Exploring normativity in disability studies

Abstract

Points of interest • This article explores the uses of normativity in disability studies. • It is argued that theorists in postconventional disability studies have misconstrued the meaning of normativity and incorrectly conflated it with normality. • The article argues for the importance of normative, especially ethical, engagement in relation to disability, and provides some conceptual tools for the examination of moral right and wrong. • Posthumanist appeals for collective responsibility, and especially for the pursuit to nullify the separation between humans and animals, may put many disabled people at risk. • Finally, the article offers insights about the ethical implications of the use of theories and empirical claims.

Armenian teachers’ dichotomous perspectives on children with high‐functioning autism

“…However, responses to the vignette through downward comparisons cannot be perceived as absolute or unchanging; rather, they draw attention to the complexities of cultural experience and knowledge, via an insight into the ‘societal and cultural reality in which disability is experienced’ (Vehmas and Watson, , p. 13). For serving teachers, this reality is likely to draw heavily on an educational and social reality that has its roots in Soviet ideology.…”

Sosiaalisen solidaarisuuden käänne vammaisten lasten tutkimuksessa

“…esim. Komulainen 2007;Muir & Strnadová 2014;Riddle 2013;Vehmas & Watson 2016). Esimerkiksi uusliberalistiset, yksilön toimijuutta ja itsenäistä elämää korostavat määritelmät sekä "lapsen äänen" ymmärtäminen yksilön vapaan tahdon ilmaisuvälineenä ovat olleet erityisesti vammaistutkijoiden kritiikin kohteena.…”

Ethics, Art, and Social Work

“…Moreover, such portrayals also do not take into account that in fact people's impairments also create barriers for inclusion within normative understandings of what it means to be part of society. In an effort to move away from medical models of disabilities, the adoption of social model theories have decentred the body as a site of analysis and understanding of experiences of disability (Garland-Thomson, 2005;Vehmas & Watson, 2016). Indeed, critiques of social model theories of disability allow us to see how the body and embodied experiences are eschewed from the analysis in an effort to locate barriers in societal structures:…”