Updates from Mike Gulliver Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 9:26 am on September 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: disability, disabled, human rights, impairment, United Nations   

    ‘Disabled’ or ‘with disabilities’ 

    I recently overheard someone saying that it’s no longer ‘correct’ to talk about ‘disabled people’. Apparently, the UN and other international organizations use “people with disabilities” instead.

    If that’s true, then it represents a considerable challenge to Deaf Geographies. It takes us back to the point where the difference between a person considered ‘non disabled’ and one considered ‘disabled’ is with the person. i.e. inherently attached to their body.

    But of course, this is meaningless within signing spaces – where Deaf people aren’t disabled at all – hearing people who can’t sign are.

    In Deaf space, those considered with a disability aren’t disabled, whereas those who are without a disability are disabled.

    Of course, you could say that those who can’t sign are disabled. Chances are that their peripheral vision isn’t quite as good as those who can sign. But of course, that’s not considered a disability.

    The UN definition returns us to the 1960s; and a dangerous definition of what is considered ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, ‘impaired’… and given that the UN is the guardian of all things ‘human rights’ and decides what is and what isn’t appropriate intervention or provision for those with disabilities – I’d go as far as to say that they define what is, and isn’t, fully ‘human’.

    The fact that they do it without any apparent reference to the differently produced spaces of human life is, frankly, terrifying.

    —

    A similar post, that takes a different angle is available at http://mikegulliver.wordpress.com

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 9:20 am on September 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: capacity, , individual, performance, production, representations of space   

    Where’s DEAF space for the individual? 

    A question that’s been rattling around my head since the IBG in London is what is DEAF space for the individual? After all, isn’t it a fundamental part of ‘DEAF’ (particularly as defined by Padden & Humphries as ‘like us’) that it is only really mobilised as part of a collective/community? And isn’t ‘DEAF’ – as a collective term – anathema to individual productions of space?

    I don’t have a full answer – performances of space change so often and in such subtle ways that I’m not sure that there is a single, definitive answer.

    But I think part of the answer is that there a tension between the ‘ideal’ of individual freedom; spaces described on an individual basis – and on a moment by moment, case by case, basis – and the inevitability of what happens when those spaces are represented (either by the person themselves, or by others) and the tensions and codings that get involved at that point.

    Ultimately, there’s nothing extraordinary about the spaces that emerge as a series of people who are physically more visually oriented go about their being-in-the-world – at least, no more extraordinary than any other spaces produced by other individuals who are simply ‘perceiving’ their environment and ‘capabilising’ (!) it accordingly. They are just… spaces.

    That is, until individual capabilities (either mechanical, or existential) become contingent upon also establishing those spaces alongside others. That’s when spaces become grouped, identified as ‘same’, polarised, defined, marked, Othered, valued, devalued.

    It seems to be at that point where ‘human’ breaks down into different categories… ‘DEAF’ perhaps being one of those, alongside ‘hearing’, ‘normal’, ‘same’, ‘different’, ‘safe’, ‘dangerous’ etc.

    Perhaps the key to individual DEAF spaces is the way that those categories then get authored back into an individual’s ‘representations’ of space (to draw on Lefebvre)… and the way that shapes the performance of spaces which would otherwise we produced ‘value free’ by the simple interaction of bodies and environment.

    Something to ponder anyway ;)

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 3:30 pm on September 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    First item added to the list of resources – O’Brien (2005) – https://deafgeographies.wordpress.com/resources/

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 8:30 am on September 21, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: references,   

    Deaf Geographies references – how you can help 

    As part of this blog, we’re looking to provide access to as many papers and other published works as possible that mention Deaf Geographies.

    There are two key aims for this:

    1. To gather as much background as possible to inform what we do
    2. To provide a resource to help the Deaf community (academic and non) to understand the value of Deaf Geographies, and start to generate engagement around some of the concepts

    A further aim is to start to make this information available and useful to the hearing academic community – and to begin to build power (in a Foucaultian sense) over the way that knowledges in this area are authored by the mainstream.

    Both explicit and implicit references are useful –  anything that refers to, or discusses Deaf performances of space and place, Deaf topographies, Deaf utopias/dystopias, and so on is also welcome. There’s no limit to the coverage, which will grow and diversify as references and papers come to light.

