Disability comes from the rejection of political purity
Download 0.7 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Troublemakers but not about disability
Spare cardsSelf-hatred impactCampbell, 08 (Fiona Kumari Campbell works at the School of Education & Social Work, University of Dundee. She was Program Convenor, Human Services in the School of Health & Wellbeing at the University of Southern Queensland. She writes on disability and specificially—ableism, Sri Lankan disability, jurisprudence, technology, and South Asian disability. March 2008, “Exploring Internalized Ableism Using Critical Race Theory”, Disability and Society, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687590701841190?scroll=top&needAccess=true) *edited
Ableism produces disabled subjectivities Internalisation involves apprehending that which “… belongs to the other” [and incorporating it as] one’s own” (Wertsch, 1998, p.53). Clearly the processes of internalisation are not straightforward and predictable. As Fanon remarks: “In the colonial context the settler only ends his work of breaking in the native when the latter admits loudly and intelligibly the supremacy of the white man’s values” (Fanon, cited in McClintock, p.329). But the absorption process is deeper implying a belief that the subaltern body requires something that “…only their superior dominators have or can give them” (Oliver, 2004, 78). This may be a somewhat lumpy and indigestible process as many words obstinately refuse, sound alien in the voice of the one who enacts them through speech. In any case, the internalisation of negativity ultimately shapes and inspires technologies of self and ways such technologies become mediated within a range of networks: Internalized oppression is not the cause of our mistreatment; it is the result of our mistreatment. It would not exist without the real external oppression that forms the social climate in which we exist. Once oppression has been internalized, little force is needed to keep us submissive. We harbour inside ourselves the pain and the memories, the fears and the confusions, the negative self-images and the low expectations, turning them into weapons with which to re-injure ourselves, every day of our lives. (Mason, as cited Marks, 1999, p.25). Internalised ableism means that to assimilate into the norm the referentially disabled individual is required to embrace, indeed to assume an ‘identity’ other than one’s own – and this subject is repeatedly reminded by epistemological formations and individuals with hegemonic subjectifications of their provisional and (real) identity. I am not implying that subjects have a true or real essence. Indeed the subjects' formation is in a constant state of fluidity, multiplicity and (re)formation. However, disabled people often feel compelled to fabricate ‘who’ they are – to adopt postures and comportments that are additional to self. The formation of internalised ableism cannot be simply deduced by assessing the responses of individuals to Althusser’s famous interpolative hailing “Hey you, there” (Althusser & Balibar, 1979). Whilst a subject may respond to “Hey you there, crip!” – it is naïve to assume that an affirmative response to this hailing repressively inaugurates negative disabled subjectification. In fact the adoption of more positive or oppositional ontologies of disability by the subject in question may be unexpectedly enabling. As Susan Park (2000: 91) argues “what is at stake here is not so much the accuracy behind the hailing privilege, but the power of the hailing itself to instantly determine (or elide) that thing it is naming”. Nonetheless, censure and the cancellation of the legitimacy of oppositional subjectivities remains common place as Cherney reminds us with respect to Deaf culture: “If abnormal [sic] bodies must be fixed to fit within dominant cultural views of appropriateness then the Deaf celebration of their differences must be read as an illegitimate model of advocacy”. (Cherney, 1999, p. 33). Foucault’s (1976; 1980) theorisation of power as productive may provide some offerings from which to build a conversation about internalised ableism. I am not so much interested in the ‘external’ effects of that power, but for the moment wish to concentrate on what Judith Butler aptly refers to as the ‘psychic life’ of power. She describes this dimension: … an account of subjection, it seems, must be traced in the turns of psychic life. More specifically, it must be traced in the peculiar turning of a subject against itself that takes place in acts of self-reproach, conscience, and melancholia that work in tandem with processes of social regulation (Butler, 1997b, p.19). In other words, the processes of subject formation cannot be separated from the subject Troublemakers but not about disabilityFrandsen and Petersen, 08 (Martin Severin Frandsen is a PhD student at Roskilde University in Denmark and Lene Pfeiffer Petersen is an assistant professor and previously taught high school, 5/12/08, “From ‘Troublemakers’ to Problem Solvers – Designing with Youths in a Disadvantaged Neighbourhood”, Roskilde University, https://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/6e79/086be83d5c6e1acd8e1775052f1e6438c987.pdf) As witnessed by the sociology of trouble (Emerson & Messinger, 1977) any social setting generates social tensions that can lead to identifications of deviance and designation of individuals or groups as ‘troublemakers’. In an urban environment this is particularly evident in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where poverty and lack of opportunities can lead to a build up of social tensions and mistrust. An often referred to situation of unease is the encounter with youths gathering in and occupying public or semi-public spaces. In a Danish context, studies have shown that it is often a very small group of so-called ‘unadjusted youths’ that in actual fact are guilty of more serious public order violations and thus can fairly be judged as genuine threats to security. In spite of these factual circumstances, youths that can be identified as coming from neglected neighbourhoods are often generally perceived as ‘troublemakers’ and ‘usual suspects’ in situations of relational trouble. For practitioners working with community development, a main challenge is to find ways to relieve social tensions and to build new social relations of trust and coorporation. This process can imply changing how people feel about and perceive both themselves and others. In empowerment and asset-based approaches to community development, the ability to change local residents’ perception of themselves and their neighbours, here among the local youths, is seen as key to successful community building. An important step is thus changing peoples image of themselves and their neighbours from that of persons with needs that can only be met with the help of outsiders to that of more self-reliant people with assets and capacities for collective and collaborative problem solving (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993). The aim of this paper is to explore how participatory design processes engaging local youths can help remedy relational troubles and at the same time contribute to the creation of new relations of social coorporation in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The paper thus follows a growing research interest into how participants in design processes are affected by their participation (Guha et al. 2010). Firstly we present a very brief outline of a theoretical understanding of the design pedagogical practice exemplified in the case study. Secondly we tell the story of how experimentation with participatory