Disability &Society,V ol.1 3,N o.4 ,1998,pp.525±5 40

DisabilityStudies/NotDisability Studies SIMI LINTON HunterC ollege,C ity University ofN ew York,695ParkA venue, Room1032West, New York,N ew York1 0021,USA

ABSTRACT Thegrowing interestinandincreased visibility ofthe®eld ofDisability Studies raises questions aboutthe ® eld’slogicalbordersa nd valid dimensions.T his essaylooksto guidingprinciplesfrom th e®eld itselfa stheba sis fordelinea tinga robustlibera larts-based inquiry intodisab ility, distinctfromtraditionalinterv entionist models. Theformeris described in this essay asD isability Studies,thelatterendea vor,in substance themedical- ized applied ®elds and specialeducation, is identi® ed herea stheNotD isability Studies. Theessaybeginswithan overview oftheproblemsfound in theaca demic curriculumwith respecttothestudy ofdisability, andproceeds todescribehowtheproposed liberalarts-based Disability Studies canredressthosepro blems.

Asthe® eld ofD isabilityStudiesis gainingmomentuman dbroader visibility, it is timely toexam inehowthe ® eld is beingde®nedan dthevariou susestheterm is beingputto.Theborder betweenw hat isc onsideredD isability Studiesandwhat is notis ®xedat differentpo intsby differentauthors.A lthough it is unlikely that anyonewould suggest that thereb ean absolutebo undary, effortsto circ umscribe thed omain andtoan ticipatethec onsequencesoflimitlessp ermeability acrossth e bordersare worthwhile. In this essay,I am concernedw ith providing acoherentrationale formarking aborder,s ettingoffD isability Studiesas a socio-political-cultural examinationof disability, fromthein terventionist approachesthat characterize thetrad itionalstudy ofdisability.I positionmyselfas an advocatefo rthecreatio nofarobustliberal arts-basedin quiry intod isability,an dasa disabledw oman with an investmentin increasingthee quitable participationofdisabled people in society.T hed elineation proposedhereis consciously renderedtoserve tho sein terests,an dtheinterestsof validity andreliability whichmysocial sciencetraining has schooledmetoattendto. Thed elineationbetweenDisability Studies,an dwhat Iam describinghereas the`N otD isability Studies’,has speci®c consequencesforboth scholarship andfor disabledpe ople’slives.The®eldof D isability Studiesarose,in part, in responseto theo missionsanddistortionsin thetrad itionalcurriculum’s[1] approach tod isabil- ity. In onesense,the de velopmentofDisabilityStudiesis aremedial endeavor, redressingthesinsofo missionan dcommissionin thecannon.Yet,in asigni® cant

0968-7599/98/040525-16 $7.00 Ó 1998 Carfax PublishingLtd 526 S. Linton way, DisabilityStudiesm ovesbe yondthecorrective.It is thesocio-political-cultural model ofdis ability incarnate.It providesan epis temology ofin clusionan dinte- gration,formulatingideasth at could nothave beenimaginedfro mtherestrictive thresholdsofthe trad itional cannon. It is timely tom ark this border,as the n ame`DisabilityStudies’hasb egunto cropuparoundtheUnitedStatesandGreat Britain tod escribegraduate and undergraduate programsin everythingfrom thetrain ingofhealth care workers and occupationaltherapists,toco ursesin literary criticismexaminingrepresentation and metaphor.T hehealth andoccupational therapyprograms’appropriationof`D is- ability Studies’c ompromisesth eintegrity ofa®eld designedto e xplicatedisability asa social, political andcultural phenomenon.In this essay,I am labelingthose applied approachesthe`NotDisability Studies’.For reasonstob edescribedhe re,I namethem assu chnottod enigrate their function,buttoe xplain howthe appropriationofthete rm compromisesthevalid ity andutility ofa separate liberal arts-basedin quiry. In considering hereho wwemightdelineate Disability Studies,I’ dlike tobegin byoutliningthelimitationsorproblemsin thed ominantor traditionalcurriculum’s presentationofdisability. This is alist ofthe fau lts andfault lines;that is them ore clearly observable misrepresentations,aswell asthecovertproblemsin theacademic curriculum that determinehowd isability is studied.Each oftheproblemsis presentedas a motivatingforcefo rthee stablishmentofadiscrete® eldo fDisability Studies,gro undedin theliberal arts andsetapart fromtheapplied ®elds.T hen, each ofth e`faults’will beexaminedto d etermineho wtobe stredressit through the developmentofD isabilityStudies.

Faults andFault Lines

1.Amajorproblem isth at thecurrentpresentation ofdisability, predominantly in rehabilitation andin special education,individualizesdisabilityÐ thecurriculum fosterstheidea that disabilityis an individual’sor at mosta family’sproblem. Furthermore,thecurriculumbehaves asif disabilityis an isolable phenomenon, andideasab outit relate only toitse lf andtopeo ple who have particular conditions. 2.Another problemisth eview that disabilityis,pe rforce,aproblem.The construction ofd isability asp roblem interferesw ith viewingdisability asan issue,anid ea,a metaphor, aphenomenon,aculture andaconstruction. 3.Athird problem is theabse nceo fsubjectivity andagency ofdisabledpeople. Theabsenceof th evoiceofthed isabledsu bjectis evidentin areview of standard curricula in history, in psychology, in women’sstudies,in literature,in philosophy,an thropology, andonan don.Moreover, theab senceofd isabled people’sperspectivesin thebroad erculture compoundsthepro blem. 4.Afourth problemis theobjecti® cation ofdisabledpeople in scholarship. Inpart, this is aconsequenceo ftheabsenceof s ubjectivity andoftheactive voiceof disabledresearchers,butobjecti® cationis alsofosteredbythedominanceof empiricism in thestu dyofd isability, bythelarge numberofstereotypesand Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 527

