 |
|
|
Rediscovering Place:
Fieldwork by a Quadriplegic Anthropologist
|
Gerald Gold, York University
Copyright 2004 |
|
Fieldwork as a methodology is a craft or métier of those able-bodied anthropologists who sustain long-term relationships with their ? informants ? and nurture an encyclopediic knowledge of spaces and places. Integral to most anthropological fieldwork are the techniques of negotiating access to households, other foci of power and belief, and in a more general way, to relationships with cultural "others." For most anthropologists this ?alchemy? depends on a combination of participant observation, interviews or questionnaires, and archival research, all of which provide the elements of the deconstruction of cultural experience. However, it is important to emphasize that this access to the "field" is contingent on hidden factors such as the physical "wellness" of researchers and the absence of other restraints such as those based on factors such as gender, age or accessibility. In a masculine metaphor, fieldwork is often based on the herculean abilities of anthropologists, as marginal natives (Freilich 19xx,) to overcome obstacles, not ?normally? considered as obstacles to the physical or sensual interpretation of experience. |
|
|
| This discussion considers my experiences as a disabled anthropologist first from a prospective of conventional fieldwork experiences, and secondly, from the vantage point of fieldwork in virtual places and virtual communities, both of which can become alternative foci of research for persons with disabilities. In the second and most recent phase of fieldwork, I focus on my research with virtual communities of disabled persons, a context which I refer to as "virtual disability" (Gold in press..) These experiences in the anthropology of virtual disability or indirectly but strongly influenced by my earlier field research with dispersed populations in what researchers refer to as"French Louisiana." In a wider context, the incorporation of the self in this study of virtual disability is consistent with recent interpretations of the relationship between theory and practice, the " reflexive turn" in anthropology. In this context, there is little discussion of the relationship between the disabled anthropologist and the long-standing emphasis in anthropology insert after of overcoming obstacles to find a ?field? or place to do fieldwork. |
|
|
| In a cross disability framework, this discussion is situated in a context of how anthropologist with disabilities can most effectively do fieldwork. That is, how do anthropologists with a disability, allows so-called impairments to be less of a barrier and more of a strategic advantage in the definition of the focus of their research (Gold 1994.) This discussion originated as part of an American Anthropological Association outreach policy to include minorities within anthropology (persons with disability, women, gays and lesbians, persons with AIDS, and Third World minorities,) To begin addressing these issues, the Association (AAA), mandated several "Commissions" of inquiry including a Commission on Disability, which was asked to identify barriers for disabled anthropologists and, though not directly specified within its mandate, to enhance disability studies in anthropology. |
|
|
| My interest in the politics of disability within the profession came at the same time as my concern about how I could continue to "do" anthropology. From the early days of the Commission, at the time of my initial interest, I could no longer use my feet in fieldwork, however when the Commission disbanded, I could no longer effectively use my hands or fingers and functioned as a paraplegic. However, as I "write" this chapter and become aware of the need to rethink and reconstruct my continuing anthropological interests to include a virtual field which does not require physical travel, and which builds on my earlier experience of the relationship between cultural identities and globalization.. |
|
|
| My current focus on the study of "virtual disability" follows from this initial concern about making anthropology "an enabling discipline" to include anthropologists with disabilities whom I recognized to be both a "damaged or wounded" minority, capable of original insight. Through personal experience, I could identify with the challenge to rethink and redefine the accepted meaning of the "field." However, although many other anthropologists with a disability came to disability studies through a background in medical anthropology, my own extensive experience was with community studies and with minority cultures and languages. Regardless of this difference, I could identify both with those who focus on the emergence of a Western disability culture and those who study disability in a "Southern," non industrial context (Brown 1995: 2, Ingstad and Whyte 1998: 6.). However, discussions of ?disability culture,? do not include the considerations of ?Place? or of ?Space,? characteristic of anthropology and geography. In later reflection, my previous research with linguistic and cultural minorities, set in a global context (Gold 1983, 1984), suggests primarily a cultural and spatial paradigm for the study of disability and secondly, this research uses another methodology for the study of disability cultures by fieldworkers with "damaged," "spoiled," or "wounded" identities (Goffman 1973.) |
|
|
