Hi Haighleagh,
I agree with your statement that, "Disability in anthropology just as
with sociology was a non entity something not worth studying of no
academic prowess or glamour." The absence of disabled people in
traditional ethnography, however, was also partly due to the incessant
need to find representative members of the particular society being
studied. It was thought that one's informants had to be average Joe's.
That disabled people might also be able to convey the typical beliefs of
a culture shows the faulty logic at work here. The marginalization of
the study of disability within medical anthropology is, I think, more
complex; but one of the primary reasons is that disability's (and also of
course impairment's) relationship to biomedicine is problematic in the
first place (as disability studies had made very clear with their
critiques of the medical model). The term medical anthropology is assumed
by many of its faithful to denote the study of different societies
medical systems, therapies, illness narratives, etc. Studying disability
is always the poor cousin in relation to these (supposedly) grander
themes. Moreover, and I think this is also key, the hope at the core of
disability narratives is not usually a curative hope like it is for
illness narratives (unless you are in the frame of mind of Christopher
Reeves). In short, disability is more clearly about exclusion from social
contexts than the other focuses within medical anthropology (although
obviously this is not always the case).
I have known Devva Kasnitz for about 4 years and have worked with her on
several projects. When we first met, I began talking to her about what I
called the "marginalization of the study of disability in medical
anthropology" and showed her my notes that I eventually wanted to turn
into a paper. She was very excited and began putting her two cents in.
She also told me something that I think illustrates the way disciplines
can police their borders, rendering some topics borderline. In her many
years of encouraging anthropologists to come to SDS and present papers,
few have done so. Of those few, most of them never returned. I myself
know of several fellow Ph.D. students in the UCSF-Berkeley joint med
anthro program who have entered the program with an interest in
disability (two who are disabled), but who have opted to go the
traditional route when it came down to picking a dissertation topic. I
do not think this is a coincidence. I think there are a plethora of
subtle and not so subtle institutional influences that reward students
(financially, socially, status in the discipline, etc.) for doing the
traditional boogie!
When I first started the med anthro program, I opted to study aging,
mental health, and culture. Why? At the time, I had been a personal
assistant for over 6 years with disabled people. I had also worked as a
social worker for 2 years in an apartment complex with both disabled and
elderly residents. Simply put, there were fellowship grants available in
mental health and aging. There was nothing for disability. The first
year of my switch to disability, I was unfunded and worked about 35-40
hours as a personal assistant, while I was doing my interviews. Luckily,
my department has seen the light and has come through with some funds to
see me through the conclusion of my dissertation. They are beginning to
see the importance of disability as topic of study. One reason for this
is the increased visibility of disability studies in the media and the
curriculum. Hurrah!!! But I think there are many more subtle persuasive
influences that make med anthro students not consider disability as a
topic of research. I could go on. But suffice to say that my paper got
transformed. With the infusion of Devva' ideas, we instead came up with
"Engaging Anthropology in Disability Studies," which although it deals to
some extent with the marginalization of the study of disability in
medical anthropology has a much larger theme: that of opening up a
genuine dialogue between anthropology and disability studies for their
mutual benefit.
I think Mairian Corker correctly characterizes contemporary anthropology
when she says, it "has sought to move away from idealist notions of
'authentic culture and from imperialist notions of the
researcher/author." While there are some anthropologists who still hold
to traditional notions, 'culture' has become a highly contested and open
term in anthropology (most other traditional anthropological terms have
also been problematized). The researcher/author must be reflexive about
what she/he is up to anymore. Although this may lead to higher anxiety
levels for researchers/authors, I for one will be glad to see the end of
the cookie-cutter ethnography (am I being too optimistic) and a more
rigorous (I think Mairian and John Davis will agree) attention to the
shifting identities of researchers and participants across the various
contexts within ethnographic fieldwork.
I think your tutor's reference to anthropology as another methodology
rather then a discipline is not quite right. To me anthropology is a
discipline because it has a domain of study, ethical tenets, a history of
theoretical shifts, etc. Sociocultural anthropology includes both
ethnology, which is the comparative study of cultures and ethnography,
which I see as anthropology's method. Traditional ethnography consisted
in the techniques of participipant-observation and open-ended
interviewing. But ethnography is also a product--the finished text. Van
Maanen (1995) has addressed the dual nature of ethnography in "An End to
Innocence: The Ethnography of Ethnography" (In Representation in
Ethnography. John Van Maanen, Ed. pp. 1-35. Thousand Oaks: Sage). I would
also add that I believe ethnography is also a process for both
ethnographer and research participants (ethnographic subjects). For the
ethnographer, a reflexive process of continually questioning one's
assumptions and ways of doing things, of questioning both traditional
disciplinary tenets and current politically correct mantras, of ethically
grilling one's self and one's motivations and of trying to unearth one's
own hermeneutical relation to research participant's. Points I tried to
convey, I'm not sure how successfully, in a paper I presented at SDS last
June, "Anthropological Research on Disability Issues and Ethnographic
Process." For the participant's--well, you would be surprised at the
answers that the question, "How was this process for you?" evokes.
Anyway, as it is getting quite late here in California (or early
depending on your perspective), I better quit. Nuff' Said (for now),
Russell Shuttleworth
PS A copy of my paper on disability and sexuality will be an attachment
in a separate email to you.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