simpli® edversio nsof d isabled people’sexperiencepresentedacrossthe d isci- plines,theab senceofcritica lanalysis, thepathologizingofexperienceandthe useo fdiagnosticcatego ries orothermeansoflabeling. Theseare amongthe mechanismsthat furtherobjectify disabled people in theknowledge base. 5.Acrossth ecurriculum,butparticularly in theso cial sciences,and in theap plied ®elds,e ssentialist anddeterministic explanationsofdisability abound. 6.Another majorproblem with thetrad itional cannonis them edicalizationof disability.A saresult ofmedicalization,thereis apathologizingofd ifference, thein dividualizationofd isability (asd escribedabo ve),alossofself-de®n ition andself-determination,andaforcedassignmentoftheroleso fpatient,clie nt andconsumer. Relatedtoth is is thecon¯ationofimpairmentanddisabilityÐ lack ofre cognition that impairmentanddisability should beaddressedpre- dominantly in twoseparate realmsofdiscourse(A bberley 1995). 7.Thereis an overemphasiso nintervention at thein dividual level, in what Trickett et al. (1994) have spokenofasª ¼person-®xin grather than context- changingº(p .18). 8.Acrossth ecurriculum,there is apreponderanceo finformationond isabilityin theapp lied ®elds.Se questeringthestu dyofdisabilityin theap plied ®eldsis restrictivebecausethe re is anarrow bandofco ntentcoveredin those®eldsand arestrictedrange ofmethodology broughttobear onthesubjects. 9.Within theapplied®elds,thereis in adequate attention toth einterventions,th e medical andeducational solutions,that thed isabled community has askedfor. 10.Arelated problem is that thes tudyofdisability is marginalized in theh umani- ties,an dthroughoutthelibe ral arts. 11.Throughoutthecu rriculumthere is insuf®c ientattention tod isabled people as minority group,an dthecultural, political andintellectual meanings ofthat status.F urthermore,d iversity initiativesandmulticultural curriculumen- deavorshave, for themostpart, ignoreddisabilityasa category ofanalysis. 12.Finally, thec urriculumis missingwhat Icall anep istemology ofin clusion. Thered oesnotexist abroad-basedbo dyofknowledge,an in tellectualrationale for theincorporationofdisabledp eople asfu ll andequal memberso fsociety.

What is Needed

Giventheseproblems,what is themostlogical organizationofthestu dyofdisability in theacad emy? Ithinktheresh ouldbe a well-developed,interdisciplinary ®eldo finquiry, groundedin thelib eral arts,called DisabilityStudies,designedto stu dydisabilityas asocial, political andcultural phenomenon. Ithinkthat separate from that, theapplied®eldsshould developmore valid and usefulapproachesto th epresenceofimpairmentin thepopulation anddisabilityin society, andrespondtod isabled people in alessd eterministic andin amore integratedw ay than theapplie d®eldsever have. Although thefoc usoftheapplied ®eldsis onindividualinterventions,researchan dcurricula should carefully examine theco ntextualvariablesthatshape experience.A rokiasamy(1993) statesthat ª(t)he 528 S. Linton ultimate purposeofreh abilitationis theachievementofindividualautonomyby the client¼(and)in its pursuit ofth is purpose,re habilitationshould usea holistic approach totre atment¼includingthes ocial, economic,political, cultural, and legal contextsin whichpeople with disabilities®ndthemselvesº(p.81). Theserevise dapplied approachessh ould beinformedb ythein tellectual tradi- tionsinherentin Disability Studiesandby thepoliticalcommitmentsad heredtoby theD isability Rights Movement.T eachingin theapplied®eldsshould support inclusion,self-determinationandself-de®n ition.Basedo nthoseten ets,andin- formedby currentresearch in education which supportsinc lusion,theprograms should berevisedtop repare professionals tow ork in integratedse ttings.I advocate there ®guringofsp ecial educationandrehabilitation,whichhave traditionally over-determinedd isabilityasan e xplanatory variable andwhichprepare people to work in segregatedsettings,e xclusively with disabledpeople.H owever,n omatter what revisionsare made,the cu rriculumandbodyofre searchth at supports interventionshould remain in thecategory ofthe`N otD isability Studies’.For reasonsthat are elaboratedbelow,themaintenanceoftw oseparate domainshas both intellectual andpolitical signi® cance.

Rationale

Let’sreturn nowto th elist ofp roblemswith thetrad itional curriculumoutlined earlier andconsiderthevalid ity andutility ofdifferentiatingbetweenDisability Studiesand`NotD isabilityStudies’.Obviously, theapp liedapproachesneedanew nameormultiple names.I am namingit asth enull hypotheses,notbecauseit is devoid ofs ubstance,bu tbecauseit remainsnotfully articulatedasa distinct® eld. Special education,rehabilitation andother disability-related ®eldswere andremain more clearly areactiontoso cial needthan® eldsdeterminedby asetofprinciples andideas.While social needis areasonable basisfor developingcurricula, the perpetuationofthese® eldsneedstob ereevaluatedin light ofcurrentresearch and social imperatives.Arokiasamy(1993),writingontheneedforatheoretical basis for rehabilitation,notesthat ª¼rehabilitation asa professionandasa speci® c®eld¼ emergedlargely outoflegisla tive mandate ¼andin responseto a serieso fpractical needs¼(which) has contributedto m akingrehabilitationapragmatic, technique- drivenprofessionwithoutasoundtheoretical base’(p.77). Themedicalized®elds, suchas rehab ilitationandevenspecial education,whichadoptsth eorganizationof knowledge usedin medicine,have historically presumedd ominionover all knowl- edgeond isability.Therefore,forthepu rposesofthis article,itis usefultocenterthe Disability Studiesm odel,fro mwhich standpointtheremainingstudyofdisability is peripheral.

1. Recallth atpro blemon eis theindividualizationo fdisability .Maintainingthed istinc- tion betweenD isability Studiesan dapplied approachesu nderscoresth at individual responsesare appropriate forimpairment,b utmisdirectedfor disability. Thein di- vidualizationofd isability, while logical in theapplied®elds,has spilledover intoall other curricula ondisability. Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 529

