One principle and three fallacies of disability studies

We argue the need for coalition between trans and disability studies and activism, and that Disability Studies gives us the tools for this task. Our argument rests upon six facets. First and foremost, we explicitly acknowledge the existence of trans disabled people, arguing that Disability Studies must recognise the diversity of disabled people’s lives. Second, we consider how the homogenisation of womanhood, too often employed in transmisogonist arguments particularly when coming from those claiming to be feminists, harm both non-disabled trans women and cis disabled women. This leads to our third point, that Feminist Disability studies must be anti-reductive, exploring how gendered experiences rest upon other social positions (disability, queerness, race etc.) Fourth, we reflect upon the ways in which Disability Studies and feminism share a struggle for bodily autonomy, and that this should include trans people’s bodily autonomy. Finally, we argue that Trans and Disability Studies and activism share complex and critical relationships with medicine, making Disability and Trans Studies useful allies in the fight for better universal health care. We conclude by calling for our colleagues in Disability Studies to challenge transmisogony and transphobia and that transphobia is not compatible with Disability Studies perspectives.

<i>Literary Bioethics: Animality, Disability, and the Human</i> by Maren Tova Linett

This paper discusses conceptual and methodological concerns in the study of physical disability and the human body from the perspective of a phenomenologically informed sociology.1 The study of physical disability and the human body has claimed the attention of philosophers, social scientists, psychologists, physicians, public health administrators, insurers, and so forth, each of whom brings a unique disciplinary perspective as well as distinct research interests and goals. In this paper I identify theoretical and conceptual biases in the study of disability that: (1) tend to narrow its understanding to a unitary phenomenon, i.e., as a dysfunction (either patho- physiological or psychological) affecting only the individual; (2) hamper its conceptualization as a form of difference; and (3) restrict the ability of persons with disabilities to live independent and respectful lives. Further, I demonstrate how socio-political conceptions of disability raise many theoretical and practical questions regarding research, as well as fostering the uncritical use of notions of normality and difference.2 Contemporary research on disability and the human body is faced with a challenge: to describe and analyze the world of disability within its social, political and human contexts without perpetuating biased assumptions, ignoring bodily differences, and marginalizing the experience of disability.3 This paper suggests that a phenomenologically-informed sociology can help researchers meet this challenge. Instead of seeing able-bodied and dis-abled persons as separate and opposed, disabled embodiment may be conceived as a form of human diversity, thus moving towards an understanding of dis-ability as difference. This paper discusses how researchers can reach this understanding through the phenomenological technique of bracketing and by listening to the criticisms offered by disability advocates and writers.

‘What are we doing, when we do disability studies?’ Tom Shakespeare begins his edited collection Disability Research Today: International Perspectives by asking this question. In answering it, he notes that the chapters are framed within his intellectual biases and ‘preferences for what disability studies should be’ (p. 2). The book is organised into four parts: (i) illness and impairment; (ii) disabling processes; (iii) care and control, and; (iv) communication and representation. Disability, for Shakespeare, is a ‘complex, diverse and above all multi-factorial phenomenon’ that should mainly draw on ‘empirical research, rather than theory alone’ (p. 3). In keeping with his insistence on an empirical focus, most of the chapters do not explicitly espouse a bio-psycho-social model or focus on disability, as interpreted in terms of the World Health Organization's (WHO) international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) – except for Corbisiero's chapter. Most focus on disability as ‘social-relational’. Disability studies are inclusive enough to accommodate diversity but some activists and scholars in critical disability studies or using a social model approach find Shakespeare's seemingly blind espousal of the ICF and WHO problematic, and will be reading this book wondering if his work is still relevant to critical disability studies and sociology (although I think that this book illustrates he is trying to say something more nuanced). There are chapters where, empirically and theoretically, Shakespeare is on the mark in identifying important areas of research, for example, in terms of intersectionality to homelessness, aging or violence against disabled women in India. The qualitative and quantitative depth and quality of the research is to be commended and gives a nice overview of interesting scholarship. Shakespeare also fittingly recognises where some of the future research challenges of disability studies are located, in terms of technological advances and the importance of big data. When thinking of research evidence and links to policy and practice, the gold standard is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). RCTs are not discussed in this book but would fit well with Shakespeare's research interests in rehabilitation (where the ICF has been very influential) and might open a critical approach to rethinking its hegemony. I was particularly interested in Ishihara's chapter ‘Learning from Tojisha Kenkyu’ (p. 27), where psychiatric patients take the lead in developing treatment regimes. The chapter also is connected to the innovative ideas currently being developed in mad studies and neurodiverse debates (such as in McWade et al. 2015). In terms of the intersections between disability studies and the sociology of health and illness, Ferrie and Watson's chapter on ‘The psycho-social impact of impairments: the case of motor neuron disease’ (p. 43) will be of interest in that they develop a social relational model of disability. Although Shakespeare does not want to focus on the social model, this chapter is indebted to the theoretical work of Carol Thomas by building on her idea of psycho-emotional disablism, illustrating that theory is still fundamental but reified. This points to some of the dangers of thinking that you can create silos in certain disability models or theories in a discipline. In many of the chapters there is a sense that innovation, in terms of theoretical development, will happen only through interdisciplinary work. As such, the book feels a little out of touch with some of the current debates in sociology, anthropology and disability studies. In particular, it seems out of touch with the political urgency of disability activism, the questioning of neoliberalism, the impact of austerity, conflicts, rethinking our sociological futures and how particular paradigms of disability become linked into the politics of ‘who counts’ (Ginsburg and Rapp 2015). Most of these studies are also located in middle to high income countries. This edited collection neglects research and debates on decolonising disability in the global south and on rethinking ontological and epistemological foundations. Part of that movement of decolonisation is a questioning of the boundaries of inclusion set by disability elites or institutions based in the global north. The theoretical richness and crucial empirical work being done in Australia, Canada and the USA is also missing, for example, how sites of intervention and incarceration become interlinked to disability. I would not call this book truly international or representative of the variety of approaches in disability studies. However, it is a nice reference book in showcasing empirical disability research and how the field is growing methodologically in new and exciting directions. It should appeal to students, academics and practitioners in a range of fields such as sociology and social policy.

