Disability rights and wrongs revisited
Disability rights and wrongs revisited
复制标题
重新审视残疾人的权利和错误
DOI：
10.1080/09687599.2013.864874
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Goodley D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Goodley D
汤姆·莎士比亚备受争议的《残疾人的权利与错误》第一版（莎士比亚2006）在英国残疾研究领域掀起了轩然大波。残疾研究的教父们认为这本书是一种叛国行为，它放弃了唯物主义社会模式的政治抱负，代之以对现实医疗模式的保守转向。《残疾与社会》杂志2007年第22期发表了这本书的评论专题讨论会。2: 209-34)，评论大多是贬损性的。就我个人而言，我非常欢迎《残疾人的权利与错误》一书的出版。我觉得它给英国残疾研究注入了一剂必要的强心针；要求研究人员，理论家，活动家（以及那些结合这些角色的人）澄清理论方向，绘制我们的经验景观并阐明我们的政治优先事项。对莎士比亚的思想或憎或爱，他总是具有煽动性和娱乐性。在阅读他的书时，我试图接受沃特迈耶（Watermeyer, 2012, 9）的慷慨参与：阅读文本是为了联系而不是分裂。那么，在第二版中，莎士比亚的作品会像第一版一样在残疾研究领域掀起涟漪吗？我的感觉是，《残障权利与错误重述》这次不会引起争议，主要有两个原因，这两个原因都不应该被解读为莎士比亚的失败。第一个原因是，修订后的文本读起来更像一篇学术作品。新的文本受益于与理论的复杂性从事文学的仔细阅读。这与第一版的炫耀形成鲜明对比，我觉得第一版的炫耀是为了煽动而不是阐明。修订后的文本的第一部分——“基础”——已经完全重写，以探索残疾的理论方法和残疾身份的政治。第二部分的书-“应用”-有产前诊断，治疗和自主权在生命结束的章节（与第一版保持一致），并修订章节建立在早期的支持，性和爱和友谊的讨论。书中有一个关于暴力的新章节，并将被贴上学习障碍标签的人纳入全书，这令人欢迎。虽然我不同意莎士比亚关于学习障碍的概念，但我很高兴看到他对那些被贴上学习障碍标签的人的支持。第1-5章非常有用，因为莎士比亚仔细地揭示了唯物主义的社会模式视角、文化残疾研究视角和批判现实主义视角。我特别欣赏他对文化方法的详细描述——在这里，瘸腿理论、残疾主义和反现代主义的研究都被提到了——那些经常在没有任何充分理论依据的情况下被驳回的理论观点（例如，Barnes 2012）。有时，我觉得莎士比亚的批评过于简单化；指责唯物主义社会模型主义者坚持斯大林主义路线，同时认为文化残疾研究只对
The first edition of Tom Shakespeare’s controversial Disability Rights and Wrongs (Shakespeare 2006) cast shockwaves through British disability studies. Disability studies godfathers branded the book an act of treason that gave up on the political ambitions of the materialist social model, replacing them with a conservative turn to the realities of the medical model. A Review Symposium of the book, no less, was published in the pages of this very journal (Disability & Society 2007, 22, no. 2: 209–34) and reviews were mostly disparaging. Personally, I really welcomed the publication of Disability Rights and Wrongs. I felt it administered a necessary shot to the arm of British disability studies; demanding researchers, theorists, activists (and those that combine these roles) to clarify theoretical orientations, map our empirical landscapes and illuminate our political priorities. Loathe or love Shakespeare’s ideas, he has always been provocative and entertaining. In reading his book I sought to embrace Watermeyer’s (2012, 9) generosity of engagement: to read the text for connection rather than division. So in this second edition will Shakespeare’s work create as many ripples through the disability studies world as the first? My sense is that Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited will not be deemed as controversial this time around for two main reasons, neither of which should be read as a failing of Shakespeare. The first reason is that this revised text reads more like a scholarly piece of work than the first. The new text benefits from a close reading of the literature that engages with the complexities of theory. This contrasts with the showboating of the first edition that sought, I felt, to agitate rather than illuminate. Part I of the revised text–‘Foundations’–has been totally rewritten to explore theoretical approaches to disability and the politics of a disability identity. Part II of the book–‘Applications’–has chapters on prenatal diagnosis, cure and autonomy at the end of life (in keeping with the first edition), and revised chapters build on earlier discussions of support, sex and love and friendship. There is a new chapter on violence and, throughout, there is a welcome inclusion of people with the label of learning disabilities. While I disagree with Shakespeare’s conception of learning disabilities, I was heartened to find his foregrounding of the advocacy of people so-labelled. Chapters 1–5 are really useful, as Shakespeare carefully unpacks materialist social model perspectives, cultural disability studies perspectives and critical realist perspectives. I appreciated, especially, the detail he gives to an account of cultural approaches–where crip theory, studies of ableism and dismodernism all get a mention–theoretical ideas that have often been dismissed without any adequate theoretical justification (for example, Barnes 2012). At times, I felt Shakespeare was too simplistic in his criticism; accusing materialist social modellists of holding a Stalinist line while arguing that cultural disability studies are interested only in