2. Disability asaproblem :while disabledpeople have problems,an dthosemay be addressedby individual interventions,maintainingaseparate liberal arts-based Disability Studiesw ould reinforcetheid ea that theso ciety createsmanyofthe problemsdisabledpeople experiencean dthes ociety has aresponsibility toad dress them. There are,ofcourse,pro blemsthat are adirectresult ofimpairment.P ain, suffering, frustrationsandanxiety oftenaccompanyimpairment,an dnoamountof social change ortheory will take thoseaw ay. Eventh ough pain,andevenless extremekindsofdiscomfort are mediatedby social andp oliticalcontingencies,th ey remain intensely personal experiences.While Ibelieve that discourseonthesocial, cultural andpo litical meaningofd isability can andshould taketheseissu eson, Disability Studiesh asn otyet beensu ccessfulin doingthat. PaulLongmore,in a personalconversationin 1996, describedthis gap in theliterat ure as`¼ theneedto theorize aboutimpairment.’It is incumbentuponD isabilityStudiestheo rists to articulate thesee lementsofexperienceas the yare relevanttom anyareaso finquiry, fromliterary criticismtoan thropology, fromclinical psychology tocu ltural studies. Disability Studiesthe oristsd oneedtograp ple more directly with `impairment’ andrecognize that it is asn uancedan dcomplex aconstructas`d isability’ .The problem may bethat wehave beenhesitanttogo in aparticular directionin the developmentofthe oryÐ that is toward grapplingwith theactu al pain,andlimita- tionsthat weexperience.It may bethem anifestationin theory ofa personal denial oftheim pactandconsequencesofim pairment.Y etit may also bethetremendous dif® culty in articulatingimpairmentin ways that donotes sentialize disabilityordo notreduceit toan individual problem.Ithinkwerecognize that outsidereaders might belike ly tolatc hontoid easabo utimpairment,an dthat would de¯ect attentionfromthemore socially demandingissuessuchas civil rights oroppression. It would behe lpfultoloo ktow ritingin related domainsfor assistance.F or instance,Morris (1991), in TheC ultureo fPain ,has donesomeinterestingwork theorizingaboutpain,somethingwhich is usually thought ofasa distinctly biologi- cal event.H ecommentsthat `¼ traditional Western medicineÐby which Imean notsomuchin dividual doctorsan dresearchersas an entire scienti® c-medical worldview that permeatesourcultureÐ has consistently ledustom isinterpretpain asn omore than asensation,asymptom,aproblem in biochemistry’ (p.5). He closesthe In troductionto h is bookb ypromisingtoe laborate onthemeanings accordedtopain :`Pain onthis newgrou ndwill ¼[be understood]¼asan experienceth at also engages thedeepestan dmostp ersonal levels ofthecomplex cultural andbiological processw ecall living’ (p.7). Morris’swork is nota simple `mindovermatter’ orientation topain ,norapalliativefor people whoexperience pain tohe lp them ®ndmeaningin their suffering, it is an entreaty toth osetoo willingtobe red uctive in thinkingaboutpain.Healso makesa casefo rreconsider- ation ofWesternm edicine’sdominationoverthem eaningsaccordedtop ain,apoint that Disability Studiessc holars make repeatedly aboutmedicine’sclaimedau thority ondisability andonim pairment.In reducingpain orimpairmenttosom ethingthat needstobe `® xed ’andmedicineasth eremedytothat statedproblem,medicine succeedsin corneringthemarketonk nowledge aboutthesephe nomena. 530 S. Linton

Although Ihave raisedtheissu eofim pairmentaproposof `prob lems’,the explicationofimpairmentshould in noway bec on®nedtoexp erienceth at hasa negative valence.Aphenomenological approach tothe s tudyofim pairmentwill yield therich array ofdescriptionsofexperiencethat oneislikely too verhear in the corridorsat aSociety forDisabilityStudiesconference,ortheback roomsofan independentlivingcenter: theinsiders’experienceo fbody, andsensory, emotional andcognitive functioning that is expressedmosto penly within disabilitycircles. Oneresearchdomain that is yettobe fu lly explored fromtheperspective of disabledp eople is thek inesthetic,p roprioceptive,sensory andcognitive experiences ofpeople with anarray ofimpairments.Fo rinstance,b ecauseIusea wheelchair I utilize myupper bodyfor mobility, androckback andforth asI propelmyself forward.MyheightwhenIam verticaldiffersfro mmymeasuredh eight horizontally, andmyimpairmentin¯uencesmyheight relative toobjectsin theworld andtoother people.Eachofth esee xperienceshas an impactonm ysenseo fmybodyin space, andaffectsthe in formation Iam exposedtoan dtheway Iprocesss ensory information. Giventhat myexperienceortheexperienceofsomeonewho is blindordeaf,o r someonewhohasm ental retardationhas beenu nderrepresentedac rossthe d isci- plines,w eare missingtheconstructsan dtheoretical material neededto articu late thew ays impairmentshapesd isabled people’sversionoftheworld.Evenas I write this Iam strugglingto® ndthewordstoad equately describe theseph enomena.It is particularly dif® cultto® ndlanguage tod escribe myexperiencethat is notrelational, meaningdescriptionsthat donotmeasure mymovementsin relation ton on-dis- abledn orms.Thefactth atimpairmenthasalmostalways beenstudiedfro made®c it model meansthat weare de®cie ntin language tod escribeit anyother way than as a`problem’. Thew ork ofOliverSacksco mestom indasso meonewho hasatte mptedto reframethediscourseo nimpairment.U nfortunately, there is aclinical overlay tohis material andan assumptionofadoctor± patientcon®gurationthat compromisesh is project.P articularly in thetheatricalpresentationofhis work in The Man Who, where`d octors’c ostumedin white laboratory coatsin terviewed`p atients’,the disabledperso ns’e xperiencew asn otd epathologized,butrather their quirks were turnedintoob jectsof ae stheticin terest,an dthedoctor’scompetencein diagnosis andinterpretationwasvalo rized.Sacksan dothers,su chas T homasS zaszandR.D. Laing, doattempttod issociate `disability’ from `problem’,buttothe exte ntthat their work fails toacco untfor theau thors’relativ epower andfortheir claimed authority fortheir subjects’experience,it is an incomplete endeavorcontributing more toth eappropriationofdisabledpeople’sexperience,th an its elucidation. Furthermore,S ack’swork, although hailed asa literary achievement,fails asa Disability Studiesprojectb ecauseit doesnotcontributeto self-d etermination or self-de®nition ofdisabledpeople,an ddoesn otexplicate asocio-political-cultural understandingofd isability. AsTomShakespeare (1996) said,in areview of An Anthropologist onMars ,`Oliver Sacks,the m an who mistookhis patientsfo raliterary career, violates every existingprinciple ofd isabilityequality ¼Hedescribeshimself asª making housecalls at thefar borderofexperienceº,butheis more likea Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 531 colonialist than ageneral practitioner’ (p.139). Given thesecriticis ms,it is import- anttoc onsiderwhether,in fact,his essaysd osucceedas literary worksin that they are unlikely tostim ulate theread er/audienceto view disabled people in their complexity, assen tient,p urposefulp eople.All ofthisto say, ju stbe causem aterial ondisability emerges in thelibe ral arts,it is notn ecessarily DisabilityStudiesif it doesn otchallen ge then otionsthat disability is anin dividual conditionanda problem needingmedical solutions.

