On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:16:02 +0000 Mairian Corker
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Michael wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't like the term 'disabled' wholeheartly myself. But I have
> >>come to find arguments about language a little bit of of a waste of
> >>time.
> >I'm afraid I find it hard not to respond to this statement Michael. I find
> >it very hard to agree with the view of language as being 'a waste of
> >time', even though my philosopher friends inform me that it is very much a
> >philosopher's perspective.
> >
> >In the 'real' world - and language is a part of this 'reality' - how come
> >the vast majority of human relationships fail because of 'communication
> >breakdown?' How come 'the talking cure' and the Internet are boom
> >industries? And how come so many of the misunderstandings that happen on
> >this list are down to 'local' differences in how we understand particular
> >terms and concepts - we perform different meanings in our readings? How
> >come using particular words consistently, particularly when we are joined
> >by others in doing so, makes us feel good (or bad)?
> >
> >Of course if you locate language to the level of dialectics, I would agree
> >that it doesn't seem to be much help - and I assume that this is where you
> >locate it because of your use of the term 'corporeal' (which in its
> >simplest sense I take to mean material, bodily, physical). But within
> >Disability Studies, I really do think that such a perspective seems to be
> >a denial of ontological pluralism and the fact that many disabled people
> >are necessarily preoccupied by language because it is at the heart of
> >their experience of oppression. I've no doubt that you will interpret this
> >as 'picking out the negative side', but actually it reflects my
> >frustration with the lack of a common and non-essentialist view of
> >language that doesn't deny ontological difference, and that can be used as
> >the basis of dialogue across difference.
>
I think I need to elaborate. When I say I view looking at language
and disability as a "waste of time" I wasn't clear. I personally see
language in connection with disability as a paramount issue, but (and
reader be warned, here personal anger is going to be spleened) because
of the materialist nature of the social model and the materialistic
constructivism it creates, and which in my view keeps a stranglehold
over discourse on disability. And talk about language other than simple
dialectic is often met with indifference. Discourse is denied. Indeed,
when I first came on this list-serv I came on saying I was interested
in Disability and language. I am very much want to look at disability,
espcially disability relation to the body and to language. The friend I
named in my first posting and myself don't see corporeal in simplistic
terms,quite the opposite but that is another matter. Needless to say I
want different any many perspectives , but as I have said before, I
fear that any ideas that does not follow a social model line would be
ignored.
Michael
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|