    Also, given the particularly spatial nature of Deaf community colonisation from the mid 19th century, ancient as well as modern resources are welcome. It would be nice to tie the theoretical association of DEAF people and geography (which appears to date most explicitly from 1994) into colonisation, or even pre-colonisation period historical material on Deaf utopias, the nature of DEAF realities and so on.

    How you can help

    Here are three ways you can help.

    • Send references – If you feel able, pleas email me as many references as you can. I’ll then try and find copies of the papers and make them available.
    • Send resources – If you have e-copies of papers or simply ‘bits’ of relevant documentation and are happy to pass those on, then please do. If they are big, I can set up a file transfer location or you can use something like <https://www.wetransfer.com/>.
    • Start discussions – If you feel really adventurous, send in a paper with a short review, or a few comments on the content which can then feature on the blog with space for discussion. Particularly useful here might be papers that are not explicitly on Deaf geographies, but that are pertinent to the way that Deaf geographies might be theorised.

    And finally…

    Finally, the Deaf Sandbox blog is an informal space for us to present and discuss ideas linked to Deaf Geographies, so if you’d like the ability to post to it, then please let me know.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 8:11 am on September 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cyberspace, iconicity, online, , v-lists,   

    Where are the V-lists 

    I’ve been following several debates on a list for Deaf academics recently. It’s predominantly a list with academics in the US, UK, Australia etc… there are very few from non-English writing countries and all discussions are held in written English.

    So, a recently mail caught my eye asking why it was that there was no method for posting in sign language – either ASL, BSL or any other – to help those academics who aren’t so comfortable with English to quickly access the discussions.

    The idea that this is even a sensible suggestion is one that asks some pretty tough spatial questions of the linguistic prowess that the hearing world professes over the DEAF community. Hearing world taken-for-granted linguistic/national divisions look rather silly when you consider that a group of internationally dispersed DEAF academics could conduct academic discussions using sign languages and all make sense of each other.

    When you see DEAF people communicating at something like a World Federation of the Deaf meet, the idea that hearing people struggle to communicate effectively with a person who’s grown up only a few miles from us makes our spoken ‘languages’ look rather pathetic.

    Compared to the way in which natural sign languages are able to flow towards each other in the iconic – spoken languages’ sound=morpheme system is very limited.

    So sure – sign language can’t talk round blind corners – and isn’t so easy if you’ve got both hands full. But spoken language is just as limited, but in different ways.

    No one is ‘better’ – just different – and to work effectively – each exudes different space.

    Anyway – back to the original question – where are the V-lists?

    Well – the fact I’m writing this in English suggests that it’s not quite as easy to post in sign. I’d have to record it first using tech that’s not always available, then store it somewhere, then embed it – whereas with WordPress I simply point, click and type.

    But it is possible with something like Twitter – you can simply start the tweet, and then video – twitter does the linking and sends out a message with the URL included.

    The web is still a largely text-based space – that’s a systemic limitation imposed by the space that a text vs. a video file takes up. But there are ways around that. Clunky though they might be, perhaps we need to start exploring those as a way of suggesting an alternative use of online spaces, one more suited to Deaf geographies?

    A different version of this post, with thoughts expanded slightly differently, is available at http://mikegulliver.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/where-are-the-v-lists/

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 8:05 am on September 2, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    This is the link for the main Deaf Geographies site… http://deafgeographies.weebly.com

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 3:43 pm on September 1, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bourdieu, Finland, , Justice, Lefebvre, Minority, Policy, , Soundscape, Swedish, Validity   

    News from the RGS-IBG 

    Having just returned from the Royal Geographical Society, Institute of British Geographers conference I thought it worth putting up information here on the papers that were presented and some of the discussion that followed.The session (only one at the IBG – as opposed to the 3 planned for the AAG in Feb 2012!) was entitled “Intersecting Geographical Imaginations: Social Geography and Deaf Studies” and featured four papers:

    • Anna-Maria Slotte (University of Helsinki, Finland) – Citizenship viewed from a minority within a minority perspective. The Case of the Finland-Swedish deaf

    Anna Maria’s paper described the situation of a community of fewer than 300 Deaf people using Finland Swedish sign, a language positioned on a dialect continuum between Finish and Swedish sign, and their experiences as Deaf members of the Finland Swedish community. Her paper focused on issues of identity, language sustainability and the citizenship experiences of those who belong to such a small community, within an already small community.

