Hi Rebeccca and All,
I agree that the thing to do if one wants to learn what is current in
disability studies, what sorts of arguments are advanced, etc. is join one
of the disability listservs. In addition to the Disability Studies in the
Humanities and Society for Disability studies listservs mentioned below,
there is the Disability-Research listserv operating out of the UK (mainly
social scientists), the H-Disability listserv (mostly disability aand
history), the Disability and Bioethics discussion list, and others in fields
such as anthropology.
I am indeed guest editing a special issue of IJFAB on feminist disability
studies and feminist bioethics that will appear in Fall 2010. That promises
to be a very exciting issue of the journal. I also guest edited the issue
of the _Journal of Bioethical Inquiry_ on disability studies and bioethics
which Rebecca has cited a few times below. Most of the contributors to the
issue were feminists; so it should be of interest to readers of this list
(note: it appeared in 2008, not 2009).
The field of disability studies is interdisciplinary and burgeoning; so the
suggestion of putting together a bibliography for the list seems daunting.
I want to throw out the challenge to others on the FABlist to add their own
recommendations to the list Rebecca has started.
Since I think anthologies are a good way to quickly acquaint oneself with
the breadth of a field of study, as well as some key arguments and issues, I
want to second Rebecca's recommendations of the _Disability Studies Reader_
second ed. edited by Lennard Davis (Routledge) and _The Handbook of
Disability Studies_ edited by Gary Albrecht (Sage). Here are some other
collections: _Foucault and the Government of Disability_ edited by Shelley
Tremain (U of Michigan) and Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability
Theory_ edited by Mairian Corker and Tom Shakespeare (Continuum).
Best regards,
Shelley Tremain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca Garden" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:22 AM
Subject: disability, feminism, and bioethics
> Hi Andrea, Shelley and all,
>
> A good way to connect with disability activists and learn about disability
> studies is of course through conferences and, for starters, listservs such
> as DS-HUM and the Society for Disability Studies listserv. (I also highly
> recommend Marilyn Wann's fat studies listserv on Yahoo and the new Fat
> Studies Reader. Fat studies is linked to but not the same as disability
> studies.) Shelley, I was wondering if it would make sense to post a
> bibliography of disability studies and feminism and/or bioethics to this
> listserv. And you have a special issue coming into print, yes?
>
> OK, here's a short and somewhat random bibliography of some articles piled
> next to my desk. I hope this is of interest to some.
> cheers
> rebecca garden
>
> =============
>
> Asch, Adreinne. Disability, Bioethics, and Human Rights. In The Handbook
> of
> Disability Studies. Ed. Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine D. Seelman, and
> Michael
> Bury (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001): 297-326.
>
> Feder Kittay, Eva. At the Margins of Moral Personhood. J of Bioethical
> Inquiry 5(2-3) (June 2009): 137-156.
>
> Garland-Thomson, Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory.
> Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed. Ed. Lennard J. Davis (NY: Routledge
> 2006): 257-273.
>
> Holmes, M. Morgan. Mind the Gap: Intersex and (Re-productive) Spaces in
> Disability Studies and Bioethics. J of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2-3) (June
> 2009): 169-181.
>
> Kirschner KL, Brashler, R. Savage TA. Ashley X. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.
> 86(12):1023-1029.
>
> Mollow, Anna. “When Black Women Start Going on Prozac*”: The Politics
> of Race, Gender, and Emotional Distress in Meri Nana-Ama Danquah’s Willow
> Weep for Me. Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed. Ed. Lennard J. Davis (NY:
> Routledge 2006): 283-299.
>
> Price, Janet E. Engaging Disability. Feminist Theory 8(1): 77-89. (review
> article)
>
> Shildrick, Margrit. Deciding on Death: Conventions and Contestations in
> the
> Context of Disability. J of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2-3) (June 2009):
> 209-219.
>
> Tremain, Shelley. The Biopolitics of Bioethics and Disability. J of
> Bioethical Inquiry 5(2-3) (June 2009): 101-106.
>
> Wolbring, Gregor. Disabled People’s Approach to Bioethics. AJOB 1(3)
> (Summer 2001).
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Garden, PhD
> Assistant Professor
> Bioethics & Humanities
> Upstate Medical University
> 618 Irving Avenue
> Syracuse, NY 13210
> 315-464-8451
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> 11/11/09 4:00 PM >>>
> Dear Shelley, thanks for reading about Matron Saints and for your input.