NYU’s one-day symposium, Cripistemologies, was one of several conferences this year focused on the relationships between gender and sexuality studies and disability theory. Others included Debilitating Queerness: the Sixth Annual DC Queer Studies Symposium at the University of Maryland, College Park. Debilitating Queerness dovetailed with the University’s lecture series (bearing the same name), which featured (over the course of several months) lectures from Robert McRuer, Eli Claire, Jasbir Puar, and Heather Love. In her keynote address for the symposium, Puar offered a meditation on the normativizing impulses reflected in dominant modes of analysis in disability and transgender studies vis-a-vis the rubrics of debility and capacity. Cripistemologies organizers Lisa Duggan and Robert McRuer assembled a group of scholars based in the United States and Canada to speak to various dimensions of queer, trans, intersex, and disability theory. Organized into three panels, the day began with reflections on the recently published special issue of the Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, featuring Katerina Kolarova, Robert McRuer, and Aly Patsavas. The second panel, “Injury, Illness, Chronic Pain, and Disability Studies,” brought together anthropologists S. Lochlann Jain and Karen Nakamura as well as ethnic and gender studies scholar Patrick Anderson. In the final panel, I joined Toby Beauchamp and Morgan

This innovative textbook, Disability Studies in Inclusive Education, aims to boost teachers' confidence in mainstream and special schools, enabling them to effectively engage with learners with disabilities in the classroom and address their diverse learning needs. It originates in the Disability Studies in Education (DSE) course initiated in 2017 in the Division of Disability Studies at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and was developed by the Including Disability in Education in Africa (IDEA) research unit. The DSE course development process prioritised inclusivity and active involvement from academics, teachers, parents, persons with disabilities, and community stakeholders, including NGOs. Through a consultative and co-design process, the course convenors brought together a diverse range of skills and expertise from scholars in Disability Studies and specialist educators proficient in reasonable accommodation for meeting the learning needs of learners with disabilities. This textbook is an outcome of that collaborative process. In the context of SDG4, which promotes quality, inclusive education for all, the textbook explores the challenges of equitable education through the lens of Disability Studies in education. The authors discuss the impact of specific impairments on individuals and their learning, along with strategies for addressing these challenges through an enabling learning environment, incorporating curriculum adaptation and reasonable accommodation for learners with disabilities. The textbook provides a foundational understanding of Disability Studies and its application in inclusive education. Relevant policy is examined globally, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries from a decolonial perspective. Adopting the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework, the textbook provides a systematic approach to maximise flexibility in the curriculum, allowing all learners to flourish by choosing learning pathways that best suit them, to achieve their goals. The authors recognise that UDL alone is insufficient for ensuring full participation of learners with disabilities and emphasise the importance of reasonable accommodations tailored to the specific needs of learners with impairments as well as the importance of engaging families and communities in circles of care to support the learner. The Disability Studies in Inclusive Education textbook serves as a valuable resource for learners, teachers and teacher educators, either as part of a formal course or independently as needed. The design of the textbook adheres to UDL principles, with a strong focus on accessibility and interactive engagement, featuring links to video, further reading and other multimedia. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, this work can be freely hosted, reused, adapted, or translated by educators and learners in other contexts, on condition that proper attribution is given to the authors. This textbook was developed and published by the IDEA research unit in collaboration with the Digital Open Textbooks for Development initiative in the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching at UCT.

