Troubling Ethics: A Rejoinder to Dillabough

Abstract

my rejoinder to do three things: (1) point out inaccuracies or misunderstandings in her account of disability studies; (2) debate her on several points; and (3) in the end, respond to her key question of me in which she asks, To what end do we engage in this struggle and with what key issues in mind? Implied throughout my rejoinder is a dual position on ethics. Ethics are trouble and ethical debates cause trouble. As I suggested in my article, well-meaning, caring scholars struggle and disagree about ethical dilemmas and values, the foundational knowledge underpinning them, and how we should enact them. We must have ethical positions, but when we stake out an ethical claim, its problems immediately become evident to one's readers and listeners. Dillabough's response to my article is an example of just such a process. Ethics also need to be troubled. Their waters need to be stirred up. Their problems, risks, and inconsistencies need to be revealed, explored, and revised to create more useful and more liberatory consequences for people in schools. In my article, I attempted to trouble the ethics of critical and inclusive pedagogies. Dillabough further troubles pedagogy as well as my account of pedagogy.