Hi
Vic sent the following response off-list, which I found helpful.
Mark.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Priority: Normal
To: Mark Priestly 1 <[log in to unmask]>
From: Vic Finkelstein <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Attitudes
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 99 22:59:33 GMT
Hi Mark
Thanks for your comment. Although sent to you personally you might like
to forward this to the whole list if you feel it adds to the discussion:
It's curious, is it not, how some people are unable to fathom why people
who take a materialist view of the world can also recognise the
importance of 'attitudes' in facilitating or hindering change. 'False
consciousness', after all, is always a major concern in the material
struggle for emancipation and one of the reasons for the production and
dissemination of theory, and our promotion of the arts and culture
movement. We, or at least some of us, in UPIAS greatly appreciated
this, and this is why we (and I) spent so much time writing the
'Fundamental Principles...' document. Although at the time there were
many who ridiculed the document, rubbished it as incomprehensible, or
just ignored it, nowadays there is no shortage of those who acknowledge
its role in changing their attitudes (including those critical of the
materialst approach) while at the same time recognising its focus on the
material change as the real goal.
To me the issue is not whether or not we should be concerned about
changing attitudes, but rather the question: 'change attitudes to what?'
When the focus is on changing negative attitudes towards disabled
people I think this misses the point, because this locates disability in
the individual with an impairment and elevates the importance of
non-disabled in our lives (eg. Goffman's downgrading of 'prejudice' in
favour of 'stigma'). This provides us with no lever for encouraging
change other than appealing to the moral consciousness of (mostly)
people with abilities possessing the negative attitudes. This turns
attitudes into an abstract exercise and, of course, tends to get
nowhere. On the other hand (as we raised in the UPIAS document) if the
focus is changing attitudes towards the barriers that impede disabled
people's progress towards emancipation, then there is a material (or
real) focus for attitudinal change. It was precisely because UPIAS
promoted the fundamental principle (that where non-disabled people
intervene in our lives this must be to assist us take control over our
destiny) that enabled us to challenge people's attitudes and expose
their willingness to change. This principle is an important tool in
removing negative attitudes which hinder progress in the emancipation of
oppressed groups. By way of example:
As a white South African I was brought up with unquestioned racist
attitudes towards the majority black population. It was only when my
attention was directed to the way that the apartheid state 'disabled'
black people by the barriers it had set up that I could question my
negative attitude towards black South Africans (as if their inferiority,
dependency on whites and incapacity to function in society was caused by
the 'disability' possessed by each black individual) and focus on
working under their guidance to remove the barriers (in the apartheid
state) that were disabling them. This, then, resulted in profound
changes in my whole lifestyle.
In my experience the language we use to focus attitudes on material
targets for change can play a significant role in facilitating or
hindering the rate of progress in the struggle for emancipation.
Vic
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