| i	The Louisiana French research closely preceded my encounter with progressive motor disability and several years later, paraplegia. Unexpectedly, that fieldwork would become invaluable to my later research and thinking by providing insight into the study of unrecognized or unreported and seemingly invisible minorities and their ?communities? (Gold 1988, Smith 1999.) As I will later explain, this research with Cajun communities in French Louisiana, permitted me, as a physically disabled person, to return to original and meaningful anthropological research. Recognizing "invisible" and marginal communities encouraged me to consider ?places? which are recognized by a subset of persons, in shared memory rather than in bounded spaces on a map. In the earlier research, we focused on the of outposts of a sometimes unrecognized "French America," (Amérique française) which are what Anderson refers to as an imagined spaces (Anderson 1983, Louder and Waddell 1983 .) These are places where you do not know you are ?there? until you are able to read the cultural map which lets you know that ?here is there.? |
|
|
| Moreover, fieldwork in a culturally imagined "Cajun country" involves familiarity with both the intricacies of several dialects of Cajun and Creole French and the contested meanings of Cajun/Creole culture. Negotiating Cajun country frequently involves long and sometimes frustrating trips between clusters of French speakers and culturally isolated communities and places. Despite this isolation, many reside in an environment where they work almost exclusively in Cajun French, but speak English and French at home (Gold 1980). This is not only a knowledge of imagined spaces and damaged or a "spoiled," identities, but it is an understanding of subtle differences between micro?regions and between generations and genders, where there are signs and signals of when to speak French and which French to say, to whom and when. In retrospect, this focus on the identification of the dynamic boundaries of "imagined societies" has a number of similarities to locating and understanding disability cultures. |
|
|
| In a similar way, interactions within a virtual disability community involves contacts between dispersed disabled persons, most of whom live in environments of "normals" or primarily non disabled persons. Significantly, the stigma of their disability may carryover or "spread" (Sentumbwe 1998) to support persons who are otherwise regarded as "normals." Like many disability communities, the markers of Cajun culture are stronger among those who are not linguistically and socially isolated. Moreover, Cajun ethnic identification is often strongest among those who do not work or even speak Cajun French. That is, minority identity is strongest among those who are not stigmatized as different. Likewise, disability identitiescan be most apparent among those who are able tomanage their difference with a majority culture. Significantly, the absence of power and the acceptance of a stigmatized, and encapsulated status in "communities of refuge" (Aguirre Beltrán 1979) characterizes culture differences in both ethnic and disability communities. Similarly, the social and political denial of deviance is a feature of both ethnic and disability contexts. |
|
|
| The disabled anthropologist or geographer experiences similar challenges in communicating their selves and in the study of other disabled selves. This is the message of the blind anthropologist Margaret Steiner, interacting with informants in a pub by communicating "eye to eye" (Steiner 1994 .) It also reflects my experiences in communicating with paratransit drivers who redefine their status and relationship with me, inside and outside their buses (Gold 1994 .) Both of these are incidents are set within "archetypical places" (Lifchez1983) the social and physical boundaries which encapsulate the everyday activities of disabled persons. As the AAA Disability Commission discovered, these obstacles to the "fieldwork disciplines" often originate with the directors of programs and with others who do not share a broader understanding of the role of space and place in an "enabling discipline." |
|
|
| Disability disavowal: Personal denial of disablement |
|
|
| Often barriers to research by disabled anthropologist and other social scientists are created by able-bodied researchers when they become concerned about possible relationships between disability and accepted ways of doing research (such as engaging in overseas or complex fieldwork.) Possibly like many other researchers who encounter disability, I maintained that changes in my physical or possibly mental capabilities would not transform the character of my fieldwork. In retrospect, this was a form of deviance disavowal (Murphy 1990:122, Davis 1961,) and disability initially intensified my wish to find a workable research ?place.? Thus when multiple sclerosis affected my walking, endurance and balance, and forced me to take a brief leave of absence, I was determined to continue field research. Instead of accepting a "sick role," I denied my disability which was relatively unnoticed over the next few years. Significantly, I could not recognize how disability would change my research vocation and style. Like Albert Robillard (Robillard 1999) who continued his South Asian research after the also initially identifiable onset of disability (ALS,) I could not accept and adjust for the relationship between the gradual metamorphosis of my physical self and the research I had begun many years earlier. |
|
|