    • Dai O’Brien (University of Bristol) – Mainstream schools as a space of identity development for d/Deaf young people

    Dai’s paper was a primarily theoretical exploration of how best to approach spaces of identity development of Deaf (often) individuals within mainstream schools – the primary situation of most Deaf children in the UK. Describing some of the assumptions of formative reports (Warnock in particular), Dai covered some of the difficulties of using Lefebvrian theory – particularly the way that it struggles to map the spaces of the individual, and laid out Bourdieu’s approach as one that was more pertinent to his research.

    • Gill Harold (University College Cork, Ireland) – ‘Hear ye! Hear ye!;’ Exploring geographies of sound and questions of Deaf citizenship

    Gill’s paper described the city from a Deaf-centred perspective and considered its social reproduction in light of the phonocentric tendencies which are implicit in the design of urban spaces and the audist bias which underpins civic interactions. Highlighting how the long-standing conflation of speech with language is a misnomer which has had far-reaching implications for Sign Language communities, she described the need to see cities as multi-sensory scapes – as places that could also be ‘Deafscapes’.

    • Sarah C.E. Batterbury & Mike Gulliver (Bristol University) – Justice versus validity: debating the social geographies of DEAF/Sign Language Peoples’ emancipation

    Sarah and Mike’s paper was presented as a debate between two views: a pragmatic, resource allocation based policy approach, and an idealistic, utopia-as-method approach. Each presented the core of their argument separately. Sarah’s as ‘Linguistic Justice’ – secured through the application of human rights. Mike’s as Validity – secured through a full appreciation for the foundations and equality of DEAF space. Their paper presents the tension that exists between these two approaches and questions whether either is entirely possible.

    For the moment, the abstracts are available in full from the RGS conference website.

    The session was chaired by Mary Beth Kitzel who also presented at the AAG in Seattle in April. Discussion after the papers was facilitated by Tracey Skelton who, along with Gill Valentine, is one of the only geographers to have written on the situation of the Deaf community.

    As always, there was as much worth in meeting up and taking time to catch up as there was in the papers themselves. General feelings afterwards were that although conferences are good as landmarks in the year, we would all appreciate a forum for more ongoing contact.

    So, watch this space – where we’ll be discussing some of the ideas that came up throughout the day.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 6:22 pm on June 3, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Geographies, sponsorship   

    What kind of Geographies are Deaf Geographies anyway? 

    So, here’s the quandary – faced with proposing sessions for the AAG next year, the question currently going around those involved in 2011 is who to approach for sponsorship which, if you don’t know, means persuading the big powerful interest-groups of the AAG to recognise facets of Deaf Geographies as belonging to them, or identified with them in some way, and lend them some support

    The decision isn’t completely make or break. The two sessions this year were sponsored by Communication Geography and Qualitative Geography and still featured papers from other geographical sub-disciplines, but being sponsored gets you recognition and a central time and place for the sessions both during the conference, and in the conference documentation.

    Plus, it’s interesting to think about which of the big interest groups best provides a home for Deaf geographies.

    The list of those proposed is as follows:

    • Cultural geography
    • Qualitative geography
    • Political geography
    • Historical geography
    • Sexuality and space
    • Ethnic geography
    • Population
    • Urban geography
    • Communication geography

    I propose to start picking these apart and adding to them what areas of Deaf geographical research I can possibly think of. I’d invite anyone else to chip in… even if only to disagree or to suggest particular projects or challenges in that area.

    When we’re done, some kind of synthesis will be posted to the Deafgeographies.com site for reference for those less familiar with Deaf geographies and questions of Deaf/DEAF space.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 4:00 pm on June 1, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: architecture, , , , hansel bauman, social model of disability, thought experiment, utopics   

    DEAF space or the question of ‘what if’… 

    A problem is looming that is going to only get bigger… Having spent the last 6 or 7 years exploring the way that members of a self-recognising DEAF community produce spaces for being… and called it ‘DEAF space’, another ‘Deaf space’ is emerging which means something different.

