In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

63 two Curricular Cripistemologies; or, Every Child Left Behind Caught between Competing Models It could justifiably be argued at this point that ablenationalism does not dismantle the efficacy of the social or minority models of disability but rather demonstrates the difficulty of accomplishing the mission of integration for people with disabilities. Perhaps a better description for what is going on here is the degree to which neoliberalism holds out a false promise of inclusion ; the social and minority models stress revision of tangible barriers such as accessible architecture and the modification of public transportation systems, to name just two sites of political intervention identified as critical to disability integration. To revise the environment for greater accessibility for all bodies represents the most tangible pathway to disability inclusion. Ablenationalism, rather, helps to identify the ruse of gains made by disability advocates through operationalization of a rhetoric of inclusion based upon the very aims of the disability rights movement only partially fulfilled (at best). We would agree, at least in part, with this line of dissent, or, perhaps, accept the productive reframing of a “friendly amendment” as is common in the compromise of differences in policy circles.Yet we also want to insist that something within the social/minority models of disability is also amiss, and perhaps unwittingly fueling neoliberal strategies of inclusion on a more superficial level than has been acknowledged to date. Disability Studies has de- 64 the biopolitics of disability veloped significant interventions for the removal of social barriers in order to achieve better integration of disabled people in public space. However, these dismantled obstacles have resulted in few employment opportunities (particularly at the professional level) for disabled people; employment has proven a Gordianknotthatcannotbeuntiedinthatmoststatisticslistdisabledpeoples’ unemployment statistics hovering near 70% (see chart). Significantly, employment in a competitive wage labor market is one foundation stone of disabled peoples’ exclusion from Capitalism (Stone 21); the other being extraction from reproductive circuits of desire (Snyder & Mitchell,Cultural Locations 86; Shuttlesworth, 55; Siebers, “Sexual Culture” 38). Yet, there are few significant ways in which the field can claim to have influenced the global banishment of disabled people from compensated workplace participation. Perhaps most worrisomely, even highly funded research and policy organizations devoted to the social integration of disabled people such the American University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD) have actively resisted the most basic form of barrier removal: employing disabled people among their own management circles. While disability identities can be recognized within the limiting consumptive terms of neoliberalism as “clients,” “patients,” and “recipients” of services, they are walled off from the roles of knowledge-­ producers even among their own publicly funded networks designed on behalf of their further social integration. The only significant exception to this rule are the Centers for Independent Living (CILs) which have become the only significant employment opportunity for disabled people outside of the indentured servitude involved with the sheltered workshop system in the United States. As disability Anthropologist, Henri-­Jacques Stiker, put it nearly two decades ago, this institutional resistance to sharing the world of disability with disabled people turns on a simple fact: to live everyday life as an everyday thing, with and in the presence of special, specific human beings who are our disabled equals . . . is revolt because it takes back to the drawing board the whole enormous, vast, imposing specialized social organization: associations at the legislative level, public agencies at the family level. (11) We share this sense of urgency for “taking back to the drawing board” this social service bureaucracy and would add “the educational level” to Stiker’s catalogue. Nearly all contemporary “specialized social organizations” share Curricular Cripistemologies 65 an existence as products of neoliberal governance tactics ultimately intended to defer rather than accomplish the inclusion of disabled people. As establishments intended to manage the cultural rehabilitation of disabled peoples,they must,through achievement of their own institutional perpetuation ,participate in,and even extend,the forms of devaluation they presumably combat. In post-­ industrialized nations, educational institutions often serve as the professional training ground for those who administer the specialized social organizations Stiker identifies. This is in spite of the fact that institutions of higher education have historically excluded disabled people—universities, with their knowledge standardization regimens and their false premiums on instrumentalist rationalities, are some of the last places one would expect to find disabled people with their nonnormative sensory, bodily, and cognition processes. This very history of exclusion has attempted to be ameliorated by the governmental funding of mediator organizations since the...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.