| With that stubborn determination, I began a Canadian Studies fellowship at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in 1988, where I expected to build on my earlier work with ethnicity and multiculturalism (Gold 1989) without considering the anthropology of disability. Although MS began to seriously interfere with many daily activities of teaching and writing, such as walking and climbing stairs, except to several neighbors and colleagues, my disability was no more than a temporary obstacle to carrying out my life vocation, and I did not think that my MS would progress. At this point, I had made no plans to adjust my living style, or research and teaching, to the possible effects of Progressive disability and I regarded my condition as a temporary problem, which I would disguise and exercise and vitamins, probably overcome. |
|
|
| Returning from Israel, but no longer able to disguise disability, I began to consider ways of continuing to do social anthropology with my disability. However, wishing to continue innovative fieldwork, I decided to study the many Israeli immigrants who had moved to Toronto but who seemed to retain considerable ambivalence and even shame about their emigration or yerida (literally "going down") from the "promised land," which seemed to be the dominant theme of studies on Israeli immigrants (Shokeid 1988 .) Particularly significant as a research question was the Israeli participation within the large Toronto Jewish community and its many synagogues and organizations. In interviews with Jewish community leaders, I encountered considerable ambivalence about the possibility of a distinctive Israeli Jewish subcommunity. However, I would be initially inhibited without a fluent grasp of conversational Hebrew, and the physical inability, which quickly became an obstacle, to do fieldwork with more than a small sample of Toronto Israelis. As in Louisiana, I chose to rely on the local knowledge of Hebrew speaking interviewers. |
|
|
| Working necessarily at a distance from informants, from home I was separated by more of a physical wall than a social and cultural barrier which I could not rapidly bridge. Nevertheless, using translated interviews and a number of English language interviews, I documented the emergence of a distinctive Israeli subculture in Toronto and compared Israelis in Toronto with Israelis in other urban settings. Although the fieldwork proceeded smoothly, and reading largely translated interview transcripts assured my proximity to the research, I could only personally participate in a limited manner by reading the interviews and by studying the reactions of Canadian Jews to Israeli Jewish immigrants. Moreover, I was constantly limited by the dependence on a cane, a walker or a car with hand controls. In essence, this was doing fieldwork largely by using the eyes and ears of others, which was unacceptable to my disciplinary training and my understanding of the relationship between anthropologists and the people of a fieldwork "place." As a "wounded" anthropologist, I had momentarily, but with great hesitation, redefined my understanding of anthropological method and the role of the anthropologist as a personal instrument in fieldwork. The research ended as that I had designed, but ended as a project which I read interpreted together with invaluable interpretative assistance of Rina Cohen, an Israeli sociologist at York University. Privately, I was determined to do future research, accepting my change in physical status by personally interrogating disability. |
|
|
| Finding and place and a "field" in disability culture |
|
|
| While working with Israelis and the AAA Commission, but without initially recognizing it as a complementary focus of fieldwork, I initially found a ?place? before my rapidly changing self. Between 1992 and 1994, anxious to make contact with other persons with multiple sclerosis, a rich source of daily interaction came from a Usenet group, "MSN" whose participants are primarily persons in Israel and in English-speaking countries with lengthy and relatively unrestrained narratives or ?tales? of multiple sclerosis. Initially, although observing and participating in these conversations began to take an increasing amount of my time I did not yet consider cyberspace networking as "field" research. Cyberspace was not a ?place? in a conventional anthropological sense and I still considered my presence as experiential and reflexive. Still without precise research plans, I approached cyberspace narrative with personal interest and saved thousands of messages, many more than I would have reuse, as insights into the culture of chronic illness and disability. Although I did not yet understand many of the characteristics of virtual communities, these messages became the basis of a paper for the Society for Disability Studies and the equivalent of my several binders of fieldnotes from Louisiana and Quebec. |
|
|
| Nevertheless, I could not interpret these experiences with the same methodology I used in this earlier fieldwork. Reading through the seemingly endless narratives, I could identify a consistent pattern of communication which demonstrated a coherence and organization which characterizes community in cyberspace, and also provides a an alternative ?place? to do fieldwork. I found that I could not separate research in virtual disability communities and ?culture? as discussed in disability studies (Gold impress.) The virtual community was part of the virtual disability "places in cyberspace," each with a sometimes overlapping network of participants. Moreover, in these communities, the construction of messages is replete with meaning and provides boundaries for self-contained textual worlds (Kolko 1998,) for a virtual disability culture. |