    This puts me (or rather, my work) in rather an interesting position; I’m finding that my work is being redefined by a popular expression of something that’s not what I researched at all…

    I have no desire at all to fight over the name…

    Firstly… because I know where Deaf space has come from (the Gallaudet architecture project)… and I know the people involved (notably Hansel Bauman).  I like Hansel and his work… I even shared a platform with him at the recent AAG in Seattle. His work is firmly part of Deaf geographies and he’s a contributor on the DEAF space blogs.

    So… there’s no issue there of telling Hansel that his work is wrong… it’s not… it’s just different.

    Second… I don’t really even know whether ‘DEAF space’ is the best label for what I’ve been researching… see the previous post on boundaries of DEAF space for more on that… (mind you, I don’t know whether ‘Deaf space’ is any good for what Hansel’s been looking at, but it’s as good a name as any other).

    Finally… I’m not really sure that there should be a difference made… after all… all you have to do is look at DEAF space (as I’ve described it… as a space that allows DEAF people to ‘fully be’…) and extend the utopian side of my thinking to a point where DEAF people start to have control over their built environment… and you end up with a Deaf space.

    However, I guess it’s the need to see that linear path of argument, and then to follow it back and forth in a number of directions… and wonder what happens when space veers off it suddenly that makes me uncomfortable… that’s the kind of mental game that academics like to play… but how relevant is it really to the DEAF community?

    That’s where Paddy Ladd’s Deafhood is so good, for all its potential theoretical fragility… it is an easy to grasp concept that really carries weight and moves people to action (or internal evolution), even in a popular form…

    Deaf space as Hansel’s working on it, in a popular form, looks pretty much like what it is… environment designed around a different way of being human… it’s not ‘accommodation’ or ‘access’, it’s the social model of disability flipped around and given to the DEAF community…

    Whereas what I’ve been researching is actually a kind of DEAF utopics… and what I’m moving gradually towards is a utopic theory that not only encompasses DEAF space, but extends that to others who life their lives from within differently able physical bodies…ultimately problematising the ‘DEAF’ of ‘DEAF space’.

    Perhaps I can continue to use DEAF space… but actually start referring to it as only a part of what I research, which is more a kind of multiply sensed, human ‘what if’…

    What transformative power is there though, in something that is necessarily a thought experiment… ?

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    Mike Gulliver 8:13 am on May 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , funding, prestige, research, risk   

    The weight of … weight… 

    A couple of days ago I got an email from a friend… one of the contributors in the DEAF space sessions at this years AAG she shared a ‘crazy dream’ that one day there might be a funded research centre focused on Deaf geographies.

    Certainly, there’s enough research to do… the coverage of the two AAG sessions was enough to demonstrate that: linguistics, poetry, architecture, politics, history, personal narrative, urban planning… essentially there’s enough in DEAF geographies to sustain a mirror human geography department dedicated to providing a critical counter to mainstream human geography…

    … where DEAF space should be that instrumental is another question… I’d argue that it shouldn’t, but that it could be… that it should simply be and challenge other spaces on their assumption of hegemony or validity… and a predominantly sound-produced space, or touch-based could do the same… without the culture (perhaps) which then turns the lens back on DEAF space… and so on…

    … anyway… that aside, there’s certainly enough research.

    But… where’s the funding for a centre like that.

    Now I don’t want to go into a diatribe about new research being the only valid research etc… I don’t think that’s true. But it did strike me the other day at the HEA conference (that I posted about before) that you don’t have to have very many new ideas to have a great amount of influence in the academic community – you just have to be a safe pair of hands.

    In fact, those with the greatest sway, appear to be those with the best publication and funding record… and – particularly if you accept that the best journals and the best funding tend to be hedged in powerfully established organisations – means that anyone too outlandish has to work much harder to get acknowledgement, and financial support.

    So… what’s the answer? Do we play the game until we get the funding profile and run the risk of losing that edge that defines new research as so critically different? Are there funding bodies out there looking to fund new and exciting work that the rest of academia hasn’t yet heard of?

    If there are… if they’d like to get in touch, we can certainly spend some of it for you… and provide you with some world-changing research to boot ;)

     

← Older posts

Newer posts →

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel