which all voices are represented and
respected.
All
bestDan
On 25 April 2018 at 08:16,
Damian Milton <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Larry and Dan know each
other well, I find the instant tone policing of someone
making a comment inappropriate too.
Damian
Sent from my
iPad
On 25 Apr 2018, at 05:04, Brown, Nicole <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Dear all,
I am sorry to say that but I
find this offensive and inappropriate within a scholarly
debate.
It's okay to disagree, but
not in this kind of tone.
Neil and Devvs, I am following
your discussion with great interest. It shows the
"spectrum" of disabilities. and I'd like
reiterate my earlier point - terminology and definitions
depend on personal views and attitudes towards disability.
Neil's dyslexia example demonstrates that: some people
see it as a bi-ability, whereas others will struggle to find
the positive in being neurodiverse.
With kind regards
Nicole
Mag. Nicole Brown MTeach, DipTrans, SFHEA
Lecturer in Education
Academic Head of Learning and Teaching
Department of Culture, Communication and Media
UCL Institute of Education
20
Bedford Way
London,
WC1H 0AL
Office: Room 605
Telephone:+44 20 7612 6032
Mobile: +44 78 113 128 38
From: The Disability-Research
Discussion List <[log in to unmask]
AC.UK> on behalf of Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:14:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
AC.UK
Subject: Re: dis/ability
Bollox me old pal, me old
beauty.
Whenever I imagine that I have fully mastered the art of
talking academic bollox, along comes a new variant CJD that
is to say Confusing Junk Dis/course.
Larry
From: The Disability-Research
Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-RESEARCH@
JISCMAIL.AC.UK]
On Behalf Of Daniel Goodley
Sent: 24 April 2018 09:56
To: [log in to unmask]
AC.UK
Subject: Re: dis/ability
Morning all. Interesting
debate.
For me, dis/ability does
not undermine social theories of disability nor prioritise
ability. Dis/ability acknowledges the ways in which dominant
culture polarises, sifts and separates people along
artificially conflated lines. Dis/ability
recognises the ways in which disability and ability rely on
one another as they constructed through various modes of
cultural reproduction. I also think that this term reminds
us of the work that disability does to ability: to contest,
challenge, deconstruct
and expand our understandings of ability in ways that are
not dependent on individualistic framings of what it means
to be able.
Dis/ability is, then, a
coming of age term: a recognition that disability studies
scholarship has much to say about disability (of course) and
ability (much needed) and the stuffiness of stuff that
exists in between the two.
All best
Dan
On 24 April 2018 at 09:48,
Grainne M. Collins <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by
the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
(www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
disability-research-request@ jiscmail.ac.uk
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in
to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the
Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to disability-research-request@
jiscmail.ac.uk
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/
disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to
this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the
Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to disability-research-request@
jiscmail.ac.uk
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/
disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to
this web page.
--
Professor Dan
GoodleyDirector of
Research, School of Education
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/education
Co-director, iHuman (The Research Institute
for the Study of the Human)http://ihuman.group.shef.ac.uk/
Visiting Professor,
Ghent Universityhttps://telefoonboek.ugent.be/en/people/802002635709
Phone: +44 (0) 114 222
8185Web: https://www.shef.ac.uk/education/staff/academic/goodleyd
New ESRC funded
research project
Life, Death,
Disability and the Human: Living Life to the
Fullest. https://livinglifetothefullest.org/
Latest
publication:Dan Goodley, Kirsty Liddiard
& Katherine Runswick-Cole (2018) Feeling
disability: theories of affect and critical disability
studies, Disability & Society, 33:2, 197-217, OPEN
ACCESShttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2017.1402752
Postal:The
University of Sheffield241
Glossop RoadSheffield
S10 2GW
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|