Here's why I think ableism is *ok* (not good, but serviceable). Racist
- doesnt just imply a white view, it implies a white supremacist view,
similarly sexism - a view of male as supreme. SO - ableism to me
doesn't reinforce the binary - able/disable referring to people, but
critiques the power of the idea that there is such a binary, and that
one side is better than the other. Now of course only the people on
these lists understand the nuances of any of this so we're sending the
ship out there with hope it sails on the course we want it to
(aaghhhhh, my metaphors are nauseating even me this morning), so I am
tentative in my endorsement, but think its the only game in town.
simi linton
---Ron Amundson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnson Cheu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>;
> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 9:46 PM
> Subject: lexic. stuff
>
>
> >Anita-- Respectfully, I disagree with your notion that "ability"
doesn't
> >have a biological dimension.
>
> Lemme take a shot at this one. Not because it will contribute to
the lexic
> choice, but just because it's there. ;-)
>
> Anita said:
> >[Ableism] 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.
>
>
> I don't think impairment is a parallel to race and sex, either.
Race and
> sex can be seen as dimensions of variation. Male vs. female,
Caucasian vs.
> Mongolian vs. etc., are variants on those dimensions. There is no
term that
> names the dimension on which ability (better "able-bodiedness") and
> impairment are variants. That's why I wrote earlier that 'ableism'
is more
> like Joan's 'white supremacy' or 'misogyny' -- these labels indicate
the
> privileged variants on each dimension, not just the names of the
dimensions
> themselves (race and sex).
>
> But I think Anita's point may be that 'ability' is not a logical
contrary to
> 'disability'. One way to oppose disablement is to point out that
impaired
> people do not necessarily lack ability. When they do it usually
results
> from social contexts. This depends, of course, on how the 'ability'
in
> question is defined. Johnson is right that 'ability' is frequently
defined
> biologically, as the biological ability to perform certain body
movements or
> perceptual discriminations. In that sense, 'ability' is a biological
> dimension. But I don't think we want to endorse or encourage the
biological
> definitions of 'ability'. Such non-biological 'abilities' as
> self-determination are valued by everyone. Under current social
> arrangements, the non-biological ability of self-determination is
linked far
> too closely to 'normal' biological abilities. No one should be
ashamed of
> being an 'ableist' if it means that they prefer self-determination to
> oppression. The term 'ability' stretches to fit both biological and
> non-biological achievements, and that's a problem. At least for
compusive
> semanticists like me.
>
> On the other hand, currency of use has a lot of pragmatic value.
The term
> 'ableism' isn't in daily use on my island. ("Stop blocking the curb
cut,
> you ableist pig!") But if it is elsewhere, that's in its favor.
>
> Ron
>
> __
> Ron Amundson
> University of Hawaii at Hilo
> Hilo, HI 96720-4091
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
==
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|