Disability studies (DS), disability studies in education (DSE), and connected frameworks (i.e., critical disability studies and disability studies critical race theory) challenge normative assumptions about ability and difference, emphasizing the social, cultural, and political dimensions of disability. When applied to inclusive education, these frameworks offer critical perspectives that center the voices and experiences of disabled people, their families, and those in allied fields. From 2014 to 2024, articles on inclusive education using disability studies frameworks were published more often in countries of the Global North than in the Global South, reflecting the need to extend this field of research to the voices and perspectives of disability studies scholars from the Global South and the unique lived experiences of disabled people and their families living there. Additionally, although articles offered overarching perspectives on inclusion, the researchers rarely named specific inclusive classroom practices or described them in a way that would assist educators in implementation. Furthermore, a disconnect was found between inclusive classroom practices and inclusion of students in educational decision-making. The field can subsequently benefit from more actionable research on how disability studies frameworks shape lesson planning, teaching strategies, and systemwide reforms concretely within varied educational landscapes.

While critically informed approaches to medical education are increasingly advocated in literature, discussion of the potential role of disability studies in informing pedagogy and practice is largely lacking. The emergence...

In this review, I concentrate on analysing the response Tom Shakespeare’s Disability rights and wrongs has awoken in the disability studies community. I argue that the complicated relationship between politics...

This article discusses the acquisition of a physical impairment/disability through voluntary body modification, or transability. From the perspectives of critical genealogy and feminist intersectional analysis, the article considers the ability and cis*/trans* axes in order to question the boundaries between trans and transabled experience and examines two assumptions impeding the conceptualization of their placement on the same continuum: 1) trans studies assumes an able‐bodied trans identity and able‐bodied trans subject of analysis; and 2) disability studies assumes a cis* disabled identity. The perception of transsexuality and transability as mutually exclusive phenomena results from a nonintersectional analysis of transsexuality as an issue of sex/gender, but not of ability, and of transability as an issue of ability, but not of sex/gender. Difficulty recognizing continuities between these phenomena thus stems from an ableist interpretation of sex/gender and a cis(gender)normative* interpretation of ability. This article aims to: 1) enrich intersectional analysis in trans and disability studies and transability scholarship; 2) complicate disability studies, in which disabilities are often presumed to be “involuntary,” and encourage the decentering of a cis* subject; 3) encourage trans studies to decenter an able‐bodied subject; and 4) advocate for increased dialogue and the creation of alliances between trans and disability studies and movements.

This creative-critical paper combines creative non-fiction and theory to trace one non-disabled scholar’s personal experience with disability studies as a field and a community. Using disidentification and crip theory, this paper theorizes the personal, political, and academic utility of identifying with crip as a nondisabled, fat, black, queer, female academic. This crip identification then undergirds and informs the researcher’s scholarship in and relationship to disability studies as a field. Specifically referencing the Society for Disability Studies dance as a potential space of cross-identification, this paper suggests that disidentification among/across/between minoritarian subjects allows for coalitional theory and politics between disability studies and other fields, particularly race/ethnic and queer/sexuality studies. Keywords: crip, identity, queer theory, race

2024." : " , 29 3 Zoom. 2024: : . -Disability Studies - (ability) (disability) . , 30 , . , ., , , .

One of the consistent problems i find in the work I do—which is focused on women and the cultural representations of illness—is classification. There was not really a category of “disability studies” when I started this work in the 1980s, and I would have resisted that label even if there had been. Since embracing the field of disability studies, I have wondered about my early resistance to it. At first, I attributed it to my own ableism (and I don't think I am necessarily wrong about this), but as I have continued to work on the issues, I am coming to see it more as a result of a disciplinary divide between the medical humanities and disability studies. My first job teaching literature was in a medical school, and I was early on immersed in the idea of the medical humanities, an idea I am beginning to think is antithetical to disability studies (though not to disability itself). My talk today discusses the source of that divide, the problems I see with it, and suggestions for what we can do about it. I want to examine the two interdisciplinary fields in terms of their disciplinarity, and in the interest of time, I'll use a shortcut to do this; I will compare two relatively recent MLA publications,Teaching Literature and Medicine(2000) andDisability Studies: Enabling the Humanities(2002).

