Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Editorial: Dis/abling gender in crisis times
Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies ; 25(1):1-18, 2022.
Article in Dutch | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1863147
ABSTRACT
Despite its notoriously ‘sticky’ (Ahmed, 2004) nature as a social straitjacket for many, gender has a nasty habit of slipping through scholars’ fingers when mobilised for analysis or systematic study. [...]the field of gender studies itself is ever-changing, responding to new insights generated within its own diverse, interdisciplinary intellectual ecology as well as to societal, political, and environmental challenges. The policing influence of medical, legal, and political institutions enthralled to ‘normality’ (Foucault, 2003a, 2003b;Tremain, 2006;Chen, 2012) has largely superseded religious interpretations of (im)moral or blessed bodies.2 Philosophical, historical (Stiker, 1999), and sociological (Thomas, 2007) models of dis/ability have been developed, and continue to evolve, and the field has expanded along the lines of posthumanist, new materialist, and affect theoretical thought (e.g. Hickey-Moody & Crowley, 2010;Roets & Braidotti, 2012;Goodley, Lawthom, & Runswick-Cole, 2014;Feely, 2016;Puar, 2017). [...]much like feminist and antiracist movements have labouriously worked towards justice, equality, and inclusion, grassroots intersectional disability justice activism (Mingus, 2011;Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2018;Disability Visibility Project, 2021) has inspired societal change as well as scholarly renewal within critical disability studies and theory, and critical pedagogical frameworks in particular.3 There is, in other words, much that gender studies and critical disability studies have in common a commitment to justice, equality, and inclusion;an ever-changing philosophical vocabulary;a consistently critical approach to what is defined as ‘normal’, ‘good’, and ‘(re)productive’;4 and a close connection between the work of activism and scholarship produced. Despite such shared interests and questions, however, gender studies and critical disability studies often use different theoretical toolboxes, appeal to different conceptualisations of justice, equality, and inclusion, and hail back to different modes of activism and research. [...]these fields could, potentially, learn much from one another. Smith and Hutchinson’s volume addressed crucial intersections between both fields, such as a feminist ethics of care, conceptualisations of the body as the material face of a ‘minority’, and the difficult integration of queer theory and ethnicised experiences in both fields. Since the appearance of the aforementioned volume, many authors have further ‘gendered’ disability (see e.g. Hall, 2011), and critical disability studies scholars have, moreover, attuned themselves increasingly towards identity questions and categories, such as class (Turner & Blackie, 2018);coloniality (Nair, 2020;Hunt-Kennedy, 2020);liberty (Ben-Moshe, Champan, & Carey, 2014);race/ethnicity (Annamma, Connor, & Ferri, 2013;Samuels, 2011;Parker, 2015);sexuality (McRuer, 2011);age (Ladd-Taylor, 2017;Gallop, 2018);and the queering of various intersecting identity categories (Chen, 2012;Kafer, 2013;Puar, 2017).
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: Databases of international organizations Database: ProQuest Central Language: Dutch Journal: Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: Databases of international organizations Database: ProQuest Central Language: Dutch Journal: Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies Year: 2022 Document Type: Article