|
|
| Working in this cyber-"place," provides an opportunity for a fieldworker working from a wheelchair, to communicate complex experiences without physically traveling to other places or, in my case, without using my feet or fingers. Moreover, in that virtual place, a fieldworker is not visible, and encounters no barriers of hearing, vision, or mobility. Unlike some virtual communities, disability places are characterized by few anonymous identities and little "flaming" or the exchange of hostile messages as mechanisms of exclusion. Nonetheless, exchanges in virtual disability communities can be heated and extend to controversial threads of discussion (Gold in press.) Moreover, the exceptionality of the researcher became an advantage in narratives about negotiations with medical personnel, experiences with prescription medicines and with hostile physical environments. |
|
|
| In all these narratives, disabling experiences become tales of eligibility and inclusion (see Van Mannen 1988) in the virtual community. In these tales, the role of support persons: who are usually spouses and children and sometimes children of parents, becomes an integral part of this repertoire of narratives in which their voices become almost indistinguishable from those of persons with MS. In this way, virtual community provides support persons locations to become part of the virtual stability community. Partially as a consequence of their often merging voices, but also indirectly because of their association with a ?deviant? group persons with MS, support persons share their stigma. Others have referred to this association as "contagion " or, using an African metaphor, as "spread" (Goffman 1973, Sentumbwe 1998: 161.) |
|
|
| In their support, these "significant others" not only frequently speak as part of the community but their identities become situationally indistinguishable from persons with MS. In virtual fieldwork, narratives of support become part of the textual vocabulary of the disability community. Usually support persons will briefly explain their relationships with the disabled although these explanations may disappear in subsequent messages. From the researchers prospective, whether communicating with persons with MS or their support persons, I constantly out not only like I was studying a stigmatized minority, but I was also one of them, and shared part of the spread or contagion. In their community, their stigma became my own. |
|
|
| Virtual communities as places |
|
|
| Net?citizens referred to their virtual places frequently as ?communities? which have rules of interaction and a relatively familiar cast of characters, some of whom have reputations. For example, a former nurse, who is now on long-term disability, will be consulted about medical matters such as wounds and precious sores, and distinguishes her comments with her ?handle? of "Mystery Lady," although her identity is not disguised. Another participant, a self identified founding member of the community, uses philosophical metaphors to indicate to others whether he finds a thread to be a valuable insight or inappropriate behavior. When he missed misdirected some of his own messages, intended for another community which discusses philosophical issues, he apologized to participants in MSN or is completely inappropriate behavior. At another time, he admonishes others for circulating information which might lead to unfounded expectations because he cannot be supported scientifically (Gold 2000 in press.) |
|
|
| There are also distinctive personalities which elicit considerable response. One participant advertises his own Web site and to the chagrin of some and delight of others, announces his own affinities with Gay Pride Week. Others respond in great numbers to a participant considering ending his "struggle" with MS. There are messages of sympathy which are echoed throughout the community and congratulations such as those offered to a woman who distinguishes herself by being a person with MS who has more children. Some report on their families, visits to clinics and doctors who become familiar, extending the family metaphor to others in cyberspace. As a participant observer, with a similar sense of a damaged identity, I can visualize many of these persons by consulting a community photo album, posted as a Web site, with photographs are accompanied by short biographies. |
|
|
| Although my research focuses primarily on virtual disability "communities," others find similar communication networks in other marginal or discredited groups as well as undervalued professional groups, ranging from communities of parents with disabled children (Avery 1998,) to a community offering mutual support to very large women (Stratton 2000,) A common feature of these and other virtual places is that their participants consider them to be privileged environments where they can interact with similar ?damaged? others and where they can visit as often as several times daily. Like myself who frequently sought information on everyday issues, the replies can be supported and informative to a broad range of participants. Some replies going to great detail to provide some kind of assurance of the authenticity of their