But there are no biological givens in understanding race. A quick look
through a random assortment of anthro textbooks will give anywhere
from 3 to i think it is 125 "racial" groupings. There has been no
valid biolgiocal underpinning articulated for racial groupings. I
think the sex question is similarly up for grabs when you look at the
historical conflation of gender identity and sexual orientation, and
the designation of 4 groups, or more in different places or times.
While I think the sex/gender and disability/impairment distinctions
help us - I think what we've been talking about in the last few weeks
on the lists is the constructed nature of impairment - not the least
of which is the diagnostic categories, and ideas about etiology that
shape our experience of body and function. Even a so-called
phenomenological approach to the experience of impaurment willnever be
able to be divorced from that baggage. simi linton
---Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> As I said when I introduced this topic, there are different views
> depending how one understands the social model. The usual way the
> distinction between biological and socially constructed properties
is laid
> out is as follows:
> BIOLOGICAL SOCIAL
> race ethnicity
> sex gender
> impairment disability
>
>
> Of course, current analysis points out that race (kwame appiah) and
sex
> (judith butler) have their constructed aspects. Shelley Tremain has a
> similar analysis of impairment.
>
> Recall that what the argument you call the "gene holocaust" has at
least
> the following
> elements
> a. children who will be impaired sould not be brought into the world
> becaus they will suffer from unending pain etc etc etc (The Baby
Jane Doe
> case)
> b. children who will be disabled should not be brought into the world
> because they will suffer from social rejection.
>
> Finally, if one claims that "ability" is a biological notion, than
one is
> leaving one's self open to the view that there are evolutionary and
other
> biological function principles that warrant species typical modes and
> levels of performance. You are correct in thinking that some people
> mistakenly take ability to be biologically grounded, but, of course,
> "ableism" doesn't capture that criticism as all. Instead, it is
read by
> the geenral public as being the mistake of expecting corporeally and
> cognitively anomalous people to be able.
>
> Another way of looking at this is to notice that sex and race are
neutral
> terms, but ability is an approbative.
>
>
>
>
> Notice that it is important to keep these arguments distinct because
they
> require different refutations. The refutation of argument a. is, at
least
> in the Baby Jane Doe case, that the claim is false - people with
most of
> the stigmatized conditions aren't in extraordinary pain, etc.
> The refutation of argument b. is that the claim is true but only
because
> of an injust system. The claim can be made false by changing the
system.
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Johnson Cheu wrote:
>
> > Anita-- Respectfully, I disagree with your notion that "ability"
doesn't
> > have a biological dimension. Perhaps I'm putting words in
someone's mouth
> > or thought, but it seems to me that the disability holocaust,
people who
> > advocate gene science, etc. under the guise of "giving the child
every
> > possible advantage" etc. has very much to do with the idea of a
supposed
> > biological configuration/property to the concept of ability, and by
> > extension of normalcy.
> >
> > Not that this helps the lex. debate, but for currency reasons, I'm
inclined
> > to agree with Simi on this one.
> >
> > --Johnson
> >
> > Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 06:11:00 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Request for Lexical Advice - Radical Philosophy
> > To: Johnson Cheu <[log in to unmask]>
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> >
> > Because it isn't parallel with the other notions. Race and sex are
> > typically taken to be biological dimensions. Racism and sexism are
the
> > repression of people with certain configurations of (supposed)
biological
> > properties. Howeveer, "ability" is not a biological dimension.
Impairment
> > is parallel to race and sex, but the word "impairmentism" doesn't
exist.
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Johnson Cheu wrote:
> >
> > > Anita (and everyone else) Why not Ablism? Is there a reason
disablement
> > > seems more popular than the Ablism?
> > >
> > > --Johnson
> >
> > Johnson Cheu
> > [log in to unmask]
> > The Ohio State University*English Dept.*421 Denney Hall*164 W.
17th. Ave.*
> >
> > Columbus, OH 43210*(614) 292-1730 (O)*(614) 292-6065 (D)*(614)
292-7816 (Fax)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
==
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
Simi Linton
[log in to unmask]
212 580 9280 (phone and fax)
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
