 |
 |
Mairian, I was really surprised to see you post this. First because you spend so much time trying to break down binaries and now here you are creating this rigid binary of disabled/non-disabled. To me this seems like the worst aspect of identity politics. My hope was that disability would create a new category and a way of interrogating the essentialism of identity. Now you've put in this limelight in which only "disabled leaders" can enter. I know you've argued with the notion of Deafness that would in effect exclude hard-of-hearing. So I don't understand how your advice jibes with your own opinions. While I deeply respect the argument that Simi Linton and others have made that disability studies and disability activism should be "lead" by people with disabilities, I really don't think there is a chance those areas will be taken over by those abled parvenus seeking power and fame. I'm not sure if Mairian was referring to me as one of the "non-disabled people" who shoud "step back from the spotlight and concentrate on the lighting and scenery." If so, or even if not, I think this is an interesting point that should be discussed. I've personally been very careful when I've been involved in disability matters to say frequently that I'm not impaired physically at the moment. I've given others the opportunity to say, "Well, withdraw from this organization, etc." And when I' ve done that, the response has always been--"We don't want this area to be the exclusive province of people with impairments. We don't want to be ghettoized." I've taken that to mean that disability studies, for example, wants to resist the essentialism of some other area studies. Personally, I don't consider myself a person with disabilities, but I also don't consider myself a non-disabled person. Since my parents were Deaf, and since I grew up in a Deaf World, I, like my fellow brother and sister CODAS (Children of Deaf Adults) occupy a liminal space. We consider ourselves bi-cultural, and, after some negotiating, the Deaf community in general has included us within its bounds. (After all, we are their children.) We are invited and attend meetings of the National Association of the Deaf, the World Deaf Congresses, etc. Many of us are interpreters or work with the Deaf. The point is, disability is such a varied phenomenon, as we all know, from chronic diseases, obesity, motor, sensory, cognitive and affective impairments. And what about their family, caregivers, etc. Who issues the membership card? Who draws the line? And if we are serious about the idea that today's normates will be tomorrow's people with disability, why exclude even the absolutely normal person from being a fellow traveller, contributor, debater, or whatever? What's to gain from that? What about all the fabulous white people who were leaders in the civil rights movement, who went down South in the Freedom Summer, and who even died for the movement? At 10:20 AM 10/16/1999 +0100, you wrote: >I tend to agree with Phyllis that giving Singer too much ad hoc air time is >a bad idea, but I also feel that if we have to do it, a clear strategy is >important. I think it would be really bad news to put a non-disabled person >on the platform with Singer because, since he's such a slippery customer, >he's bound to twist it somehow to say well there you are - disabled people >(apart from Adrienne of course) can't speak for themselves. The strategic >opportunities that are created should maximise the potential for putting >disabled leaders in disability studies in the limelight - or have we >suddenly forgotten our politics of visibility? - and I have no problem with >the list that Lennard has given. It is precisely at times like this that >non-disabled people should step back from the spotlight and concentrate on >the lighting and the scenery. > >Best wishes, Mairian >> >>Lennard Davis wrote: >>> >>> I'd love to debate with Singer. I spent all day yesterday driving from >>> Binghamton to NYC having my own private debate with Singer. Judging from >>> the response in my car, I won. But I WAS the only person in the car. >>> >>> This discussion only reiterates what I've been saying that we need to have >>> a PR/speaker's bureau. I can think of any number of people to add on to >>> Adrienne who would be able to argue Singer into a corner....Paul Longmore, >>> Tom Shakespeare, Rosemarie Thomson, Simi Linton, Harlan Hahn, Nancy >>> Mairs....there's no shortage of persuasive argumentive sorts amongst us. >>> And there's no reason we should not get pro-active about finding people who >>> like to argue, are good in public, can handle an audience, and then >>> assembling a list of would-be speakers. I hope that people will take this >>> issue up at SDS this year. I know there have been others who have >>> backgrounds in journalism, rhetoric, public speaking who have been >>> advocating this. >>> >>> In the meantime, I'll look into things like getting The Nation to host a >>> debate on this subject. If anyone has a venue they think would be >>> appropriate, perhaps we can stage further debates. >>> > >Mairian Corker >Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies >Department of Education Studies >University of Central Lancashire >Preston PR1 2HE > >Fax +44 [0]870 0553967 >email: [log in to unmask] > > > Best, Lennard J. Davis Professor and Graduate Director Department of English Binghamton University Binghamton, NY 13902 607-777-2770 Fax: 607-777-2408 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%