information. Moreover, in disability groups, my notes and experience consistently find that information which is not to be useful is confirmed by the recipient and many others. Similarly, doubtful or possibly false information is contested by group participants. This process is similar to the process of authentification which characterizes discussion networks in everyday experiences. Although the possibility of distortion is undoubtedly there, information is indirectly authenticated by references to experiential and medical sources. To the participant observer, this process offers unparalleled access into the dissemination of disability information. In my experience, I find that I have faster and possibly more research information from the virtual community than from medical sources for often difficult to contact and evasive. Moreover, to my surprise, several physicians, when given some of information disseminated in virtual space, either supported the possibility of these alternatives or contested the unfamiliar with them. |
|
|
| Discussion "threads" focus on these therapeutic alternatives and provide a virtual support system by focusing on specific issues and posting responses which become part of the"agenda" for others (Gold in press.) In this way, the topic of communication in a virtual place can be focused, directed and manipulated so that after several replies, threads sometimes distort events by wandering away from the original topic or by leading to the ?invention? of entirely new material within the same thread (e.g.Aycock and Buchignani 1995) Therefore, virtual "places" including those of disabled persons, magnify events and conflate the importance of weak ties. This can be done through global hyper-extension of national and of loosely structured global networks (Gulia and Wellman 1999.) Working in this new venue, I found out like a literary scholar, my reconstruction self place greater importance on the significance of the textual information in cyber?ethnography, which creates the need for alternative techniques like narrative analysis in research with virtual places. |
|
|
| The research methodology for fieldwork in cyberspace places is only now emerging, but it effectively complements the limitations of a disabled anthropologist studying a dispersed population, and without the physical means or somatic ability to undertake conventional research. Nevertheless, working with virtual communities incorporates many of the intricacies of fieldwork and introduces others. Many virtual communities, like the dispersed Cajun groups of Southwestern Louisiana, are characterized by a globalization of communication, within which participants are in multiple regions and nations, where relationships are a part of transnational cultural networks (DaRosa, Gold and Lamy in press.) Liaison with these networks, using cyberspace ethnography is both insightful and often the only way that I am able to do this fieldwork. |
|
|
| Moreover, from an ethical perspective, I find that is necessary for the isolated self, the disabled anthropologist working in cyberspace to address ethical problems of accessing isolated groups of other disabled persons. The problem of the representation of self is partially resolved by the anonymity of textual encounters and by a generalized reciprocity of the exchange of information. Although in virtual disability communities participants will frequently contact each other in travels or before traveling to a destination where they can contact persons who has experiential networks which may already be familiar. |
|
|
| It is also possible for any observer to follow communication in virtual communities without using any dialogue or identifying herself, either initially or ever, by remotely "lurking" as an unseen observer of communication in the public common. On Usenet, participants of virtual communities are part of a larger "invisible crowd" (Smith 1998) which cannot be easily quantified or identified. With this capability field researchers to either contact or elude the gaze of participants, conventional codes of field research ethics need to be reconsidered. Monitoring Usenet, remotely, as a "lurker," can be managed by anyone, anywhere, leaving a great deal of leeway to both the observer and the researcher, both of whom can selectively communicate using textual metaphors, physical appearance, and environments or place. However, replying to textual messages raises methodological and ethical issues. For example, informing others of the presence of a researcher or of anyone with an unknown agenda or intentions, even the parent of a disabled child, or of a disabled researcher who is a "wounded" anthropologist like myself, can have unforeseen consequences (Avery 1998.) |
|
|
| It follows that cyberspace research becomes a methodological issue, whenever the presence of the researcher is publicly or privately revealed. As all textual exchanges in Usenet virtual places can be either public (almost all is) or private. In disability groups a small number of communications are private and may deal with subjects such as abandonment, loneliness and despair, as well as sexual failure (Gold in press .)) As closed or private messages can be impossible to measure or monitor and when researchers can only randomly monitor private space, there are unresolved ethical issues as to what is appropriate or accessible in cyberspace research. In most studies, the ethics of research access in cyberspace are not an issue. For example, almost all textual messages which I have followed are publicly available as "threads" on Usenet (Gold in press.) Private messages in these communities, from my own experience, usually inquire about specific issues which are not likely of general interest. Others may be unsolicited such as a message of despair from a former computer professional who communicates her sense of abandonment because she is no longer able to travel freely in her Southwestern urban environment and has lost contact with her former world of work and with most of her former personal and work network. (Gold in press.) |