Reviews 221 Amour and Warner-Vieyra’s Juletane to examine the primal encounter in disability studies—the stare—and the protagonists’ recuperation of their narratives through surreptitious observation; Condé’s Heremakhonon and Bugul’s Le baobab fou to study the quest for a cure and the failed promise of integrative healing as emblems of uneasy testimony and attempts at postcolonial reconciliation; Diagne Sène’s Le chant des ténèbres and Bugul’s La folie et la mort to consider how marked bodies are cast as impediments to the smooth circulation of capital in the era of globalization; and finally, Bessora’s 53 cm and Fatou Diome’s Le ventre de l’Atlantique to explore the lives of African immigrant women living in France, whose bodies contaminate urban spaces and trouble phantasmatic notions of nation and belonging. Calling for‘contact,’these analyses engage a methodology that intentionally juxtaposes disparate texts and allies lenses of analysis. They overturn traditional readings of the sick and disabled female body as an easy metaphor for postcolonial alienation in favor of nuanced readings of lived and shifting subjectivities. They negotiate rifts within disability studies between the ‘social model’ of disablement and the subjective, embodied experience of impairment , trauma and pain while at the same time revealing spaces for rewriting and self-determination. Postcolonial and disability studies have come of age together and yet seem to have met fairly recently.With few notable exceptions, the field of disability studies has yet to engage with literatures in languages other than English. Nack Ngue points out how foundational Michel Foucault and Henri-Jacques Stiker have been to disability studies to wonder why this encounter is so long in coming. The methodology and structure of Critical Conditions reckon with deeply ingrained hierarchies and patterns of exclusion—historical, linguistic, and theoretical—in order to imagine solidarity between apparently disparate subjects and to reach for a transnational feminist disability politics. University of Minnesota, Morris Tammy Berberi Pierce, Gillian B. Scapeland: Writing the Landscape from Diderot’s Salons to the Postmodern Museum.Amsterdam: Rodopi,2012.ISBN 978-90-420-3594-2.Pp.240. $70. Pierce analyzes French art criticism penned by creative authors, starting with Diderot’s Salons followed by Baudelaire, Breton, and Lyotard (spending the major part of her analysis on Diderot’s 1767 Salon and Lyotard’s 1995 Beaubourg exhibition, Les immatériaux). What ties these four writers together is their insistence on a purely subjectivist approach, on viewing art as an experience resulting in an inner moment and space of personal creativity and an outwardly aesthetic attitude toward existence. The term Scapeland is taken from Lyotard who uses it to describe the veritable ‘estrangement’ or displacement of the beholder and object viewed, transporting both viewer and subject matter into another-worldly or imaginative landscape of the beholder’s imagination. Unlike the scholarly gaze of the art historian whose interests are primarily attached to technique,materials,and subject matter—all for the purposes of describing and explaining the work of art—that of the subjectivist art critic sees the work of art as a point of departure for his own private creation; art (viewing) becomes a collaboration producing another work of art, be it a story, poem or even a self-engineered exhibit or event. For Lyotard, Diderot’s famous “Promenade Vernet” (Salon de 1767—the philosopher’s imaginative stroll through the sites visited in the paintings) expertly exemplifies this strange collaboration which Pierce also identifies as art’s ‘immateriality’; the physical canvas disappears into the beholder’s newly imagined ‘scape.’ In Baudelaire, this experience is taken to another level resulting not only in a prose poem but also in transforming the aesthetic experience of the flâneur into that of creator of (verbal) cityscapes. For Breton, the surrealist gaze is that “receptiveness or openness to the marvelous” (149): apprehending what lies beyond mere representation. Landscape paintings in particular serve as rich highways “to journey beyond the limits of mere representation into a world of dream and imagination inside its frame” (157). The subjective gaze of the author/critic reveals the essential immateriality of art, leading to an increasingly decentered attitude toward the work itself or what Lyotard identifies...

The article argues for the importance of teaching undergraduate graphic medicine courses informed by disability studies. Using her experiences teaching graphic medicine classes over the last eight years, the author argues for the importance of graphic medicine courses beyond medical school curricula. This creates an opportunity not just to introduce disability studies concepts to undergraduates, but also for disability studies and graphic medicine to meaningfully illuminate each other. The article argues that framing comics through disability aesthetics and disability activism (including precepts such as access intimacy and disability justice) reveals how powerfully and consistently graphic medicine centers each. In turn, graphic medicine provides powerful opportunities to reimagine disability representation and access as aesthetics and accommodation. The article shares experiences of teaching graphic medicine, reflects on related dilemmas, and offers fruitful strategies for anyone wishing to teach graphic medicine courses informed by a disability studies approach.