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

223 Notes Introduction 1. The terms that ultimately translated into the key contention of the social model of disability—­ disability is in the environment and not in the person—­ were first articulated in 1974 by a U.K. organization of physically disabled men who called themselves the Union for the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS). UPIAS made a complete distinction between impairment (the biological experience of incapacity) and disability (encounters with social exclusion imposed on top of impairments). The contention established the key argument that discriminatory social conditions created disability rather than individual limitations. 2. “Immanent materialism” is the phrase used by William E. Connolly to reference a mode of thinking about materialism that is “not susceptible to either efficient or mechanical modes of analysis ...It is a mode in which new forces can trigger novel patterns of self-­organization in a thing, species, system, or being, sometimes allowing something new to emerge from the swirl back and forth between them: a new species, state of the universe, weather system, ecological balance, or political formation ” (180). Alongside other participants in the “new materialism” are those such as Jane Bennett, Elizabeth Grosz, Sarah Ahmed, Rosi Braidotti, Diana Coole, and Samantha Frost who recognize that how we think about matter has far-­ reaching implications for how we think about the human as a lively corporeality. In order address the alternative agency of materiality more adequately, new materialists share three interrelated themes: (1) a posthumanist orientation that conceives of matter as exhibiting agency; (2) consideration of an array of issues within biopolitics and bioethics on the status of life, the human, and the nonhuman; and (3) a “nondogmatic reengagement with political economy, where the nature of, and relationship between, the material details of everyday life and broader geopolitical and socioeconomic structures is being explored afresh” (Coole and Frost 6–­ 7). While none of these theorists explicitly address disability, here we want to think disability as foun- 224 Notes to Pages 1–6 dational part of this mix to address matter/materiality as agential embodiment. For nondialectical materialists human and nonhuman bodies exceed their cultural positioning as oppressed, excluded forms of deviancy. Such approaches emphasize the manifold pluripotentiality of life to unfold in multiple directions and, in doing so, they permit a corrective to emerge that recognizes the agency of matter as parallel to discussions of social structures of power that have dominated “the cultural turn” in social constructivist discourses for at least two decades. 3. In this work we refer to our analyses as an extension of the field of scholarship referred to as disability studies. We could opt to differentiate our commitment to the intersectional analyses that run throughout as “critical disability studies” in parallel to many of the theorists from whom this work draws for its arguments. For argument positioned on various sides of the “critical disability studies” debate one could refer to Simo Vehmas and Nick Watson’s “Moral Wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies,” Helen Meekosha and Russell Shuttlesworth’s “What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies?”, and Dan Goodley’s “Dis/entangling critical disability studies.” However, we feel some trepidation with the labeling strategy of frontloading “critical” before “disability studies.” We think that such an approach has the unwanted effect of suggesting: 1) disability studies was not already critical; 2) adding an adjective of “severity”to disability studies resonates (i.e.critical) with ideas of medically modulated degrees of impairment; 3) suggests that it’s merely an “add-­on”in order to distance one’s research from those improperly claiming to do disability studies as is prominent in the field of Education . In other words we don’t find the distinction significantly instructive to readers as we imagine the unlikely scenario of audience members at a university graduation, for example, hearing someone getting a diploma in disability studies from a school of Education,and thinking to themselves,“hmmmmm’s interesting that they’re not getting a degree in‘critical disability studies!’” If the methodology of critical disability studies is best characterized as an intersectional one at base and its goal is to complicate binaries born of the social model formula and break the over-­ emphasis on North American/UK national boundaries, as well as attend to the compounding identities of race, class, gender, and sexuality, is it a break from or an extension of disability studies? If a break then we would suggest the advent of a new name (something like crip...