I'm on this week's Archive Fever podcast talking about history and disability. Deep gratitude to Yves Rees and Clare Wright for their generosity and willingness to endure my nervousness:
We referred to @bluntshovels 's wonderful essay https://meanjin.com.au/essays/the-disability-pandemic/ and to André Brett's and my piece from last year https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14490854.2021.1993748 as well as my book on Milton Keynes https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429444807/milton-keynes-british-culture-lauren-pik%C3%B3
On reflection on listening back to the interview, I should have made the context clearer: in general, it's absolutely not enough to just advocate for awareness and recognition. I emphasised that so much here because of my view that the discipline of history has particular problems with recognising that scholarly work is embodied, beyond its focus on the mystical value of presence in front of sources.
I think history and historians have a lot of work to do on even recognising that disabled historians exist, and I do think that has to be a foundation for any further work -- but it's definitely not enough in itself. I'll pay extra attention to being clear on this in future.
Related: thanks to the wizardly team at Archive Fever for making any sense of what was a heavily brain-fogged conversation 💜
@anintegralstate I'm already wishing I said some things better, and remembering why I don't do such things often, but am choosing to think of it as a piece of a necessary conversation rather than a definitive statement 😑
hcommons.social is a microblogging network supporting scholars and practitioners across the humanities and around the world.