3. Absence ofsubjectivity in scholarship :thevoiceofdisabledpeople should bepre sent in both Disability Studiesandin appliedapproachestod isabledpeople,b utthe voicetake sdifferentform in each.Thein¯uenceanddirectionofdisabledpeople should permeatethe app lied ®eld.If rehabilitation professionals really believe in self-determination fordisabled people,the yshould practicewhat they teachby adheringtoan active af® rmative actionprogram in their owndepartmentsan d universities,ad optingtheb ooksan dessays ofdisabledpeople intotheir curricula, andbydemandingthat disabled people are in leadership positionsin conference planningandontheplatform at conferences.Meanwhile,in theliberal arts,th e active voice,th ecreative voice,then arrative,canbe articu latedin thehu manities, andin qualitativeandinterpretative research in thesocial sciences. Women’sStudieshas demonstrated thescholarly potential ofp ersonal narra- tives,b ymappingtheway toin terpret thepe rsonal asthe p olitical andasth e scholarly. Feminist scholarship hasalso turnedtheentire academic curriculum insideouttoreveal theepistemological consequencesofth eandrocentric biasesin thekn owledge base.D isabilityStudiesscholars are alsoexplicatingthepo litical and scholarly antecedentsandconsequencesofpersonalexperience.Now,scholars ofall stripesm ustrec ognize their moral andintellectual obligationtoevalu ate thegap s andfaults in theknowledge basethe ydisseminate tostu dentsw hichare aresult of them issingvoiceso fdisabled people.

4. Thefourth problem, theob jecti®ca tionofdisa bled people ,canbe red ressedby developingscholarship from thep ositiono fthedisableds ubject,d evelopingalterna- tive methodologies toth eempiricist approachesthat have dominatedthe stu dyof disability, developingtheactive voicein thehumanities,an dbybreakingdown stereotypesthro ugh theanalysis ofmetaphors,im ages,an dall representationsof disability in theacad emic andpopular cultures.T heove rwhelmingmajority of scholarship ondisability, either utilizesor impliesthethird personplural: `they’ do this,`the y’ are like that, `they’ needsu chan dsuch.This contributesto th e objecti® cation ofdisabledp eople andcontributesto th eexperienceofalienation disabledp eople soofte nreport.

5. Aswith mucho fthetransformative scholarship onraceandgender,D isability Studiesserves aremedial function,necessary toco rrecto missions,inaccuracies and faulty logic. Twoparticularly perniciousideasthat needtobe re vokedare determinist arguments that explain human behaviorandachievementin termsofbiolo gy, and thosethat explain achievementor failure in termsofindividual psychological makeup. 532 S. Linton

Feminist Studies,D isability Studiesan dAfrican-American Studies,am ong others,ch allenge then otionthatbiology is destiny.E achelaboratesonthem utabil- ity ofhu man behaviortoc ounteractessentialist argumentsan dtod emonstrate that there are fewhu man practicesthat are inevitable.S peci® cally, DisabilityStudies challengesthe ass umptionthat theso cial andeconomic statusandassignedro lesof disabledp eople are aresult ofth eir `natural’ inferiority. However, `(U)nlike other minorities,¼disabledm enandwomenhave notye tbeenable tore futeim plicit or direct accusationsofbiological inferiority thathave oftenbeenin vokedto ratio nalize theop pressionofgroupsw hoseappearancediffersfrom thes tandardsofthe dominantmajority’ (Hahn,1988, p.26). Yet,e venwhenbiolo gical argumentsfo rdifferencein social positionare discredited,there remainsthepersistentbelief that thecauseo fsocial disadvantage is within individuals andthat change is dependentonpersonal transformation. Thesepsychological explanationshave aprominentplace in traditional curricula explainingthebehavior andsocial positionofmemberso fminority groups.F or instance,acrossthecurriculum,them eaningmosto ftenaccordedto d isabilityis that it is apersonalcondition,rather than asocial issue;an in dividual plight, rather than apolitical one.Whenin dividuals with disabilitiesfail in education,employment orin love, thefailu re is attributede ither tothe d isability,its elf consideredan obstacle toac hievement,o rtothe in dividual’spsychological weaknessesorlack of resiliency, their inability to`o vercome’their misfortune. Theseexplanationsforegroundthein dividualandgive little consideration tothe barriers,d iscrimination,negative imagery orlack ofopportunity which shapeexperi- ence.Within this framework,itseemsmore logical tohelp individuals copewith and adjusttoth eir personaltragediesthan toe xpendresourcestoalte rthesocial terrain. Tofurthercementthis myopic view oftheexp erienceof d isability,n ewsstories aboutdisability are invariably human interesttales ofindividual accomplishment, densein therheto ric of`overcoming’.Theseare narrativesofpersonaltriumph over adversity, ratherthan analysesofneededsocial change. Education,clinical psychology andother social sciencesh ave beenparticu larly in¯uential in reinforcingthesedeterministic views.T hese® eldsconceptualize dis- ability asd eviancefromthen orm,asp athological conditionandasd e®cit,an d concentrate their effortson th eevaluationoftheseindividual characteristics.Such evaluation requires thec reation ofan id eal standard ofp hysical, psychological and sensory functioningfrom whichanydisabilityis consideredadeviation.T his is remarkably similar tothetraditionalevaluationofwomen,describedbyCarolTavris (1992) in TheMismeasureofWoman .Her bookdescribesthe w ay researchhaso ften measuredw omenagainstso meidealizedmale norm,andattemptsto exp lain women’sbehavioral differencesin termsofperceivedbiological or psychological differences,ratherthan differencesin powerandcircumstance.Thomson(1990),in discussingthepo sitionofdisabledpeople in society, remindsusofthe p ower differential betweennondisabledanddisabledp eople,re inforcedbe cause`th edomi- nantgroupde®n esitself asn ormative’ (p.239). Analysessuchas th eseare essential toh elp focusattention onthep rocessesthat centerandprivilege non-disabled people andtheir characteristics. Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 533

