Greetings Economists,
On Aug 9, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
The first sentence makes absolutely no sense.
Doyle;
Let me restate - My ignorance or anyone's ignorance is not a solution
to scientific knowing of genetic structure and processes. Ignorance
is not bliss. Does this make sense?
JD writes;
I think it's a mistake to blame capitalism alone for
discrimination against people with autism.
Doyle;
Well that is a complicated point. Capitalism supports health
institutions so it does some things, but the concept of rights for
cognitive issues is not well defined in the socialist camp either. I
don't blame capitalism alone for discrimination against people with
autism. I do think lefties offer a better vision of the future for
people with disabilities. I don't think we disagree in the broad sense.
JD writes;
In any event, I never said that genetics would
solve problems an unjust society makes. Rather, it's the _study of_
genetics which can _help_ people cope, with no guaranteed results.
(Note that I used the word "help" above. Please read what I write.)
Doyle;
I digress, the issue is not me reading what you write. It is joint
attention to clarify meaning that is difficult in email exchanges.
The interactivity of email is too slow to manage simple
clarification. I think you err to say it is a matter of 'reading',
and the issue is joint attention structure to clarify meaning.
JD writes;
It's possible that capitalism -- or at least the capitalists as a
class -- would prefer the _integration_ of people with autism into the
wider labor force. After all, they're always looking for new sources
of labor-power. On the other hand, I don't see how capitalists can use
the phenomenon of autism as a tool for "divide and rule" in any kind
of significant way.
Doyle;
I agree with the first part above. Capitalist are always looking for
more labor power. The divide and rule has to do with the process of
human connection, i.e. language processes. It appears in many forms.
Deaf people isolated from hearing communities, language groups unable
to understand each other, as well as the twists upon language use
autism brings up.
JD writes;
As far as I know, by the way, autism wasn't handled any better by the
actually-existing (or actually-once-existing) socialist states than
under capitalism. Does anyone know anything about this issue (if I'm
allowed to appeal to "professional knowledge")?
Doyle;
I think you are right. Why is a different question. Functionally the
U.S. spawned a disability rights movement which was not argued for in
the old Soviet Union or China. But I think not because rights
flourish in the U.S. Some social developments especially the post war
period in the U.S. of returning disabled soldiers fostered a social
shift in the U.S. The care structure changed, institutions arose
where families couldn't meet disability needs, then the abuses of the
institutions inspired an 'independence' movement. However, autism is
mainly a medical term of diagnosis rather than how the community
defined itself. This medicalizing of disabilities seems to offer the
idea medical doctors are rights champions. They define what's there
so to speak. I suspect the community has no power to define itself.
Voiceless the only indirect paths to being understood are
'professional' avenues of knowledge. Still it is clear a state is all
the people and professionals are a deeply questionable view of how
knowledge is made. This is a topic worth debating but can't be
addressed on this list. I see this as a serious research subject only
a powerful entity like the state could take on. I mean to question
the role of professional in society as they exist. In my view
knowledge automation attacks the professional as a person who knows.
The fast distribution of knowledge, the lack of ability for
professionals outside their field, the question of collaborating on
knowledge production put heavy pressure on what has been for a few
centuries a special concept of human activity. Professionals.
JD writes;
"issues that are more than simply nature or nurture"? what are those?
Doyle;
We make things and nurture cannot wholly define what we make.
JD writes;
But professional knowledge should not be rejected in a know-nothing
way; instead it should inform popular democracy.
Doyle;
Yes we agree.
JD writes;
like the attitude of a lot of the parents who have kids with autism:
instead of sneering at professional knowledge and referring to
abstract "community grassroots movements" that hardly exist in reality
Doyle;
Seems to me you are speaking from an odd angle. Why do you promote
parents and not grassroots organizations? Especially knowing the
difficulties and discrimination against autism it seems contradictory
of you to call these entities tiny. How does a movement start? A
mass movement? Well I think you don't understand the question of
parents roles in making children dependent. And why that is a sore
point with disability rights.
JD writes;
The members of that movement should try to work cooperatively with the
members of the "autistic dignity" movement. Among other things, a
community grassroots movement made up of children with autism could
hardly get off the ground, so that the parents will always play a
major role. They can't be shuffled off to Buffalo.
Doyle;
Somehow I've uncovered your fear of lack of influence as a parent. A
childs rights are not tied to their relationship to a parent. Nor as
an adult should a person with a disability be seen as a child in need
of parenting.
Thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
