 |
 |
Did you really mean every word of what you wrote in your post, or did you write it to annoy some of us on the list? In either case, some introspection on your part is called for given the condescending nature of the comments that reek of colonialism. I agree with Anita, you certainly have the right to criticize methodology - and for that matter, I have come across several studies in the west that can and need to questioned for fatal flaws in methodology. > Chapter 9 attempts to give an account of public knowledge and attitudes not > only in Delhi (pop. maybe 10 million - quite a crowd) but in "North > India" -- (maybe 300 million - but some of them are quite thin), on Let's not forget 250 years of colonialism followed by recolonization through financial cheating by way of international trade policies (most people in the west are blissfully unaware that these global economic policies make them wealthy while impoverishing other countries) >"borderline > intelligence" [India and Pakistan were lined up along their borders, > preparing once again to attack one another...]; At least these countries do not engage in pre-emptive strikes and illegal wars on countries poorer and different than them and they do not engage in unseating democratically-elected governments in other countries to maintain their own supremacy. Need I remind you that India and Pakistan were one country until five decades ago. It is a well known fact that their divisions are consequences of colonial policies of "divide and rule" followed by foreign policies of superpowers. Some lessons in history might be helpful - but wait, methodologically-unsound history written in the west without any input from the east as well as ethnocentric education systems often conceal these wrong-doings. So, I am not surprised that you are unaware. I'm appalled that you can so easily denigrate the "other" despite being involved in the disability rights movement. If we are truly a movement about social justice, isn't it imperative to connect with other forms of oppression (ex. racism, colonialism, neocolonialism etc) instead of belittling them? Vanmala Hiranandani http://www.ied.info/books/why ----- Original Message ----- From: "m99m" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 3:12 AM Subject: Re: attitudes tiwards disability in Delhi > . > Ustun et al, "Disability & Culture", does indeed have a chapter 9 (by > Saxena, Pal & Singh) titled "India - Delhi", as well as chapters > purportedly on the measurement of attitudes in Bangalore and Madras > (Chennai). Before rushing out to buy the book, it might be useful to > consider some of the basis of these measurements. > > Chapter 9 attempts to give an account of public knowledge and attitudes not > only in Delhi (pop. maybe 10 million - quite a crowd) but in "North > India" -- (maybe 300 million - but some of them are quite thin), on the > basis of interviews with a few dozen key informants (they even had a few > DPs) and some focus groups playing party games. > > A snatch of the results gives some insight into the mental approach of the > organisers and participants, e.g. on p. 132, "As far as societal barriers > were concerned, sex was thought most difficult for an individual in a > wheelchair, and people would place fewest barriers in the way of a person > with mental retardation keeping things tidy." > > [Darling, it's so... SO... Not the home life of our own dear Queen...] > > The level of scientific rigor may be judged by comparing items from the so- > called 'instrument' [some kind of veena or fiddle] used by the Delhi > group with that of the Madras group, who were supposedly doing the same > exercise. Levels of public disapproval were compared (pp. 123, 133), for > people within various disability 'categories', e.g. "borderline > intelligence" [India and Pakistan were lined up along their borders, > preparing once again to attack one another...]; "wheelchair bound" [as > in: "with one wheelchair bound he was free"]; "being dirty and unkempt" > [No Beggars, Hippies or British]. > > In Delhi, the disapproved category "No job" (p. 133) became the > category "Unable to keep a job" at Madras (p. 123) [note the precise > dynamic equivalence of these two situations]; in Delhi, "No child" > became at Madras: "Does not take care of children" [well... if you don't > got none, you not gonna take care of none, heh?]. In > Madras, "Alcoholism", but in Delhi, "Using alcohol" [Cheers!] The > scores on these not entirely congruent categories (in English, let alone in > Hindi and Tamil) were then merrily totalled up to give utterly meaningless > All-India scores. > > Some of the chapter authors did offer their own cautions against the > egregious flaws in the methodology, which would have been embarassing even > in an undergraduate thesis. The editors edited their way cheerfully past > all these tiny, nitty-picky minds, heading determinedly for their goal, > a "universal construct of disability" - in the face of some 200 years of > cumulative anthropological and psychological evidence and experience to the > contrary. > > But do buy the book, for an example of the New Chutzpah to be found at the > Intermediate Baloney Level of International Metanarrativity. > > m99m > > ________________End of message______________________ > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List > are now located at: > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page. ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.