| ... |
... |
@@ -1,31
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-Normalization of "speech" as a method of participation excludes the speechless population and rejects ways in which people with disabilities can communicate meaning |
| 2 |
|
-**Simplican 09** (Stacy Simplican ~~Michigan State University~~ "Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms", APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, 2009) |
| 3 |
|
-Deliberative democracy harbors a tension. On one hand, in order for the process and outcome to be legitimate, deliberative democrats require inclusive participation and emphasize the involvement of persons directly affected by any decisions. On the other hand, deliberative democrats also insist that all participants meet certain cognitive and dispositional requirements in order to share equally in the process of reason giving and decision making. This tension between inclusion and intelligibility ultimately excludes certain members of the population, thereby negating the possibility of full inclusion. Deliberative democrats who recognize this tension offer a twofold solution of minimization and representa tion. First, because only a minimal number of people lack communicative competence, their ab sence does not jeopardize the legitimacy of deliberation. Second, other particip ants, such as guardians or e xperts, can best represent the needs of absent speechless populations. This twof old approach is problematic. Diminishing the size and importance of speechless populations renders vulnerable groups even more invisible and marginalizes their needs. Furthe r, representational solutions neglect the ways in which nonverbal and embodied participation transmit meaning. In stead of exclusion, experiences of speechless populations reveal that atypica l patterns of speech are meani ngful to communicative outcomes and refute deliberative democratic norms requiring transparent speech, reasonableness, and communicative reciprocity. Speechless populations include people whos e communication defies reasonable and coherent standards, particularly individuals wh o are physically unable to speak verbally due to age or disability. By grounding the analysis in th e experiences of people w ith disabilities, this paper expands the notion of communicative compet ence and builds on the work of other feminist and critical scholars who have contested th e boundaries of legitimate speech (Benhabib 1992; Lang) While prior work ha s aimed to bolster the inclusivity of 2 deliberative democracy, these re-w orkings continue to conceptual ize participation as reasonable speech, thereby reproducing exclus ion and narrowly constructing the purpose of deliberative democracy. Because millions of Americans with emotional and cognitive disabilities are disenfranchised through state co nstitutional and statut ory restrictions, salvaging deliberative democracy as an enduring inclusive forum is vita l to the political par ticipation of speechless populations (Appelbaum 2000; Schriner and Ochs 2000). While deliberative democrats assume that speechless populations threaten the legiti macy of deliberative outcomes, they ignore deliberative locations that already promote the inclusion of people with significant cognitive disabilities, such as advocacy conf erences convened specifically ar ound disability rights. These deliberative settings demonstr ate the effectiveness of embodi ed participatory methods. |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
-====The affirmative's idealization of language as the main method of communication denies inclusion to those who are perceived to be "communicatively incompetent"==== |
| 7 |
|
-**Simplican 09** (Stacy Simplican ~~Michigan State University~~ "Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms", APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, 2009) |
| 8 |
|
-According to Habermas's communicative theory of deliberative democracy, all persons who are affected by |
| 9 |
|
-AND |
| 10 |
|
-these circumstances, citizens can be denied inclusion due to presumed communicative incompetence. |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-====This faith in language and the exclusion of disability leads to societal disembodiment and closes avenues for reflexive dialogue—turns case.==== |
| 14 |
|
-**Simplican 09** (Stacy Simplican ~~Michigan State University~~ "Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms", APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, 2009) |
| 15 |
|
-Deliberative democrats have privileged the va lue of publicity in rega rds to reason giving |
| 16 |
|
-AND |
| 17 |
|
-of listening, embodied speech can alternatively pr omote increased attentiveness and humility. |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
- |
| 20 |
|
-====The alternative is the social model—adopt the perspective of those with disabilities and reject ableist notions of deliberative communication.==== |
| 21 |
|
-**Preston 14** (Erin, Educational Developer at the University of Guelph – summarizing verbal presentation by Jeffrey Preston – Cripping the Classroom: Education in a Post-AODA World, May 27, 2014 http://erinlearning.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/cripping-the-classroom-education-in-a-post-aoda-world/) |
| 22 |
|
-How do we teach people about disability? We can do better. Think about |
| 23 |
|
-AND |
| 24 |
|
-who admit their vulnerability and dependency). Rethinking and admitting our own dependencies. |
| 25 |
|
- |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
-====The role of the ballot is to combat ableism—educational spaces are key.==== |
| 28 |
|
-Anastasia **Liasidou** ("Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class") |
| 29 |
|
-The following sections use insights from critical pedagogy and critical disability studies to problematise and |
| 30 |
|
-AND |
| 31 |
|
-to "create spaces for new knowledge and forms of action to emerge. |