Hi Anita,
I agree with Ron about the term 'disablement' (over here of course it would
be disability) and all the others, but I think the word has to be read in
context and in fairness the complete statement does say other 'forms of
domination'(which will sure remain). Perhaps reservations about language
could be resolved by strengthening the wording of the rest of the statement
to include terms like 'institutionalised oppression' and forms of
domination to be amended to something like 'forms of (structural? social?
linguistic? cultural? political? economic? domination'. The other
possibility is to include a footnote until they get used to the idea.
However, another thing I would struggle with is that there are many
disabled people who would not come under our meaning of disablement but are
nevertheless oppressed. I do wish that somehow we could begin to think
about both 'being' and 'becoming' but maybe that's a philosophical question
for the disability movement to consider rather than an answer to your
specific question?
Cheers
Mairian
>
>I think the problem in choosing a term to use in this context is that most
>of the readers of the term will be naive about the term's political context.
>This is especially obvious with respect to the RPA from the background you
>give about the issue came up in the first place.
>
>One important question is how the membership of RPA is going to interpret
>the term 'disablement' (or whatever is chosen). My bet would be that, to
>them, 'disablement' will simply be seen as referring to the causation of
>impairments. Social factors such as pollutants and unsafe cars cause people
>to loose their sight or the use of their legs, and those social factors will
>be thought of as 'disablement'. In other words, 'disablement' makes
>disabled people out of able bodied people, and we radicals don't want that
>to happen.
>
>As _we_ all know, the social factors that radical philosophers ought to be
>thinking about are the ones that create disadvantages for people who are
>_already_ blind, paralyzed, etc., etc., not (particularly) the factors that
>lead to blindness and paralysis. I don't think the term 'disablement' is
>likely to be understood in that way.
>
>If the members of RPA understood the term 'disablement' the way we do, I
>think the term would be fine. But I don't think they do, and I don't think
>the use of the term is likely to lead to their enlightenment.
>
>But I don't have any great alternatives. I don't like "ableism", even
>though it does fit nicely into the "racism, sexism" rhythm. And "oppression
>of people with disabilities" isn't very chantable. We do need a new curse,
>I think.
>
>
>Ron
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
>Disability Studies in the Humanities <[log in to unmask]>;
>Martha Stoddard Holmes <[log in to unmask]>
>Cc: Marta Russell <[log in to unmask]>; Joan Mason-Grant
><[log in to unmask]>; Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Saturday, October 31, 1998 8:04 AM
>Subject: Request for Lexical Advice - Radical Philosophy
>
>
>>UNDERSTANDING ABOUT RPA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The current RPA Statement of
>>Purpose reads as
>>follows -
>>"RPA members struggle against capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia,
>>environmental ruin and all other forms of domination."
>>
>>The domination of PWDs is now to be elevated from the catch-all "other
>>forms of domination" category to its own place in the list of RPA targets.
>>The question is, What word shall be used to describe this form of
>>domination against which RPA members henceforth shall explicitly struggle.
>>
>>My personal inclination is to use the expression "disablement".
>
>>What is of concernis whether "disablement" is the most felicitous
>>expression to use in the RPA statement of purpose, or whether there is a
>>better expression. I would guess that U.K./Canadian listmembers will be
>>more comfortable with identifying "disablement" as the target of
>>social struggle than U.S. listmembers will be, but that may turn out not
>>to be the case.
>>
>>PLEASE LET US HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER ASAP.
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow
University of Central Lancashire
c/o 111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|