Disability comes from the rejection of political purity
Download 0.7 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Ableist Reps Arguments
- Ableist rhetoric, even as a metaphor, perpetuates exclusion and ableist ideology
- Ableism must be challenged in rhetoric
AT Set ColPermNorris, 14 (Heather Norris is an instructor of Disability Studies at Ryerson University, 2014, "Colonialism and the Rupturing of Indigenous Worldviews of Impairment and Relational Interdependence: A Beginning Dialogue towards Reclamation and Social Transformation," Critical Disability Discourses, http://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/39665) Impairment is a universal phenomenon, but it is interpreted differently in societies with different cultural, political and economic structures. As the colonial invasion of what is now labeled as North America took place, the construction of a Eurocentric notion of “disability” as lack and deficiency was constructed and deployed to create a state of dependency or disablement. This served as a means of justifying and supporting the colonization of the Indigenous Nations of North America. Across locations subjected to colonial rule, the Eurocentric understanding of disability has served to justify the persistent inequality of disabled people. Erevelles (2011) explains that the concept of disablement contributes to the colonial project as she contends that “‘disability’ is a political and analytical category deployed by the colonialist state to patrol the boundaries of citizenship” (p. 123). Following Erevelles, I contend that from the time of conquest to the present, the imposition of the Eurocentric concept of disability upon Indigenous people has been a tool to further the goals of colonialism in North America. Individuals or communities who did not meet the colonizer’s normative standards were deemed different, “primitive,” and Other. Thus, disability was intertwined with racial categorization as a means of delimiting and maintaining difference. The Eurocentric model of disability conflates impairment and “disability,” assigning negative values to difference. I argue that in North American Indigenous societies prior to European contact, impairment was doubtlessly present, but the process of disablement through which impairment is reframed as unworthiness and diminished value as a citizen was absent. Instead, Indigenous approaches to impairment were likely informed by worldviews valuing difference and equality, and recognizing the fundamentality of interdependence (Schelbert, 2003). Ableist Reps ArgumentsStupid is an ableist termMonje, 14 (Michael Scott Monje Jr describes themselves as Autistic. Queer. Non-Conforming. Known disability and queer author. 2-21-2014, "Deconstructing "Stupid"," Shaping Clay, http://www.mmonjejr.com/2014/02/deconstructing-stupid.html) The question is: Is this ableist? Does the use of figurative, personified, idiomatic stupidity excuse the ableist connotations in the literal definition? I would say no. It's not hard to understand why I would say no, either. If the general reason to use "stupid" instead of "bad" or "frustrating" is to evoke the idea of slowness or a lack of perceptive ability, then it must be an ableist term. It can not be anything but that, since it places a value judgment on the speed at which someone is able to cognitively process (and/or on the precision of it), which is the same thing as making a value judgment about people with cognitive disabilities, because their disability causes behavior which the word "stupid" places a negative value judgment upon. It can be argued, though, that this does not necessarily make "stupid" a slur. Not all ableist terms are necessarily recognized as slurs, nor are all ableist terms used as slurs. How can we tell, then, if stupid is a slur or not? There are many conflicting definitions about what constitutes a slur, after all. Even among the people who all agree that "stupid" is a slur, there are a variety of reasons for doing so. How can we definitively say whether or not a word is being used as a slur? That's hard to say, but I would argue that a word can safely be considered a slur when a few criteria are met: When the people are affected by the negative use of the word as a pejorative even though they are not the target of the pejorative. When the idiomatic use of a word with problematic connotations serves to normalize those problematic connotations so that they become accepted as a priori virtues by a privileged class. When a confluence of the first two items on this list results in an objectively measurable disadvantage, in terms of access to basic resources and/or upward mobility within a society. I believe that something can be said to be a slur if one of the first two items on that list is satisfied. I accept that there are people who will disagree with me. I think, though, that if all three of those criteria are met, then the word must be a slur. Ableist rhetoric, even as a metaphor, perpetuates exclusion and ableist ideologyBen-Moshe, 5 (Liat Ben-Moshe is an associate professor of Disability Studies at the University of Toledo, she has a PhD in Sociology, her research specializes in social theory, incarceration and decarceration; Prison Studies, Sociology of disability, Disability culture, Activism and resistance, 4-1-05,“Building Pedagogical Curb Cuts: Incorporating Disability in the University Classroom and Curriculum,” http://www.syr.edu/gradschool/pdf/resourcebooksvideos/Pedagogical%20Curb%20Cuts.pdf, p.107, CAS) In the English language, using disability as a metaphor, an analogy and a derogatory term is common. Examples of such phrases and terms include: lame idea, blind justice, dumb luck, felt paralyzed, argument fell on deaf ears, crippling, crazy, insane, idiotic and retarded. One might argue that using these words without relating them to particular individuals is not offensive. However, using disability as an analogy not only offends certain individuals, but it also impedes clear communication, perpetuates false beliefs about disability and creates an environment of unease and exclusion. Ableism must be challenged in rhetoricCherney, 11 (James L. Cherney, 2011, "The Rhetoric of Ableism," Disability Studies Quarterly, http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1665/1606) *edited
In this essay I analyze ableism as a rhetorical problem for three reasons. First, ableist culture sustains and perpetuates itself via rhetoric; the ways of interpreting disability and assumptions about bodies that produce ableism are learned. The previous generation teaches it to the next and cultures spread it to each other through modes of intercultural exchange. Adopting a rhetorical perspective to the problem of ableism thus exposes the social systems that keep it alive. This informs my second reason for viewing ableism as rhetoric, as revealing how it thrives suggests ways of Download 0.7 Mb. Share with your friends:
|