This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The “ugly laws” Schweik writes about were essentially designed to remove “unsightly” bodies and behaviors from public spaces.
My invocation of an “impossible but necessary dream” is indebted to Gayatri Gopinath’s (2005) notion of “impossible desires.”
References
Campbell, F.K. 2009. Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. New York: Palgrave.
Chen, M.Y. 2012. Animacies: Biopolitics, racial mattering, and queer affect. Durham: Duke University Press.
Erevelles, N. 2011. Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. New York: Palgrave.
Gopinath, G. 2005. Impossible desires: Queer diasporas and South Asian public cultures. Durham: Duke University Press.
McRuer, R. 2006. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York: New York University Press.
Mitchell, D.T., and S.L. Snyder. 2010a. Disability as multitude: Re-working non-productive labor power. Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies 4(2): 179–193.
Mitchell, D.T., and S.L. Snyder. 2010b. Introduction: Ablenationalism and the geo-politics of disability. Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies 4(2): 113–125.
Puar, J.K. 2012. The cost of getting better: Suicide, sensation, switchpoints. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 18(1): 149–158.
Schweik, S.M. 2009. The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: New York University Press.
Sedgwick, E.K. 1990. Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McRuer, R. Afterword. Bioethical Inquiry 9, 357–358 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-012-9381-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-012-9381-z