>
> You are quite right to point out that people with other kinds of
> disabilities are still subject to dehumanizing linguistic practices and I
> will adjust
> my comments somewhat on my website. I'm not convinced though about it
> being counterproductive to make comparisons with other groups; as usually
> when
> people object to my comparisons they show a lack of appreciation for the
> realities of survivors of incest. I am simply trying to get them to be
> seen
> as people with disabilities deserving real help, as opposed to just
> simply
>
> hopelessly damaged dirty tramps. You say I have remained "at a distance
>
> from our endeavours in disability studies." Well, I have not found the
> disability studies community to be always so inclusive. I have had some
> very
> disappointing conversations with some philosophers of disability in which
>
> they were very dismissive of psychological disabilities associated with
> chronic trauma and did not see the interests of people with psychological
>
> disabilities as tied to their own. Some people with physical
> disabilities
>
> worry about their disabilities being seen as having a psychological
> component
> as they know psychological disabilities are generally taken less
> seriously,
> as being "all in the head." Two women in my group struggle with chronic
> physical disabilities and they do not disclose to doctors and specialists
>
> their histories of incest out of a reasonable fear of compromised care.
> I
> should ask other disability activists if they would be willing to be
> members
> or allies of Matron Saints--this would be a good opportunity for bridge
> building; please consider this ~ an invitation to all disability
> activists
> ~.
>
>
> Best, Andrea Nicki
>
> _www.andreanicki.com_ (http://www.andreanicki.com)
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/11/2009 8:58:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Andrea,
> while I am in solidarity with your activism for psychiatric survivors and
>
> survivors of sexual trauma, I am afraid that I strongly disagree with your
>
> remarks below and on your website according to which feminists do not use
>
> "pejorative language" to refer to (other) disabled people or direct such
> language at them. I could in fact cite at least three recent examples of
>
> exactly this kind of derogation of "physically and cognitively disabled"
> by
> feminist bioethicists in feminist publications and in other public forums
>
> (such as philosophy blogs).
>
> But more importantly perhaps, it seems politically counterproductive and
> divisive to attempt to argue for the claims to respect and recognition of
> one
> socially stigmatized group by pointing to (another) stigmatized and
> vilified constituency (which remains disenfranchised and disadvantaged in
> terms
> of housing, education, employment, healthcare and every other major
> component of contemporary social existence) and alleging that the latter
> group is
> no longer subjected to these sorts of humilating and dehumanizing
> discursive
> and linguistic practices. Indeed, that is a poor way to justify any
> claims to entitlement.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that many feminists (including many, if not
> most, feminist bioethicists) continue to be uninformed about the politics
> of
> disability (its actual character, causes, effects, and consequences) in
> all of its variations and configurations. The disability studies
> community
> is
> inclusive -- theoretically, politically, and institutionally -- of the
> sorts of issues that you are trying to give exposure to. Yet, your post
> below, your remarks on your website, and previous posts you have made to
> this
> list indicate, to me at least, that you have remained at a distance from
> our
> endeavours, and that . Perhaps you need to engage in some critical
> self-reflection about why this is the case. In any event, I don't think
> your
> current strategy is in any way ethically superior to the practice you
> criticize
> below.
>
> Shelley Tremain
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])
> To: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: IJFAB special issue CFP
>
>
> This will be a very interesting issue! I would like to say however as a
>
> feminist mental health activist that I think it is unethical to be
> engaging
> with the term "borderline personality disorder" though this is listed as
> a
>
> possible topic for the issue:
>
>
> Postmodernist challenges to gender informing feminist therapeutic
> treatment for disorders such as Borderline Personality Disorder
>
> I am one of the directors of an activist group in Vancouver--Matron
> Saints
>
> of Incest Survivors--and one of our projects is help put an end to this
> demeaning diagnosis which survivors of chronic sexual trauma in large
> number
> get diagnosed with. I have detailed my position on my website
> _www.andreanicki.com_ (http://www.andreanicki.com/) , and argue, for one,
> that we do
> not continue to engage with perjorative language directed at people with
> physical disabilities. We do not talk, for example, about "Feminist
> Treatment
> for Cripples."
>
> Sincerely, Andrea Nicki
>
>
|
