“Theorising Normalcy and the Mundane,” Manchester Metropolitan University

Hosted on 25 and 26 July 2016 by Katherine Runswick-Cole for the Research Centre for Social Change at Manchester Metropolitan University, Theorising Normalcy and the Mundane brought together academics, activists, practitioners, and students. Organized in association with the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, and the University of Chester, Theorising Normalcy and the Mundane invited critical debate around the concept of being “human,” and opened sites of discussion to resist and redefine this concept.

Chaired by Cassandra Ogden (University of Chester), Jonathan Harvey (University of Southampton) presented his keynote entitled “(Re)claiming a Sociological Understanding of Acquired Brain Injury: Towards a (Re) Imagining of the Identity of Brain Injury Survivors.” Drawing upon findings from his own research, he questioned the ability of diagnostic labels to capture the multifaceted nature of what it means to be “human,” and discussed the lives of acquired brain injury (ABI) survivors as a means of reconsidering this category. He suggested that the (re)construction of identity is both unpredictable and long-term, evolving far beyond the timing expectations of rehabilitation. In addition, he explored the way in which ABI survivors reported “learning a new normal,” and questioned whether this learning journey occurs within the confinements of rehabilitation or upon (re)entering the familiar, intimate space of the home. To conclude, he argued for a sociological theorization of disability.

In the opening panel “Deconstructing Normal,” Elizabeth Tilley (Open University) revealed how the forced sterilization of women labelled with learning difficulties continues in the present day. She argued that decisions made “for” rather than “with” women impede their reproductive rights and perpetuate methods of professional power. She also discussed the navigation of ethical tensions that arose due to the risky nature of researching the experience of contraceptive choice with women labelled with a learning difficulty. Next, Grainne O’Connor (Open University) explored the relationship between an owner and their assistance dog, with particular attention to how this relationship plays out in social encounters. For her, social encounters alter depending on whether the owner is present through the assistive dog, or through their own body. She argued that these encounters result in a feeling of social invisibility, as the owner is perceived through the filter of the assistance dog. Finally, Lindsay O’Dell (Open University) deconstructed the normative nature of developmental tasks. With the aim to re-frame understandings of autism in positive ways, the paper critiqued developmental trajectories as inherently harmful, perpetuating a practice that positions autistic children against measures of “ideal” childhood.

In the panel, “The Human,” Sumaira Naseem and Rebecca Lawthom (Manchester Metropolitan University) proposed the academy as a site for considering and contesting this taken-for-granted category. They discussed assessment as a practice contaminated by technological quantification, and shared possible ways that we can (re)humanize academic practices. They suggested that by starting with disability, the practice of assessment opens up different ways of learning and sharing knowledge that can transform the academy. Following this, Suanne Gibson and Melanie Parker (Plymouth University) reflected on their kaleidoscopic approach to disability that emerges from their entangled identities. That is, by positioning their distinct lenses and perspectives together, they are able to obtain a unique refraction of the world. This “diffractive” methodology is, as they argued, vital to reflect on what disability reveals about education, social justice, and the self in a neoliberal capitalist society, and is crucial to enable practice that can make a difference in the world. Finally, Louise Hickman (University of California) engaged the audience in her presentation through vocal participation. This generated, disrupted, and curated a temporal window for interaction, and opened up zones of engagement that are not typically situated in the configuration of conferences. As the audience, we became uncomfortably yet critically aware of our personal and behavioural mannerisms as they are enacted in our culture.

Chaired by Dan Goodley (University of Sheffield), Kirsty Liddiard (University of Sheffield) presented her keynote “Sex for me isn’t touching a woman, it’s looking at her: Politicizing Pleasure in Precarious Times.” As always, her talk was critically passionate, theoretically committed, and immensely captivating. Exploring the complex ethical...