|
|
| Virtual disability and social action |
|
|
| Researchers working with disability, if they?re not persons away themselves disabled (probably most researchers,) or whether they are persons with disability, or if they are caregivers with an insightful and reflexive perspective on the meaning of disability, are represented in virtual disability places/communities. One possible advantage of researchers living with disability could be their understanding and acceptance of community participants although I feel that this kind of perspective could be a shortsighted and restrictive interpretation of the possibilities for social action and may characterize some disability communities the special those capable of generating their own culture and/or tradition (e.g. ? some deaf communities,) while other disabled populations may not develop groups strongly different from the majority culture (Deshen makes this case for blind groups in Israel (Deshen 1992.) |
|
|
| Cross disability social action increasingly involves anthropologists many of whom are themselves disabled. For example, an anthropologist working with the Center for Independent Living demonstrates insights into disability social action and communicates much of this through e-mail messages and participation in virtual communities Also , these researchers, frequently recognize fields of social research which would not otherwise be identified. Others, provide information on which agencies will be of greatest assistance and how to do manage bureaucratic hurdles. However, the majority of virtual disability communities are focused on a single disability and the development of disability focused communities might impede rather than enhance cross disability communication by increasing the strength of weak ties in the formation of strong networks. |
|
|
| Participants of only one of these virtual communities, MSC, an Canadian community largely focused on exchanging personal experiences were unable to establish a separate list focused on "MS Action Now," were not capable of generating a sustained social action group separate from the original discussion or thread oriented community. On several occasions, however, participants in MS focused virtual communities do mobilize for specific projects such as obtaining a computer for a "member" who was suddenly moved to a retirement home or, in another case, contact the administrators of a hospital where a socially active "member" was sent after being "forcibly" evicted. However, communicating privately with some list members, I was asked whether this incident is "real." In short, none of these communities in which I participated could develop sustained relationships. |
|
|
| The second community, including almost exclusively Canadian "members.," is characterized by extensive social links and visiting outside of the virtual place. There were no specific projects to provide materials for members or to solicit support. Significantly, and that community, I repeatedly explained the nature of my work. That explanation was interpreted more in terms of myself as "super crip" (Murphy 1988,) although I did not explain, except in four private vacations, that I wish to consider all of the public communications of the community. As Rhinegold (1993:28) found in the mutual assistance of the Well, a virtual forum the Bay area, virtual communities which correspond to geographic places are more likely to be complimented by social interaction. As MSC is based communications across a continent, the question of group assistance only arises to support or encourage individual narratives. Working in this way, the community is highly effective in providing mutual support. As I was receiving that support it was my decision based on the experience of Avery (1998,) to explain my anthropological intentions in private communication. |
|
|
| Variations in virtual disability |
|
|
| This exclusion of disabled fieldworkers in anthropology is partially related to the failure of fieldwork oriented disciplines, focused on the study of place, to be enabling fields of study. One reason this exclusion is related to the "invisibility" and marginality of the disabled anthropologist and fieldworker. Reflected in the selection of anthropologists is their status as "normals" or everyday society and their appropriateness for fieldwork. In this chapter, I demonstrate that some of these barriers disappear by extending the conventional anthropological definition of place to include virtual communities. Moreover, the study of virtual disability encourages the crossing of boundaries of both physical accessibility and social exclusion. Some categories of disability identitytemporarily disappear when the voicesof disability are communicated as text in virtual messages.. This research is innovative when if favors the study of minorities previously excluded by their communicative silence. In one way, this new fieldwork with disability, which is often carried out by the disabled, is a partial solution to the chimera of the "enabling discipline." Graduate education, which requires familiarity with spaces or places can be made somewhat accessible by focusing on virtual disability. Virtual research opens the possibility of wide networks of contact, as fieldworkers like the blind Mia Lipner, are "Listening to the net." (Lipner 1998.) |
