Religion and theology are central ways that many people make sense of the world and their own place in that world. But the insights of critical studies of religion, or what is sometimes positioned as religious studies as opposed to theology, are scarce in disability literature. This article suggests some of the costs of this oversight and some of the benefits of including religion. First, this article discusses how some past scholarly engagements of disability and religion have misrepresented and denigrated Judaism. Second, it argues that Judaism paints different disabilities in quite different ways, and that we cannot coherently talk about "disability in Judaism" as if it is a single thing. Third, it discusses the medical model and the social model, and shows how one Jewish woman's writing on pain complicates how we might think about these models. In this way, the article shows how religious studies can both help remedy past mistakes and bring new insights to disability studies.Keywords: disability studies; pain; religious studies; Judaism Disability studies needs more religion. 1 This is not an altar call, but rather a call for scholars of disability to pay attention to the intricacies of religious beliefs, practices, texts, and communities. Like other populations, disabled people are often religious: current figures say 80-85% of people with disabilities say faith is very important in their lives, a number roughly equal to non-disabled people (Ault Jones 2010; Disabilities and Faith 2016). In countless memoirs, people with disabilities discuss their comforts, struggles, and ongoing relationships with religion (for a diverse array of examples, see Sanford 2008; Cohen 2010; Coggins 2017), and even memoirists who reject religion feel the need to respond to theological interpretations of disability (Adams 2014;Linton 2007). Religion and theology are central ways that many people make sense of the world and their own place in that world. Religion also shapes cultural images of disability, even to the extent that we sometimes use theological language to talk about disability: in one explicit example, "pillow angel" became a term for children with developmental disabilities who are subjected to medical treatments to stop growth. 2 And yet very little critical disability studies or crip theory literature engages religion at all.Christian theology and ethics, most visibly, have made headway into thinking about disability and religion. Theologians and ethicists write about how their communities should include people with physical or mental differences using religious texts and traditions as resources. But the insights of critical studies of religion, or what is sometimes positioned as religious studies as opposed to theology, 1 In a forthcoming publication, I theorize why the growing field of disability studies largely neglects religion or treats it reductively. This is in part, I suggest, because of the ways "crip theory" has modeled itself on queer theory, a field that has also largely (though not completel...

Based on ethnographic and archival research conducted on North American Judaism and Messianic Judaism, this article argues that each group uses DNA in what appear to be sociologically similar ways but that actually differ profoundly at the theological level. Our analysis moves beyond DNA testing per se to focus on what anthropologist Kim Tallbear calls “gene talk,” referring to “the idea that essential truths about identity inhere in sequences of DNA.” Contrasting Jews and Messianic Jews, we demonstrate clearly what scholars have only begun to recognize: how theological commitments may drive investments in genetic science and interpretations of it. Further, we show how religiously significant identities associated with race, ethnicity, or lineage interact with DNA science, coming to be viewed as inalienable qualities that reside in the self but move beyond phenotype alone. Finally, we argue that gene talk in these contexts is a religiously inflected practice, which serves to binds communities and (implicitly or explicitly) authorize existing theological ideals.

No abstract

For thermoelectric applications, both p- and n-type semi-conductive materials are combined. In melt-mixed composites based on thermoplastic polymers and carbon nanotubes, usually the p-type with a positive Seebeck coefficient (S) is present. One way to produce composites with a negative Seebeck coefficient is to add further additives. In the present study, for the first time, the combination of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) in melt-mixed composites is investigated. Polycarbonate (PC), poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT), and poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK) filled with SWCNTs and PVP were melt-mixed in small scales and thermoelectric properties of compression moulded plates were studied. It could be shown that a switch in the S-value from positive to negative values was only possible for PC composites. The addition of 5 wt% PVP shifted the S-value from 37.8 µV/K to −31.5 µV/K (2 wt% SWCNT). For PBT as a matrix, a decrease in the Seebeck coefficient from 59.4 µV/K to 8.0 µV/K (8 wt% PVP, 2 wt% SWCNT) could be found. In PEEK-based composites, the S-value increased slightly with the PVP content from 48.0 µV/K up to 54.3 µV/K (3 wt% PVP, 1 wt% SWCNT). In addition, the long-term stability of the composites was studied. Unfortunately, the achieved properties were not stable over a storage time of 6 or 18 months. Thus, in summary, PVP is not suitable for producing long-term stable, melt-mixed n-type SWCNT composites.