Scholarship that relies onindividual explanationsofsocial phenomenais also usedto exp lain racism,sexism andableism.AdolphReed(1995) notesthat the developmentofpsyc hological explanationsofracismcameaboutin thelate 1930s whenan `(E )lite commitmenttosc ienti® cracism,rootedin biologistic defensesof inequality, wase roding. Reedb elievesthat Gunnar Myrdal’sstudy, An American Dilemma:T heNegroP roblemand ModernD emocracy (1944) usheredin aperiodof describing`¼ racismin individual, psychological termsrather than in relation to state action’.Myrdal’sframework `¼ reducedrac ism tothe le vel of beliefs that whiteshe ld aboutblacks’(p .506) (emphasis Reed’s). Asimilarly individualistic explanationpervadesthevast literature onattitudes toward disabilitywhichexaminesnondisabled peoples’p ersonality variablesasth ese characteristicsrelate toacc eptanceo rrejectionof d isabledpeople asfrien ds,c lass- matesorlovers.However, thesocial explanationofdisability foundin theDisability Studiesliterature broadensthein vestigationofab leism toin cludesocial conditions that mediate responsesto d isability. Theseco nditionsincludetheeconomic and social structuresthat affecttherelative positiono fandinteractionsbetweendisabled andnon-disabledpeople.Thesec onditionsalsoincludethenature andquality of representationsofd isability in all curriculumdomainsandin cultural products.O f course,the d egreeofintegrationin livingarrangements,ed ucational institutionsand cultural andsocial environmentsare essential componentsof this analysis,asare the political climate andlegislative safeguardsthat in¯uencesocial interactions. Therefore,toco unteractdeterministic narrativeso fdisability, the®eld of Disability Studiessh ould focusonth esocial, politicalandcultural context in which these`in dividual’ responseso ccur. This shift affordsamore comprehensive viewof society andhuman experience,an dtheattribu tion ofsigni® canceto hu man vari- ation.This typeofanalysis challengesthe b iological aswellastheindividual/psycho- logical explanationsofhumanexp erience,ac hievementandbehavior.

6± 8. Otherproblemslistedincludethe medicalizationofdisa bility, overemphasis on intervention and thedispro portionatea mount ofinfo rmationo ndisability in theap plied ® elds.All ofthe sec an behelpedby delineatingbetweenDisabilityStudiesan dthe applied approaches.Becausethere has beenso m uche mphasis onthe ap plied approachesto d isability,with their medicalizedversionofdisability, theseid easten d tosp ill overintoall otherinquiry intod isability.In housingtheso cial, political, cultural inquiry intod isability in aseparate liberal arts-baseddomain,namely Disability Studies,an dmakingthe® eld robust,th emedicalizedparadigmscanb e usedo nly whereapp ropriate, andthepolitical, social andcultural paradigmscanb e understoodasvalid organizingtools forknowledge ondisability.

9. Within theapp lied ®elds,thereis inadequateresp onseto th eeducationalandmedical interventions thedisability community deemsimportant .While Iam advocatingin this essayfo raliberal arts-basedD isabilityStudies,theap plied ®eldswould bene®t from anin fusionofDisability Studiessc holarship andDisabilityRights perspectivesin their work. 534 S. Linton

Tobegin,it is essential that leadership andcontrol ofd isability-relatedservices bein thehan dsofd isabled people.In both theac ademic andcommunity response toth eeducational andhealth care needsofdisabled people,disabled people are relegatedto the p atient,studentorclientrole,an drarely get tob etheprofessor, the teacher, theclinician orclinic director. Furthermore,the m odelofin clusioncur- rently beingappliedin anumber ofele mentary andsecondary educational settings, wherefu ll integration ofdisabledandnon-disabled childrenis takingplace,sh ould beapplied toh ealth care servicesasw ell, soth at disabledpeople are notre stricted toreh abilitationfacilitiesan dother specializedservicesfor their health care needs. Thelead ership andin¯uenceofd isabledpe ople onthepracticesin theap plied ®eldscantak emanyforms.C learly, professorsan dprofessionals with disabilities would beextremely important.Collaborative projectsw ith community organizations is another. In addition,studentssho uld learn abouttheh istory oftheir practice,and aboutthesocial andpolitical issuesthat frametheir work. Provisionofthis type of contextual material will help studentsevalu ate theim pactofthe d ominanceofth e medical profession,almostexclu sively non-disabled,onthetypesofinterventions designedfor disabled people.Theis suesof co ntrol, self-determinationandself- de®nition canb ediscussedwithin sucha framework. Poetry, ®lm andothercreative productscan als obeu sedto in troducedisability perspectivesintotheapplied®elds.Thevoiceo fdisabled people canbebrought into professionalprogramsin theapp lied®eldsthrough suchvehicles.Iteach acoursein arehabilitationprogram,although of®c ially titled `Social andpsychological aspects ofdisability’,it is abasic liberal arts surveycoursein DisabilityStudies.W eread ®ction,literary criticism,viewpopular ®lmswith disabled characters,discusscurrent issuesin theDisabilityRightsM ovement,re adan thropological andhistorical materials, andreviewpsychological theory, with adisabilityreadingofthat theory. Becausestu dentsd on’tobtain aliberal arts education in disability,n orapolitical educationin disability, anywheree lsein their education,Ithinkit is critical to providethat within theprofessional programs.It is hopedthat eachofthese strategiesw ill help future practitionersrem ain alert tothe rights ofd isabled people, andalert tod isabledp eople’sauthority andknowledge,an dit is particularly importantfordisabledstudentsin theseprogramstoh ave this exposure.

10. Theliberalarts,pa rticularlyth ehumanities, havebarelynoticed disability . The tools ofinquiry in thehu manitieshave, until recently, rarely beenapp liedtou nderstand- ingdisability asph enomenon.Evenin thesocial sciences,the s tudyofdisability is cordonedoffin toco ursessuchas the so ciology ofdeviance,ab normal psychology andmedical anthropology, whichassumethelogic ofthe m edical viewofdisability asd e®c it, asp athology andaspro blem.

11. There is insuf® cient attentiontoth eminoritygro up statusofdisa bledpeo ple,and the cultural,socia land politicalmeaningsof th atsta tusth roughoutth ecurriculum . While advocatesin theap plied ®eldshave oftenworkedtoward political change for disabledp eople,an dhopefully always will, thoseaction sdonotemanate fromthe knowledge basean dapproachesusedin theapp lied®eldsÐtheir actionsstemfrom Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 535 personal andmoral commitmentsto im prove thelivesofdisabledpeople.A roki- asamy(1993) writes that `¼ there habilitation practitioner,n either by trainingnor jobro le,is suitedfor activism ofsu chm acro proportions’(p. 84). Mypurposeh ere is notto d iscourage political activism,indeedthe m orec ommittedtho sein the applied ®eldsare, thebetter.H owever,w eneedto reco gnize thattheseactionshave nobasisin thecu rriculumthat studentsin theapp lied®eldsare exposedto . In both theapp lied®eldsandin DisabilityStudies,there are anumberofplaces whereid easabo utandinformation aboutdisabledp eople’ssocial andpoliticalstatus could beco vered.In theapp lied®elds,coursematerial canc over theh istory, and currentstatusofthe® eld’spractice,with particular attentiontothe relative power andprivilege ofhealth andeducationpractitioners,e ventho sew hoare disabled,as compared tothe d isabled community theyserve. Coursesin Disability Studies would,ofcourse,co ver thepolitical issuesinvolved in thedisability rightsm ovement andthein dependentlivingmovement,as w ell asth efactorsthat impedepolitical change.