design helped uncover undiscovered talents among local youths and produced a change of their image from a label of ‘troublemakers’ to a positive image of problem solvers. The case story is based on interviews with the designer Anders Hagedorn, ethnographic field observations and documentation from the community development project. PRAGMATIC AND PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PEDAGOGY While not consciously drawing on pragmatist concepts of learning the participatory pedagogical practice in the case corresponds strikingly to the pedagogical theory of the pragmatist John Dewey that was put to the experimental test in his famous Laboratory School. Based on psychological observations, Dewey developed the hypotheses that there was no difference in the dynamics of experiences of children and adults. All are active beings who learn by confronting the problematic situations that arise in the course of their daily and routine activities, and for both thinking is an instrument in resolving these uncertain and sometimes troubling situations. When children enter the classroom they arrive not as blank slates, but bring with them native impulses to communicate, construct and inquire as well as interests and activities from the home and the neighbourhood in which they live. It is the task of the teacher to make use of these ‘raw materials’ by guiding the activities of the child toward valuable results. The key to Dewey’s pedagogy is thus the construction of an environment in which the present activities of the child will be confronted with problematic situations in which the knowledge and skills of science, history and art will be required to resolve these issues (Westbrook, 1991, pp. 93-104). Dewey believed that “until the emphasis changes to the conditions which make it necessary for the child to take an active share in the personal building up of his own problems and to participate in methods of solving them (even at the expense of experimentation and error) mind is not really freed” (Dewey in Westbrook, 1991, p. 103). Together with the hypotheses drawn from his functional psychology, the pedagogical experiment of the Laboratory School was for Dewey also a test of the social ideals of his democratic ethics. Dewey conceived of democracy as the equal opportunity for all the members of the society to make the best of themselves as social beings. Individuals achieve self-realization by putting their peculiar talents to work to the service of the wellbeing of their community, and education should “enable to child to translate his powers over into terms of their social equivalences; to see what they mean in terms of what they are capable of accomplishing in social life” (Dewey in Westbrook, 1991, 105). According to Dewey the mental development of an individual is thus essentially a social process, a process of participation, and the children in school must learn not only skills and facts but also how to work as members of a community of cooperative inquiry (Westbrook, 1991, pp. 104-111). The continued relevance of Dewey’s century old pedagogical ideas for educational and participatory design practitioners working with at-risk youths is illustrated by a more recent educational experiment in an educational facility for adjudicated youths. Here a team from The Seymour Papert Institute designed an alternative learning environment based on a constructionist theory of learning with key ideas similar to Dewey’s pedagogical principles. The youths worked according to an interdisciplinary, learner centred and project based method, investigating areas determined by their own interests and learning through design and construction in a collaborative culture of learning by doing. The method of letting the projects and problem solving be led by the youths own interests but guided and facilitated by the teachers combined with the practically orientated and hands-on creation of concrete artefacts proved to be successful way to motivate and engage the interests of the youths who otherwise had very bad experiences with school (Cavallo et al., 2004). Similar lessons can be drawn from project presented in the following sections of this paper. A DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBOURHOOD The neighbourhood of Charlotteager is located in the former industrial town of Hedehusene, nowadays mostly a residential suburb to Copenhagen. Charlotteager consists of three non-profit housing associations that were built in three successive stages from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s. Outwardly Charlotteager is a very green and mostly well-kept neighbourhood. A look at the socioeconomic statistics however reveal a large group of single and unemployed parents, a low average level of income and education and at the same time a high number of children under 18 and youths between 18 and 24. One effect of this combination of socio-economic factors is a relatively large number of reports of parental neglect and of children and youths needing special education and social support. Among these, some also have a history of delinquency and vandalism. A small survey conducted in 2009 showed that 25 % of the residents viewed the relationship between adults and youths as bad or very bad, 44 % saw it as tolerable and only 31% saw it as good or very good. The survey also indicated that threats to security, lack of parental responsibility and few opportunities for the local youths were some of most important matters of concern among the residents. FROM ‘TROUBLE MAKERS’ TO PROBLEM SOLVERS In 2007 a new 5-year experimental community development project was undertaken in Charlotteager. Having recently had only modest success with engaging a broader spectrum of local residents and here among in particular local youths in the community development process, the lead partners behind the new project wanted to try out a more asset based and participatory approach. The project was initially a partnership between the three housing associations and the municipality of HøjeTaastrup. To introduce and test new participatory methods the grassroots urban laboratory, Supertanker, was subsequently brought in. Having originated in inner Copenhagen in 2002, Supertanker was an interdisciplinary group of action researchers, artists, architects and designers (Brandt et al. 2008). For Supertanker the new community development project was an opportunity to test ideas of using design processes as catalysts for social interaction and change. From the interdisciplinary Supertanker group, the designer Anders Hagedorn was put in charge of the effort to engage the local youths in the development of the neighbourhood. Before arriving in Charlotteager he had worked with disabled people and asylum seekers and had used participatory design methods to uncover and promote the unacknowledged talents and capacities of minority groups. Hagedorn brought the same approach with him to Charlotteager where he experienced through his daily work, that many local youths were viewed as ‘troublemakers’ who did not contribute positively to the community. This view included a broad group of young people, most of whom were not guilty of anything but minor incivilities and occasionally noisy behaviour. For Hagedorn it was thus crucial that the effort to engage the local youths would address and work with some of the perceptions in the neighbourhood that put many of the adolescents in a bad light. As he had already learned, and as would become more obvious as the collaboration with the local youths progressed, the young people were often just as worried about the issues of the community as other and older residents. Download 0.7 Mb. Share with your friends:
|