Hi Fiona--
>I am interested in this theme and am pursuing it as part of my Phd.
I would *love* to read it when it's finished!
>* unlike other identity groups/or sites of subordination - 'disability' is
>at the end of the day imputed with a negative ontology - to be eradicated,
>cured, modified etc.
And the big questions are-- is that the way it has to be? Is that the way
it *should* be?
Now, (most) other identity groups may be accepted-- not to be eradicated.
In other times, tho, or other cultures-- that hasn't always been the case.
Remember Hitler and the Jews??? And homosexuality was not only illegal, but
defined as "mental illness" and actively treated.
>Many people with 'disabilities' (including activists)
>experience consciously or otherwise, a kind of internalised ableism -
Yup. We talked about this in one of our pride research focus groups. About
the split between the public us-- the one who says the politically correct
things, like "I have a disability and that's OK"-- and the private us, who
often doesn't feel that way, even tho we know we "should".
>* In terms of activist politics (broadly defined), how do we ensure that
>'disability' discourses remain oppositional and transgressive? We need to
>be suscipious, if not uncomfortable, with adopting a corporeal project which
>figures 'disability' in terms of what it is not, a negative struggle (c.f.
>Linda Alcoff 1988).
Could you expand a bit more on this? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
- Ria
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
* Ria Strong * Melbourne, Australia *
* [log in to unmask] * ICQ #5689114 *
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|