Rethinking disability theory and practice: challenging essentialism

This edited volume argues that even in recent Critical Disability Studies which have sought to critique essentialist assumptions in relation to Disability, nevertheless essentialisms remain which predetermine and predirect definitions and arguments in the field. This volume analyses such essentialisms in a wide range of areas such as childhood, gender, sexuality, reproduction, ADHD, autism, the animal, d/Deafness, hirsutism, the body, and vision. Particularly issues such as 'agency', 'voice' and 'body' are explored in terms of their political implications.

Essence and properties

The distinction between the essence of an object and its properties has been obscured in contemporary discussion of essentialism. Locke held that the properties of an object are exclusively those features that ‘flow’ from its essence. Here he follows the Aristotelian theory, leaving aside Locke’s own scepticism about the knowability of essence. I defend the need to distinguish sharply between essence and properties, arguing that essence must be given by form and that properties flow from form. I give a precise definition of what the term of art ‘flow’ amounts to, and apply the distinction to various kinds of taxonomic issues.

The case of pre-natal diagnosis

This chapter reconsiders critiques of pre-natal diagnosis in Disability Studies. Underlying assumptions about reproductive technologies are analysed to demonstrate that while many critiques of pre-natal diagnosis by Disability activists and theorists are concerned about children being the product of 'choice' through the selective effects of pre-natal diagnosis, the issue that reproductive technologies (such as IVF) themselves necessarily always already rely on 'choice' -- namely the choice for a 'biological' or 'own' child (different terms are used) -- is nowhere considered. The chapter considers several consequences of thinking through this issue and its implications.

'he perceives himself as a caterpillar […]' constructions of the disabled subject in the critical response to Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rear Window'

This chapter focuses on critical responses to Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window, especially their construction of disability. The suggestion is that such criticism takes the disabled body to be both necessary and superfluous to the meaning of the film, a difficulty that, I argue, can be read more widely within film theory. Ever since Christian Metz’s ‘the Imaginary Signifier’, the condition of being ‘bound to a wheelchair’ is understood to have a resonance for theories of film spectatorship, but only ever in a sense that does away with the wheelchair as a mark of difference.

The recuperated materiality of disability and animal studies

This chapter considers a perhaps unexpected connection between disability and animal studies, given disability studies' understandable reluctance to be associated with animal liberation/rights struggles. It finds that both fields remain rooted in ideas of experience and feeling, or the notion of an essential embodied experience, even while they offer up critiques of the way essentialism operates more broadly to disenfranchise or disadvantage the groups they represent. The chapter goes on to analyse what the implications are of this notion of 'embodiment' and the materialism that accompanies it, it foregrounds the contradictions that ensue, and then discusses what this means for the way political action is (and can be) conceived of.