I think there is healthy disagreement about what constitutes a
disability studies perpective. Mairian Corker and I would dsagree with
Lennied and Simi, among other differences. So the last thing I want is to
have any group claiming to represent the "right" theoretical approach.
We test the correctness of any theoretical approach against our own
experience, asking whether the theory conforms to and illuminates our
experience. A theoretical approach that denies certain aspects of
experience excludes those whose experience doesn't conform. I have yet to
see a disability studies theory that is sufficiently elastic not to
exclude some PWDs, but I have seen disability studies scholars attempting
to impress (not present ) their theory on others. It reminds me of the
othe SDS, of which I was a member for a short time. I don't know whether
itwas climbing the stairs to Tom and Casey's apartment, or once there
sitting through interminable discussions of purifying theory, that was
more dispiriting.
On Thu, 1 Oct
1998, Phyllis Rubenfeld wrote:
> Hi Anita,
> I hope that you'll have the opportunity to view the polio film ASAP;
> would like to hear your thinking. My opinion of the film has
> litttle to do with my personal experiences-I don't think that this
> is the issue-it doesn't have a Disability Studies
> perspective-I don't think it matters whether our individual
> experiences are represented-it does however matter whether the
> health/impairment/disability experiences are presented within a
> Disability Studies construct. Although we've had different experiences
> we experienced many of the same ableist/medical model offenses-we
> really share more than not. Don't you agree?
> Take Care,
> Phyllis
>
> On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Anita Silvers wrote:
>
> > The idea of something like an antidefamation league sounds interesting.
> > Taking this tack would address the problem I raised antidefamation leagues
> > oppose demeaning or false portrayals of the group, but steer very, very
> > clear of pronouncements on any representation that is a matter of dispute
> > or interpretation withing the community.
> >
> > Re: the polio film, what I
> > know so far is that one post-polio person thinks it
> > doesn't reflect
> > our experience, one pp person does, I haven't seen it, and there are
> > thousands and thousands more pp persons out there, all with their own
> > lives and experiences, and all worthy of having their experiences and
> > theories respected. It is likely the three of
> > us had somewhat different experiences (I know that Phyllis and I had very
> > different
> > experiences of the same rehab hospital - in different years). It is even
> > more likely that the three of us have somewhat different theoretical
> > approaches to disability (as is to be encouraged - otherwise, how would
> > one refine and otherwise improve theory).
> >
> > So one would want to impose quite strict groundrules on the proposed
> > committee, I would imagine. I imagine the committee could address such
> > claims as one I saw recently: "Before 1950, no child born with spina
> > bifida lived." That is a false claim that renders all the 7 to 13 year
> > olds with spina bifida I met in the rehab hospital in 1950 invisible. I
> > suppode the committee also could advise about accurate representation of
> > how Renaissance Venetians mobilized when their feet were too sore to walk.
> > As for ER, I gave up worrying about accurate representation on that show
> > when one of the physicians told a nurse to get an NG tube for a patient
> > who needed mechanical assistance to breath. No, this wasn't a plot about
> > medical malpractice.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Lennard Davis wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > I'm looking forward to the letter from the director of the documentary, as
> > > well as to the documentary itself. But I think the main point is not that
> > > there were people who were experts about polio, or even people with polio
> > > and post-polio who were consulted, but that directors, producers, and
> > > writers should feel that they need to talk with folks who are familiar with
> > > the overarching issues about disability. I agree with Phyllis that the
> > > disability studies perspective is one that needs to be acknowledged as
> > > legitimate. I'm not counseling that there be thought police or required
> > > oversight by a monolithic group of censors, but that there be something
> > > more than the current attitude which is that a writer like the one on ER
> > > could talk to, through an interpreter, a few Deaf people and feel as if he
> > > or she did his work. In other words, we need to help the media think out
> > > loud about the things they are producing; we need to give them resources.
> > > The current situation is one in which disability issues appear in the
> > > media incredibly frequently, specifically in studio movies, and there is no
> > > sense at all of accountability. The same stereotypes are promulgated
> > > repeatedly. I just watched "Dangerous Beauty" on video, and one of the
> > > Venetian aristocrats, played by Fred Ward, is shown using a wheelchair (in
> > > Renaissance Venice?!!). He is doing so because he has sores on his feet,
> > > and he is the only one of all the men in the movie who has a "paternal"
> > > relationship to Veronica Franca, the courtesan and poet whom the movie is
> > > about. All the other men have sexual relations with her. Instead, she
> > > washes his feet. OK. That's only one example. I'm sure you all have more.
> > > So what is the next step? I think that, through an already existing
> > > organization like the Society for Disability Studies, a committee should be
> > > formed to look into (sounds pretty bureaucratic already) the possibility of
> > > setting up a standing body that would publicize its own existence to, at
> > > least, the major studios and television production companies. Some high
> > > profile publicity should be distributed to the major print and visual
> > > media. There might even be some investigation into what protections are
> > > afforded by the ADA for defamatory or demeaning images of PWD (I'm only
> > > guessing here).
> > >
> > > It's always easier to speculate on paper than to take action, but why
> > > should organizations that represent other identity groups have
> > > anti-defamation committees and PWD not?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > > Lennard
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