Beforetu rningtothe ® nalproblemonthe list, andexplaininghowd ifferentiat- ingbetweenD isabilityStudiesan d`NotD isabilityStudies’can ad dressit, thereare afewo ther related issuesto ke epin mind. First,co nsider howthed istinctionbetw eentheterms`disability’,and`impair- ment’has bene®tted the d evelopmentofscholarship ondis ability, andhas bene®tted disabledp eople.T hat differentiationhasfocusedatte ntiononthesocial andpolitical contingenciesthatshape disabledpe ople lives. In developingcurriculum,weshould followthelogic ofthosesem antic distinctionsandutilize theterm `Disability Studies’so lely forinvestigationsofdisabilityasa social, cultural andpolitical phenomenon. Similarly, Deaf scholars have madethed istinctionbetween Deaf,toid entify thosew hoshare alanguage andaculture,an dthelo wercase deaf toid entify those with theaudiological conditionofn othe aring, in order tofo cusatten tiononthe cultural constructionofdeafness.A sPadden& Humphries (1988) write,the`¼ knowledgeofDeafpeo ple isnotsimply acamaraderie with othersw hohave asimilar physical condition,butis ¼historically createdan dactively transmittedac ross generations’(p. 2). Yetthe stu dyofdeafnessin mostinstitutionsremainsmired in amedicalized,interventionist discourseandthes tudyofD eafculture rarely appears in theliberal arts curriculum.Arecentadvertisementin theN ewYork Timesfor an academic position,listedan openingfora`DeafStudiesIn structor’.Onthenext line itsaid `Duties:TeachingAmericanSign Language andother humanservicescourses ¼’Iam notargu inghere fortheeliminationofh uman servicescourses,alth ough I frequently, andwith little provocation,argue for achange in their form and ideologicalunderpinnings,I am makingapointabouttheuseof thetermsDisability Studiestod escribe them.Thead optionofthe te rm `Disability Studies’b ythe applied ®eldsasa hip way oflab elingcurriculumthey’ve always taught doesa disservicetotho sesc holars workingtoe stablish thevalidity andinternalconsistency ofthis ®eld. 536 S. Linton

Lookingat thehistoryofW omen’sStudiesw ecan seesim ilar struggles.T he ®eld early ondifferentiated betweenthem eaningof`sex’ and`gender’.Recognizing that genderis socially constructedd oesnotprecludeunderstandingorrespondingto sex asp rimarily abiological event.S imilarly, creatingWomen’sStudiesto d escribe them eaningandfunction ofgenderin all its manifestationsdoesn otobviate the needfor an academic responseto `s ex’.Therefore,asgyn ecology can bethoughtof asan academic responseto sex, re habilitationcanb ethoughtofasan academic responsetoim pairmentoraudiology tod eafness.In thesam eway that Women’s Studieshas in¯uencedth etraininganddelivery ofservic ein gynecology, Disability Studiescan andshould in¯u encethe cu rriculumandpracticein rehabilitation education,andDeafS tudiescan in ¯uenceaudiology. Asecondpointis that disabledpe ople andallieshave fought tod elineate disabledpe ople asa minority group.T heco ntinuumapproachÐ theideathat there should ben odistinctionm adebetweend isabled andnon-disabled peopleÐ doesn’t wash whenyouobserve thespeci®c treatmentofd isabledp eople in society.T here- fore,articu latingtheways that disabledp eople are aminority groupis astrategic endeavortofo cusontheso cial constructionofdisability andthetre atmentofthe namedm inority group.T here are also epistemological consequencesofe xplaining thew ays that disabled andnon-disabledp eople are distinctgroups.If,th roughout thec urriculum,disability wasrecognizedas aminority groupstatusandasa marker ofidentity, it would have an impactontheentrenchedvie wthat disabilityis a problem andan individual, medical problem.Furthermore,them arked category would help organize knowledge onre presentationsofthe gro upandfocusattention ontheabsenceo fvoicefrom theperspective ofm embersof thegrou p.Themove to secureth edistinctionbetweenD isabilityStudiesan dtheapplied®elds’resp onseto disability is consonantwith thed istinctionbetweend isabledandnon-disabled,and betweend isabilityandimpairment.T heneedforadistinct®eld ofDisability Studies is premisedo nthebelief that disability has beensocially constructedandthat constructionserves avariety ofin tellectual andsocial ends.T hefacetso fthat constructioncan beilluminatedby alterationsnotonly in thecontentofthe curriculum in each ®eld,butby ashift in its placementwithin thec urriculum. Athird rationale fordelineatingbetweenD isabilityStudiesan dtheap plied ®eldsis uncoveredb ytracingthehisto ry ofWomen’sStudiesan dcomparingit to thetraje ctory ofDisabilityStudies.W hile it is understandable that someoftheearly work in DisabilityStudiesc amefromwithin theapplied®elds,w hered isability has traditionally beenstu died,it is timetos eparatethetw oareasan dilluminate the boundariesbetweenthem.Inthehistoryoffeminist inquiry, the`ap plied ®elds,most notably applied ethic were the® rst areasin which feministwork wasp ub- lished’.There is alogic tothat because` ¼feminism is ®rst andlast,a political movementconcernedwith practical issues.At®rst,th emoreab stract areas of philosophyseemedd istantfromthesec oncretec oncerns.’F eministsb egan torealize that they could addresssocial problemsnotonly through theapplied ®eldswhen theysaw` ¼theprob lemsproducedb yandrocentrism in ¼theªcoreºareasof epistemology’ (Alcoff& Potter, 1933, p.2), in other wordsin them oreabstra ct philosophical inquiries.I noteth is topo intoutan importantdistinct:that the Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 537