|
|
| References |
|
|
| Anderson, Benedict 1983, .Imagined Communities. London :Verso. |
|
|
| Avery, Donna M. 1998 "Electronic Parenting or, It Takes A (Listserv) Village to Raise Families with Disabilities." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. January 1998. http://www.december.com/cmc/1998/jan |
|
|
| Aycock, Alan and Norman Buchignani 1995 "The E-mail Murders: Reflections on "Dead" Letters." In Steven G. Jones ed., Cyber Society Computer Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. |
|
|
| Brown, Steven 1995 " Disability Culture: Here and Now. "Disability Studies Quarterly: |
|
|
| 15,no.4,2-19. |
|
|
| DaRosa, Gold and Lamy in press "Ethnicity and Ethnicization in a Globalizing World; Borders, Boundaries, and Virtual Community." |
|
|
| Hahn 1988, "The Politics of Physical Difference: Disability and Discrimination." |
|
|
| Journal of Social Issues 44,1 pp.39-47. |
|
|
| Goffman, Erving 1963 Stigma:Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.:Prentice Hall.	 |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald in press	"Searching for a Cure: Disability and Collective Action. In Linda Rogers and Beth Swedlove eds. Semiotics and Disability: Interrogating Categories of Difference. Albany: SUNY. I |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald in press	?Virtual Disability: Sameness and Difference in an Electronic Support Group.? In: P. Devlegier and F. Rusch eds., Similar and Different: Core Concepts and the Coming of Disability Studies.Gold, Gerald 1996 final report of American Anthropology Association Commission on Disability, unpublished document. |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald 1994	 |
|
|
| [article in Anthropology Newsletter mentioning "enabling discipline." Reference forthcoming] |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald 1988	Finding French America: Quebec Anthropology and the Definition of a Culture Area. In: R. Winthrop (ed.), Essays in Honour of Robert F. Spencer. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, pp.95-119. |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald 1984	"The Mission Quebec in Louisiana" In: G.L. Gold, ed. Minorities and mother country imagery St.John's, Newfoundland: Memorial University |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald 1983	'A Return to Roots? Quebec in Louisiana' In: A.O. Hero,Jr. and Marcel Daneau (eds.), Problems and Opportunities in US-Quebec Relations. Boulder: Westview Press, pp.127-150. |
|
|
| Gold, Gerald 1989	'First Peoples, Founding Nations and Ethnic Canadians: A Critical Perspective on Cultural Policy in Canada.' In: Y. Want (ed.), Canadian-Israeli Perspectives on Culture, Women and Media. Jerusalem: Academon (Hebrew University), pp.1-23. |
|
|
| Groce, Nora	1995	Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. |
|
|
| Kolko, Beth E. 1998 "Building a World with Words: The Narrative Reality of Virtual Communities." http://www.iup.edu/~c271pdefault/cyberspaces/Kolko.html |
|
|
| Lifchez,Raymond 1983 "Designing Supportive Physical Environments." in Nancy Crewe and Irving K. Zola and associates. Independent Living for Physically Disabled People. San Francisco,:Jossey Bass,pp.130-153. |
|
|
| Louder and Waddell 1983. French America. Baton Rouge::Louisiana State University Press. |
|
|
| Murphy, Robert 1990 The Body Silent. New York: Norton. |
|
|
| Rheingold, Howard 1993 The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Harper Perennial. |
|
|
| Rodman, Margaret Roman, Margaret 1992	"Empowering place: multilocality and multivocality." American Anthropologist 94: 640 -56. |
|
|
| Sentumbwe, Nayinda 1998 "Sighted Lovers and Blind Husbands: Experiences of Blind Women in Uganda." In Ingstad and Whyte, eds. Disability and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. 159 -173. |
|
|
| Smith, Marc 1999 "Invisible Crowds in Cyberspace: Mapping the Social Structure of the Usenet." |
|
|
| Shokeid, Moshe 1988 Children of Circumstances: Israli Emigrants in New York. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. |
|
|
| Steiner 1994. "When Another Meets Another:Coming 1-to-1." In Anthropology of Work Review, 11:no.2-3,pp.10-11. |
|
|
| Stratton, Marcy 2000 "The Girls Don't Cry: At Least Not in This Virtual Community." |
|
|
| http://bombshelter .ca/~baldguy/Anth/stratton.html |
|
|
| Van Maanen, J. 1988 Tales of the Field, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
|
|
| Young,Cathy and Thersa Senft 1996. "Hearing the Net:An Interview With Mia Lipner." Women & Performance 9:1,#17,pp.111-124. |
|
|
| Zalewski, Rick 2000 "The Art of Love on the Internet: the Cyberspace Have a Heart? |
|
|
| http.//www.yorku.ca/faculty/academic/gerry/essays/netlove.html |
|
|
| Zola, Irving K. 1982 Missing Pieces: A Chronicle of Living With a Disability. Philadelphia:Temple University Press |
|
|
| Zola, Irving (1983 (1972)) Medicine as a means of Social Control. In Sociomedical Inquiries: Reflections, Inquiries and Reconsiderations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press |
|
|
| Notes |
|
|
|
