Critical Studies in Ableism Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University

Held at Manchester Metropolitan University on the 19 June 2017, the Critical Studies in Ableism Conference invited a whole host of scholars, activists, and allies to explore and develop the concept of ableism. The day urged us to think critically about how we could use this concept, both theoretically and methodologically.

Opening the conference, Fiona Kumari Campbell (University of Dundee) delivered her talk entitled “Answering our Detractors—Argument in Support of Studies in Ableism as an approach to negotiating Human Differences and Tackling Social Exclusion.” During this talk, she extended and reappraised her earlier work, as a means of reaching conceptual clarity, which due to imprecise deployment of the term had been lost. Thus, she defined ableism as “a system of dividing practices,” which “involve the differentiation, ranking, negation, notification and prioritization of sentient life” (Campbell 287–88). Ableism, she argued, is deeply rooted in thinking about bodies and wholeness on a trajectory of perfection, and not simply a matter of ignorance towards disabled people. She challenged the ontological foundations of ableism that idealize stability, perfection, and normality, to instead propose how the Buddhist concept of anichcha (impermanence) can help to recognize the natural instability and leakiness of our lifeworlds, minds, and bodies.

Moving beyond these conceptual foundations and developments, Campbell drew upon her engagement with General Systems Theory, Actor Network Theory, and the Buddhist doctrine of paticcasamuppada (dependent origination), to show the utility that can be gained by studies in ableism when we engage with ableist relations methodologically. This incorporates the understanding of ableism as relational into our research. It rejects the idea of a static, identifiable enemy and shifts the focus of our study to processes and practices. Rather than attempting to objectify a person or group as the source of social problems, such as disablement, she suggested that we adopt an analysis of papañca (proliferated thinking/conceptual proliferation) into our research interrogations. In doing this, she believes we can “appraise the sources and flows of proliferation of different states of human variability and how some of these variations are figured as ‘differences’”. We can explore the nuances of “abledness” and what this unencumbered body symbolizes in society today and what this means for those bodies that are deemed to be different.

In his paper titled “The Excess of Difference,” Rod Michalko (retired, University of Toronto) acknowledged the long-standing existence of ableism. It did not come into existence when we named it, nor was it something that we discovered. So how then, he asked, did it come into our consciousness? Perhaps, he suggested, it came into our consciousness appearing as the “truth” about bodies, differentiating between different bodies. From this perspective, ableism defines the cultural relations between disability and non-disability. It works alongside social needs and desires to notice the body and to be a body. The body is tied to the social world and it is fashioned in ways to make it appear natural. Abilities such as seeing, walking, moving, and hearing have all been constructed as “normal” abilities, and therefore, as regimes of truth. In turn, ableism structures how we perceive ourselves, as well as others, within society. Drawing upon the work of Sylvia Wynter, Michalko concluded by stating that individuals are not simply ableist, but we all live in an anti-disability society.

Applying the concept of ableism to higher education, Lisa Appleyard-Keeling (Manchester Metropolitan University) delivered her paper entitled “Omitted Knowledges—Hidden Disability, ‘Inclusion’ and Higher Education.” She presented a critical account of the way in which students with hidden disabilities are problematized when they present themselves to the normative, rigid, and ableist regulations of higher education. She noted how a system premised upon integration and “reasonable adjustments,” reinforces ableist preconceptions as to who counts as valid, educable, and human. She asked us to consider what knowledges we omit to acknowledge when faced with students with hidden disabilities, and how, in turn, students are made to feel like they do not belong in the spaces of academia. Picking up on this point, an audience member commented on her own experience with a...