`applied ®elds’in feminism’shistoryÐ e.g.ap plied ethicsÐare notfocusedon individual, biologically-derived problemsofw omen,butonsocial/cultural onesan d soit wasa logical place toadd ressth esocial `problems’th at feminismwas concernedw ith. People concernedwith theprac tical problemsofableism will have tow ork broadly acrossthe dis ciplinesto u nearth howan dwhered iscrimination againstand marginalizationofdisabled people can bestudied.Thereare fewtoo ls available in the medicalized applied®eldsthat cand othat andthepaltry representationof disability in thelibe ral arts have madesuchin vestigationsdif® cult. Furthermore,as Messer-Davidow(1991) notes,`¼ the making ofsocial change doesn otexist asan academic inquiry.’ Shegoe sontos ay that it is more typical to`stu dy what gets changed and when it getsc hanged,butnot how it changes¼ Studiesthat dofocus onthesep rocesseso ftenare regardedas `po pular’ rather than scholarly andthus dismissedbytheacademy’ (p.293). Afourth issuebefore returningtothe list ofresponsestop roblemsin the traditionalcurriculum.Aquestionthat isheard in Disability Studies’circ les,an dhas beenforyears in Women’sStudies,L esbian andGay Studiese tc.,is whoshould teachandwrite in the®eld?Whether disabled or nond isabled people create scholarship has particular consequencesfor thes cholarship producedandfordis- abledp eople’slives. Both disabledan dnon-disabledpeople canpe rpetuate or work toam eliorate,theo bjecti® cationofd isabled people,th elack ofsubjectivity, the absenceofvoice,an dtheab senceo fself-de®nition andself-determination.Idon’t assumethat disabled people are exemptfromthete ndencytostere otype orobjectify, afterall, disabled people andnon-disabled people have both beensc hooledin the sameableistdiscourse.Non-disabledpeople,tho ugh, have aparticular responsibility toco nsciously anddeliberately engage with theseiss uesin their scholarship and teachingtoavo id contributingtothe prob lem.Ithinkthat it is in incumbenton non-disabled scholars topay particular attentiontois suesoftheirownidentity, their ownprivilegeasn on-disabledpeople,an dtherelationship ofthesefac torsto the ir scholarship. Analyseso fthesp eci® csofone’sidentity orstatusasit affectss cholarship should notbe th ought ofin reductive termssuchas`id entity politics’or theeven more obfuscatory `politically correct’.In anyway thatscholarship canb ein¯uenced byidentity, social position,experience,sensory acuity, cognitive functioning, physi- cal con®guration andfunctioningorother characteristics,sch olars needto ac count foror controlforthat in¯u ence.In thes ameway that social scientistsh ave always beentaught toco ntrol for variablesthat might in¯uenceth eir research,all scholars should accountforthein¯uencerelated toexpe rienceandpointofview asitdirectly relatestothe res earchat hand.Furthermore,as I mentionede arlier, thearticu lated orimpliedthird person`the y’ which is pervasive in scholarship ondisability, increasesth eobjecti®cationofd isabledpe ople.T hat, alongwith theab senceof subjectivity has an impact onself-determination andself-de®n itionÐsocritical to disabledp eople’slives. Statingone’spositionrelativetothe s ubjectm atter is ofthe oreticalimportance andit is also ofp olitical importance.S tatingthat oneidenti® esas d isabled or 538 S. Linton nondisabledcalls attentiontoth eabsentvoiceo fdisabledpe ople in scholarship and illustratesthat there ader may tendtom ake theassumption,although probably not consciously, that thewriter is non-disabled.Feminist,A frican-American,andLes- bian andGay Studiesh ave followedthis convention foralongtime,m arkingthe female, Black,lesbian andgay voice.It is interestingthat recently them ale, white, heterosexualidentity is beingmarkedmore systematically andtheorized,with essays on`whiteness’appearingwith themostfrequency(Hill, 1996). Iam suggestingthat non-disabled anddisabledscholars workingin Disability Studiesfollow that tra- dition,anddiscusstheirsubjectposition,andtheco nsequencesfo rtheirscholarship in similarly complex andmeaningfulways. Furthermore,tho sew ritingin Disability Studiesc anch allenge theminimal presenceofd isabled scholars in their institutions.T heycan examinein scholarship thehis tory andconsequenceso fdiscrimination in educationandemployment,th e absenceofaf® rmative actionguidelinesfor disabled people,as w ell asthe failu re of institutionsofh igher educationtoevid enceacommitmenttod isabledpeo ple and disability issues,othe rthan that mandatedby law.Asscholars wecan useth etools ofourtradetoward shiftingthistrend.Furthermore,bo thdisabledandnon-disabled scholars can reviewtheircommitmentsto th etenetso fDisabilityStudies,andtoth e disabledc ommunity byconsideringhowtheyengage disabled people within and outsidetheacademyin their work. Asan example,C arolGill, adisabledwoman,a psychologistandDirector oftheC hicago Instituteon D isabilityResearch,re ported in apaper preparedforthe1996 Society forDisability Studiesco nferencean incidentthat demonstrates thefailu re ofco mmitmentthat someresearchersevi- dencetow ard thed isabledcommunity andtoward equity. Shere portedth e following:

Ateam ofhealth professionals announcetheir commitmenttoparticipatory actionresearchin developingan educational videoona disabilitytopic. Theycharacterize their projectas`inclusive’¼Theysay it is guidedby our perspective.In fact,th eonly role giventopeo ple with disabilitiesis the opportunity toserve o na`consensuspanel’ Ðakindofcontinuingfocus groupwhoseaim is toteach the re searchersw hat they should coverin the video.Ofcourse,p eople with disabilitiesalsoserve asthein terview subjects in the® lm.Fortheir efforts,th econsensuspanelmembersget snacks,no money.T heinterviewsubjectsget $50 each.T hehealth professionals are highly offendedw henI tell themthis is notin clusion.They refuseto hire aprofessionalwith adisability togive substantive consultingservices.They also refuseto sh are authorship with adisabledcollaborator. Yet,th ey houndmefor weeksto serve on the c onsensuspanelwith theothe r `consumers’.

