Feminist Review

, Volume 115, Issue 1, pp 46–60 | Cite as

feminist disability studies as methodology: life-writing and the abled/disabled binary

Article

abstract

What does feminist disability studies contribute to feminist methods? Feminist disability scholars interweave life-writing about their experiences of disability or caring for a disabled person to challenge ableist stereotypes. As such, they foreground their own vulnerability to build disability identity and community. This style of life-writing, while essential, tends to calcify the dichotomy between the disabled and abled—a binary that the field of feminist disability studies aims to destabilise. Building on new work in feminist disability studies, I show how some scholars use life-writing to cultivate an estranging sensitivity. This new sensitivity builds on prior feminist disability studies scholarship to estrange us from 1) the idea that disability is a cohesive identity and community, 2) that disability is always a socially desirable position, and 3) that allegiance to disability rights insulates us from ableist anxiety. By embracing the tension between solidifying and destabilising the meaning of disability, feminist disability scholars can leverage life-writing as a tool of resistance and thereby lessen the threat of conformity that life narratives tend to produce.

keywords

feminist disability studies methodology autoethnography life-writing 

references

  1. Ackerly, B., 2001. Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerly, B. and True, J., 2006. Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aiden H. and McCarthy A., 2014. Current Attitudes Towards Disabled People. London: Scope.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, L., 2006. Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, L. and Glass-Coffin, B., 2013. I learn by going: autoethnographic modes of inquiry. In S. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams and C. Ellis, eds. Handbook of Autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 57–83.Google Scholar
  6. Baril, A., 2015. Transness as debility: rethinking intersections between trans and disabled embodiments. Feminist Review, 111, pp. 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigby, C. and Wiesel, I., 2011. Encounter as a dimension of social inclusion for people with intellectual disability: beyond and between community presence and participation. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 36(4), pp. 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkmann, S., 2014. Doing without data. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), pp. 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, F.K., 2008. Exploring internalised ableism using critical race theory. Disability & Society, 23(2), pp. 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charlton, J.I., 1998. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Couser, G.T., 2000. The empire of the “normal”: a forum on disability and self-representation: introduction. American Quarterly, 52(2), pp. 305–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crow, L., 1996. Including all of our lives: renewing the social model of disability. In C. Barnes and G. Mercer, eds. Exploring the Divide: Illness and Disability. Leeds: The Disability Press, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, L., 2002. Bending Over Backwards: Disability, Dismodernism, and Other Difficult Positions. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, K. and Carless, D., 2013. A history of autoethnographic inquiry. In S. Holman Jones, T.E. Adams and C. Ellis, eds. Handbook of Autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 84–122.Google Scholar
  15. Dumbleton, S., 2013. Goodies and baddies: equivocal thoughts about families using an autoethnographic approach to explore some tensions between service providers and families of people with learning disabilities. Ethics and Social Welfare, 7(3), pp. 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P., 2000. Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds. The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 733–768.Google Scholar
  17. Ellis, C.S. and Bochner, A.P., 2006. Analyzing analytic autoethnography: an autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, T., Lashua, B. and Coffey, A., 2008. Sound and the everyday in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(6), pp. 1019–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holman Jones, S., Adams, T.E. and Ellis, C., 2013. Introduction: coming to know autoethnography as more than a method. In S. Holman Jones, T.E. Adams and C. Ellis, eds. Handbook of Autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 17–47.Google Scholar
  20. Inckle, K., 2015. Debilitating times: compulsory ablebodiedness and white privilege in theory and practice. Feminist Review, 111, pp. 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, M.L. and McRuer, R., 2014. Cripistemologies: introduction. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8(2), pp. 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kafer, A., 2013. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kittay, E.F., 2009. The personal is philosophical is political: a philosopher and mother of a cognitively disabled person sends notes from the battlefield. Metaphilosophy, 40(3–4), pp. 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linton, S., 2007. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  25. McMahan, J., 2002. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McRuer, R., 2006. Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mintz, S., 2007. Unruly Bodies: Life Writing by Women with Disabilities. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, D.T., 2000. Body solitaire: the singular subject of disability autobiography. American Quarterly, 52(2), pp. 311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell, D.T. and Snyder, S., 2006. Cultural Locations of Disability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murderball, 2005. Film. Directed by Dana Adam Shapiro and Henry-Alex Rubin. USA: ThinkFilm.Google Scholar
  31. Murphy, R.F., 1987. The Body Silent: The Different World of the Disabled. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  32. Ostapczuk, M. and Musch, J., 2011. Estimating the prevalence of negative attitudes towards people with disability: a comparison of direct questioning, projective questioning and randomised response. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(5), pp. 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Toole, C.J., 2013. Disclosing our relationships to disabilities: an invitation for disability studies scholars. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2). Available at: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3708/3226 [last accessed 21 May 2015].
  34. Price, M., 2011. Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price, M., 2015. The bodymind problem and the possibilities of pain. Hypatia, 30(1), pp. 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pring, J., 2015. Backlash from activists over Scope’s attempt to ‘End the Awkward’. Disability News Service, August 7. Available at: http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/backlash-from-activists-over-scopes-attempt-to-end-the-awkward/ [last accessed 1 February 2016].
  37. Scope, 2014. New research: majority of Brits uncomfortable talking to disabled people. Press release. Scope, 8 May. Available at: http://www.scope.org.uk/About-Us/Media/Press-releases/May-2014/New-research-Majority-of-Brits-uncomfortable-talki [last accessed 21 May 2015].
  38. Scott, J., 2013. Problematizing a researcher’s performance of ‘insider status’: an autoethnography of ‘designer disabled’ identity. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(2), pp. 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scully, J.L., 2008. Disability Bioethics: Moral Bodies, Moral Difference. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
  40. Shakespeare, T., 2006. The social model of disability. In L.J. Davis, ed. The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 214–221.Google Scholar
  41. Shildrick, M., 2015. Living on; not getting better. Feminist Review, 111, pp. 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simplican, S.C., 2015a. The Capacity Contract: Intellectual Disability and the Question of Citizenship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simplican, S.C., 2015b. Care, disability, and violence: theorizing complex dependency in Eva Kittay and Judith Butler. Hypatia, 30(1), pp. 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomson, R.G., 1997. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Thomson, R.G., 2002. Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. NWSA Journal, 14(3), pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomson, R.G., 2005. Feminist disability studies. Signs 30(2), pp. 1557–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomson, R.G., 2007. Shapes structures story: fresh and feisty stories about disability. Narrative, 15(1), pp. 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vanhala, L., 2011. Making Rights a Reality? Disability Rights Activists and Legal Mobilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walmsley, J., 2001. Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in learning disability. Disability & Society, 16(2), pp. 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wendell, S., 1996. The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Zola, I.K., 1982. Missing Pieces: A Chronicle of Living with a Disability. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Feminist Review Collective 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Women’s and Gender StudiesVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations