Lennard wrote > >You said a lot in that last letter. Rather than respond to every point and >tax the interest of this list, I'll focus on one. > >I am very sorry if I misrepresented your work. I am referring to this >quotation from your last letter: > >"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." > >It seems to me if you are actively using a binary involving >disabled/non-disabled. Am I misrepresenting what you wrote above? I don't >see the fluidity above that you describe below. I feel you are essentialising those of us who are of post-modern and post-structural orientation.I would align myself with what Charles Lemert describes as 'strategic postmodernism'- indeed, I have stated this clearly in my published work - though I have also more recently critiqued the use of the term postmoderISM, which produces a binary. What this means is that I acknowledge that hegemony operates on the basis of binaries, including the binaries disabled/non-disabled, female/male, and deaf/hearing. My work is therefore concerned with destabilising binaries. However this is done strategically and in my case, the strategy is directed at challenging the inequality of oppressed groups not at increasing inequality by promoting the always already powerful. I wrote above 'it is precisely at times like this'. I apologise if I somehow assumed that you would get my meaning - i.e. 'on THIS occasion (the debate with Singer) my strategy is...', but I have said it in those words in another post. Secondly, I would however emphasise that this is not inconsistent with particular views of difference. Part of this activity is concerned with identifying which differences MATTER and I would argue that FOR DISABILITY STUDIES and FOR THE DISABILITY MOVEMENT, the difference between disabled/non-disabled and Deaf/deaf is critical to how the agendas of Disability Studies are developed. > >>As for the rest of your post, I'll respond briefly. It seems >contradictory that you say you advocate disabled-only just for the Singer >scenario, then say that you agree with Simi when she advocates >disabled-only leadership for disability studies. > >Another point about leadership...who picks leaders? How does one become a >leader? Over the will of the consituency? It seems to me, as I said >earlier, that there is little chance that a constituency in dis. studies, >for example, would generate general leadership by non-disabled people. In the PUBLIC domain, the cultural production of the field of Disability Studies is primarily defined by its texts, and publications are also a mark of status in the academy. I've asked this question before and people continously avoid it. How many substantial, sole-authored texts in Disability Studies in the USA are written by disabled academics, what is the balance of disabled/non-disabled contributors in edited collections, and how often is disabled people's writing used for illustrative purposes rather than allowed to stand in its own right? In terms of book sales, which books sell the most? I think that if you tot up the figures, you might understand why I agree with Simi. I worry about people who take on the cause of disabled people's inequality but at the same time appear to want to justify and perpetuate the institutionalised culture of inequality in the academy. That seems to be more inconsistent than anything I've said so far. > >As for the race issue, I don't think you, I, or David disagree about the >civil rights movement in America or in South Africa. Let's not try to >claim the upper hand in that area. But I don't think we should deny the >role of activists of all colors. I, for one, worked for CORE in the >1960's. So did many whites. In big causes, many hands make light the >work. > I am uneasy with your reference to 'gaining the upper hand' as I was with that in your earlier email to 'winning' the debate with Singer. The only people who should win or gain in our struggles over inequality are disabled people or in the above example, people who are differently raced. I still thing there is a distinction between a large scale collective activity and the concept of leadership you seem to be espousing. I also notice how you seem to accept the rules of leadership and membership of the Deaf COMMUNITY, which presumably means that you also accept the Deaf community's exclusion of disabled Deaf people and deaf people, but you don't mention that IN THE ACADEMY, and as a rule on a world-wide basis, hearing people control the Deaf Studies agenda. This feels like colonisation to me and that is another reason why I think Simi's arguments are very potent. Best wishes Mairian Mairian Corker Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies Department of Education Studies University of Central Lancashire Preston PR1 2HE Address for correspondence: 111 Balfour Road Highbury London N5 2HE U.K. Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085 Fax +44 [0]870 0553967 Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number) ********* "To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye" ********* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%