2008
DOI: 10.5204/mcj.46
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Refusing Able(ness): A Preliminary Conversation about Ableism

Abstract: Feminist Rosemary Tong long ago alluded to the profound possibilities of using critical disability studies theory to recomprehend and respatialize the landscape of thinking about race and gender as sites of signification. This piece presents a preliminary conversation in the emergent field of studies in ableism and desires to not only problematize but refuse the notion of able(ness). Our attention is on Ableism’s production and performance. Such an exploratory work is indebted to conversations already commence… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
61
0
23

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
61
0
23
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly to Johan and Otto, Selma’s utterance connects to the complexity of applying the ‘right’ concepts to promote inclusion but avoiding representing ableist discourses (Campbell, 2008). In this particular excerpt, there is also a certain resistance to dividing people into able-bodied or disabled, which connects to Foucault’s (1974/2004, 1976/2002) resistance to society’s definitions of normality.…”
Section: Analysis Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly to Johan and Otto, Selma’s utterance connects to the complexity of applying the ‘right’ concepts to promote inclusion but avoiding representing ableist discourses (Campbell, 2008). In this particular excerpt, there is also a certain resistance to dividing people into able-bodied or disabled, which connects to Foucault’s (1974/2004, 1976/2002) resistance to society’s definitions of normality.…”
Section: Analysis Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applying the ‘right’ concepts in order to promote inclusion of individuals with disabilities is a complex task due to the risk of unintentionally representing ableist discourses that proclaim that disability is ‘inherently negative, ontologically intolerable’ (Campbell, 2008: 3). Studying inclusion of a particular group of individuals can be a way to try to counteract marginalisation, but labelling groups of individuals has often been a strategy to legitimise definitions of normality in society, as exposed by Foucault’s studies of mental institutions and prisons (Foucault, 1974/2004, 1976/2002).…”
Section: Disabilities In Research and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an excluding force, ableism is a concept from critical disability studies and an overarching discursive frame that captures the ontological core of many negative discourses of disability. Ableist discourse assumes that disability is ‘inherently negative’ and a diminished state of humanness (Campbell, 2008b: 1). This oppressive belief is core to medical discourse of disability which produces categories of bodily and intellectual deficiencies.…”
Section: Contested Discourses Of Disability In Relation To Placementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Policy goals of independence and participation – as espoused by the NDIS – highlight the capability of people with disability, their potential to contribute to society in diverse ways and their right to community membership. Yet ableist discourse remains widespread, where bodily difference is de-valued and a bodily standard of normal constructs distance from people with disability (Campbell, 2008b). Ableism can be expressed through conscious or unconscious attitudes (Friedman and Owen, 2017; Wolbring, 2008).…”
Section: Contested Discourses Of Disability In Relation To Placementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on both views, it can be said that the basic perspective of ableism is a belief that any kind of disability is ‘intrinsically negative and must therefore be ameliorated, cured or eliminated’ (Campbell, 2008). In the ableist discourse, disability then is ‘cast as a diminished state of being’ (Campbell, 2001, p. 44) and fails to imagine differences in abilities within its definition of ‘human beingness’.…”
Section: Theoretical Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%