Carson McCullers的奇事:挪用、盟友关系和为他人说话的问题

A. Steele
{"title":"Carson McCullers的奇事:挪用、盟友关系和为他人说话的问题","authors":"A. Steele","doi":"10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I situate the life and work of Carson McCullers within the larger disability studies debate over the problem of speaking for others. The essay makes two arguments that build on one another. The first is for including McCullers more fully in the disabled community and in studies of literary disability, despite her having expressed a small number of ableist comments. The article suggests that McCullers’s experience as a queer disabled woman became a key lens that animated much of her writing. The essay then turns to its second and larger goal, which is to consider how the complicated case of McCullers can help the field distinguish allyship from appropriation and unethical identification. Turning to feminist theorists of communicative ethics Iris Marion Young and Linda Alcoff, as well as Deaf and disability scholars like Rebecca Sanchez, the article ultimately argues that McCullers’s “use” of deafness in The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, though undeniably flawed, is not an act of appropriation but an early historical attempt at allyship from a differently disabled perspective. Her commitment to deafness is driven by a sustained critique informed by the shared afflictions of injustice, but one that also overall refuses to dissolve human difference or speak for deafness.","PeriodicalId":55735,"journal":{"name":"Disability Studies Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Curious Case of Carson McCullers: Appropriation, Allyship, and the Problem of Speaking for Others\",\"authors\":\"A. Steele\",\"doi\":\"10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7773\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, I situate the life and work of Carson McCullers within the larger disability studies debate over the problem of speaking for others. The essay makes two arguments that build on one another. The first is for including McCullers more fully in the disabled community and in studies of literary disability, despite her having expressed a small number of ableist comments. The article suggests that McCullers’s experience as a queer disabled woman became a key lens that animated much of her writing. The essay then turns to its second and larger goal, which is to consider how the complicated case of McCullers can help the field distinguish allyship from appropriation and unethical identification. Turning to feminist theorists of communicative ethics Iris Marion Young and Linda Alcoff, as well as Deaf and disability scholars like Rebecca Sanchez, the article ultimately argues that McCullers’s “use” of deafness in The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, though undeniably flawed, is not an act of appropriation but an early historical attempt at allyship from a differently disabled perspective. Her commitment to deafness is driven by a sustained critique informed by the shared afflictions of injustice, but one that also overall refuses to dissolve human difference or speak for deafness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disability Studies Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disability Studies Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7773\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我将Carson McCullers的生活和工作置于关于为他人说话问题的更大的残疾研究辩论中。这篇文章提出了两个相互补充的论点。第一个是将麦卡勒斯更充分地纳入残疾人社区和文学残疾研究,尽管她发表了少量的残疾人评论。这篇文章表明,麦卡勒斯作为一名酷儿残疾女性的经历成为了她大部分写作的关键镜头。然后,本文转向第二个也是更大的目标,即考虑麦卡勒斯的复杂案件如何帮助该领域区分盟友关系、挪用和不道德的身份认同。文章转向传播伦理学的女权主义理论家Iris Marion Young和Linda Alcoff,以及像Rebecca Sanchez这样的聋人和残疾学者,最终认为麦卡勒斯在《心是孤独的猎人》中对耳聋的“使用”,尽管不可否认有缺陷,但并不是挪用行为,而是从不同的残疾角度建立联盟的早期历史尝试。她对耳聋的承诺是由一种持续的批评所驱动的,这种批评源于不公正的共同痛苦,但总体上也拒绝消除人类差异或为耳聋说话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Curious Case of Carson McCullers: Appropriation, Allyship, and the Problem of Speaking for Others
In this article, I situate the life and work of Carson McCullers within the larger disability studies debate over the problem of speaking for others. The essay makes two arguments that build on one another. The first is for including McCullers more fully in the disabled community and in studies of literary disability, despite her having expressed a small number of ableist comments. The article suggests that McCullers’s experience as a queer disabled woman became a key lens that animated much of her writing. The essay then turns to its second and larger goal, which is to consider how the complicated case of McCullers can help the field distinguish allyship from appropriation and unethical identification. Turning to feminist theorists of communicative ethics Iris Marion Young and Linda Alcoff, as well as Deaf and disability scholars like Rebecca Sanchez, the article ultimately argues that McCullers’s “use” of deafness in The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, though undeniably flawed, is not an act of appropriation but an early historical attempt at allyship from a differently disabled perspective. Her commitment to deafness is driven by a sustained critique informed by the shared afflictions of injustice, but one that also overall refuses to dissolve human difference or speak for deafness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信