In thep aper, Gill citedthreem orein cidencesof d isregard for thee xpertisean d authority ofdisabledpeople.Twoyears ago Iwassim ilarly confoundedbythe behaviouroffacu lty memberse ngagedin disability research.Ilearnedth at agroup offaculty waso rganizingamajorconferencethat wasbe ingdesignedtopre sentthe Disability Studies/NotD isability Studies 539

University’swork acrossa range ofdisciplinesin disabilityresearch.T hec onference wasb eingplannedasa precursor toe stablishingan instituteor center ondisability researchatthat university,andtherefore thenatureoftheconferencean dthech oice ofthep ersonnelinvolvedhad long-term consequences.I began toask questions aboutwhowaso nthep lanningcommittee,and learn edthat ofthetenorsop eople, notonewasa disabled person.They hadbeenmeetingfor sometimeandapparently noonehadm adean issueofthis.A groupofdisabledpe ople initiated aseriesof meetings with thesteeringcommitteean dthep residentoftheinstitution,protested theco mpositionofthecommittee,an dagroupofuswere thenallo wedto join theplan ningcommittee.Thoseof u swho joined,were,by thew ay, memberso fthe faculty andstaffalread yengagedin research ondisability, butnotincludedin the initial committee.W eattendedanumber oflongplanningmeetings,sign i® cantly shiftedth efocusofthe c onferencean d,tom ymind,improved its scopeandvision considerably. Wethenrece ived briefletterssaying that theco nferenceh ad been cancelledinde®nitely, anddespite phonecalls andlettersto the c onference organizers,w ehave never beengiven asatisfactory answer asto w hy it was cancelled. Theseexam plesare includedtopo intoutthat Disability Studiesis anin tel- lectual, asw ell asa political endeavorandthat theyare reciprocal enterprises. Oliver(1992) hasw ritten aboutthen eedto ch ange the`thesocial relations ofresearchprod uction’,(p.106).Heseesit asn otsim ply amatterofsw itching frompositivistmodelso fresearchto in terpretivemethods,bu tmore signi® cantly aneedtou nderstandthep owerrelationships`¼ whichstructure(s)th e social relationsofre searchpro duction’(p.110). Oliver’swork pointsto th eneed toc onsiderthec ontextual variablesthat shape what westudyandhoww e study it.

Returningnowto th e®nal entry in thelist:

12.Thelast problemlistedw asth at within thetrad itional curriculumthereis not awell developedepistemological foundationforan inclusive society. What is needed is abroad-basedliberal arts,in terdisciplinary inquiry intothe fu nctionandm eaning ofdisability in all its manifestations.T his inquiry should besim ilar in structure to Women’sStudies,andLesbian andGayStudies,andassu chwould beinformedby thepo litical movementsth at generatedthe ® eld,by cultural studies,an dbythe traditional disciplines.It should go beyondanalysingtheexclusiono fdisabled people from society andofd isabilityfromtheep istemological traditionsin society, tochart thepeoples’andthesubjects’place in thec ivic andacademic cultures.T hat is Disability Studies.

NOTE

[1] The terms`traditionalcurricu lum’,`academiccurricu lum’and`the cu rriculum’are used throughoutthe essay. W hilecu rriculavary to a degree frominstitu tionto institu tion,these termsrefer tothe d omaino fknowledge generallytau ghtin institu tionsof higher learning 540 S. Linton

inthe U nitedStates. A lthoughthere havebeen change sinthe past few yearsin that bo dy ofknowledgeduetothe in corporationof new scholarship,particu larlyfem inistin quiries,a number of authorshave rem arkedthat those chan geshave on lybeen ad ditive,and that we haveyet to witnessa truetransfo rmationo fthecurricu lum(Gorelick1996; Minnich,1990; Schuster &VanD yne,1985).

REFERENCES

ABBERLEY,P.(1995) Disablingideologyin health an dwelfareÐ thecase of occupationaltherapy, Disability and Society ,10, pp.221± 232. ALCO FF, L. & POTTER,E.(1993) Introduction:whenfem inismsintersectepistem ology,in :L. ALCOFF & E. POTTER (Eds) Feminist Epistemologies (New York,R outledge). AROKIASAMY,C.V.(1993) Atheoryfor rehabilitation? Rehabilitation Education ,7, pp.77± 98. GORELICK,S.(1996) Contradictionsof feministm ethodology,in :H.G OTTFRIED (Ed.) Feminism andS ocialChange: bridging theory and practice (Urbana,Illinois,U niversityof IllinoisPress). HAHN,H.(1988 Winter)Can d isabilitybe beautiful? SocialPolicy ,18, pp.26± 31. HILL,M.(1996) Throughthe ethnog raphiclook ingglass, TheMinnesota Review ,47, pp.5± 8. M ESSER-DAVIDOW,E.(1991) Know-how, in:J.H ARTMAN & E. M ESSER-D AVIDOW (Eds) (En) GenderingKnowledge (Knoxville,Tennes see,U niversityof TennesseePress). M INNICH,E.K.(1990) Transforming Knowledge (Philadelphia,T empleU niversityPress). M ORRIS,D.B.(1991) TheCulture ofP ain (Berkeley,U niversityofCaliforniaPress). M YRDAL, G. (1944) AnAmerican Dilemma:the Negro problema nd modern democracy (New York, Harper andB rothers). O LIVER,M.(1992). Changingthesocial relation sofresearchproduction, Disability, Handicap,and Society,7, pp.101± 114. PADDEN, C. & HUM PHRIES, T. (1988) Deafin America:voices froma culture (Cambridge, Massachusetts,H arvardU niversityPress). REED, A., JR.(1995). The scholarshipo fbacklash.[Review of Turning Back:the retreatfromracial justice in American thoughtandpolicy byStephe nSteinberg], The Nation,October30, pp.506± 510. SCHUSTER, M.R. & VAN DYNE,S.R.(Eds)(1985) Women’sPlace in the Academy:transfo rming the liberalA rts Curriculum (Totowa,New Jersey,R owman& Allanheld). SHAKESPEARE,T.(1996) [Reviewof AnAnthropologist on Mars ,byOliver Sacks], Disability and Society,11, pp.137± 139. TAVRIS, C. (1992) TheMismeasure ofW oman (New York,Simonand Schust er). THOM SON,R.G.(1990) Speakingabou ttheu nspeakable:the represen tationofdisabilityas stigm a inTon iMorrison’snovels,in:J. G LASGOW & A. INGR AM (Eds) Courage and Tools: The Florence HoweAwardfor F eminist Scholarship (New York,M odernLangua ge Association). TRICKETT, E.J., WATTS, R.J. & BIRMAN,D.(1994) Towardan overarc hingfram eworkfor diversity,in: E.J. T RICKET T, R.J. WATTS & D. BIRMAN (Eds) Human Diversity: perspectives on people in context (SanFrancis co,Jossey-Bass).