Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T16:44:00.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensing Disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Mairian Corker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Disability theory privileges masculinist notions of presence, visibility, material “reality,” and identity as “given.” One effect of this has been the erasure of “sensibility,” which, it is argued, inscribes, materializes, and performs the critique of binary thought. Therefore, sensibility must be re-articulated in order to escape the “necessary error” of identity implicit in accounts of cultural diversity, and to dialogue across difference in ways that dislocate disability from its position of disvalue in feminist thought.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 16 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Feminism and Disability, Part 1 , Fall 2001 , pp. 34 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestizo. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Colin, Mercer, Geoff, and Shakespeare, Tom. 1999. Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan R. 1993. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1999. New preface to Gender trouble, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Ruth, and Parr, Hester. 1999. Mind and body spaces: Geographies of illness, impairment and disability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Classen, Constance. 1993. The worlds of sense. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 2000. How to think globally: Stretching the limits of the imagination. In Decentering the center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminist world, ed. Narayan, Uma and Harding, Sandra. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 1998. Deaf and disabled or deafness disabled? Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 1999a. Differences, conflations and foundations: The limits to the “accurate” theoretical representation of disabled people's experience. Disability & Society 14(5): 627–42.10.1080/09687599925984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 1999b. New disability discourse, the principle of optimization and social change. In Disability discourse, ed. Corker, Mairian and French, Sally. Buckingham, U. K.: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 1999c. A view from the bridge: An interdisciplinarian's overview of the social relations of disability studies. Disability Studies Quarterly 19(4): 302–10.Google Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 2000a. Deaf studies and disability studies: An epistemic conundrum. Disability Studies Quarterly 20(1): 6–15.Google Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 2000b. Disability politics, language planning and inclusive social policy. Disability & Society 15(3): 445–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corker, Mairian. 2001. Disabling language: Analysing disability as social practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davis, Lennard. 1995. Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness and the body. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Writing and difference. Trans. Bass, Alan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
French, Sally. 1993. Disability, impairment or something in between. In Disabling barriers, enabling environments, ed. Swain, John, Finkelstein, Vic, French, Sally, and Oliver, Mike. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hennessy, Rosemary. 1993. Materialist feminism and the politics of discourse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hooks, Bell. 1984. Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993. An ethics of sexual difference. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kleege, Georgina. 1999. Sight unseen. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1981. Women's time. Signs 7(1): 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leder, Drew. 1990. The absent body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1979. Totality and infinity. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, Simi. 1998. Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Magee, Bryan, and Milligan, Martin. 1995. On blindness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1965. The language of magic and gardening. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Michalko, Rod. 1998a. The mystery of the eye and the shadow of blindness. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalko, Rod. 1998b. The two in one: Walking with Smokie, walking with blindness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Michalko, Rod. 2001. Estranged familiarity. In Disability and postmodernity, ed. Corker, Mairian and Shakespeare, Tom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1991. Cartographies of struggle: Third World women and the politics of feminism. In Third World women and the politics of feminism, ed. Mohanty, Chandra, Russo, Ann, and Torres, Lourdes. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, Jenny ed., 1996. Encounters with strangers: Feminism and disability. London: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Linda. 1995. Interpreting gender. In Social postmodernism, ed. Seidman, Steven and Nicholson, Linda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Andrea. 2000. “It's not philosophy.” In Decentering the center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminist world, ed. Narayan, Uma and Harding, Sandra. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael. 1996. Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Michael, and Barnes, Colin. 1997. All we are saying is give disabled researchers a chance. Disability & Society 12(5): 811–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Janet, and Shildrick, Margrit. 1998. Uncertain thoughts on the disabled body. In Vital signs: Feminist reconfigurations of the biological body, ed. Shildrick, Margrit and Price, Janet. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Janet, and Shildrick, Margrit. 1999. Breaking the boundaries of the broken body. In Feminist theory and the body: A reader, ed. Shildrick, Margrit and Price, Janet. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Saramango, José. 1997. Blindness. London: The Harvill Press.Google Scholar
Schutte, Ofelia. 2000. Cultural alterity: Cross‐cultural communication and feminist theory in North‐South contexts. In Decentering the center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminist world, ed. Narayan, Uma and Harding, Sandra. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shildrick, Margrit. 1997. Leaky bodies and boundaries: Feminism, postmodernism and (bio)ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silvers, Anita. 1998. Review of Deaf and disabled or deafness disabled. Deaf Worlds 14(3): 31–32.Google Scholar
Silvers, Anita. 2000. The unprotected. In Americans with disabilities: Exploring the law for individuals and institutions, ed. Francis, Leslie Pickering and Silvers, Anita. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1992. More on power/knowledge. In Rethinking power, ed. Wartenburg, T.Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Liz. 1990. Feminist praxis: Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, Carol. 1999. Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Rosemarie Garland. 1997. Exceptional bodies: Figuring physical disability in American literature and culture. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Imogen. 1993. How to recognise a lesbian: The cultural politics of “looking like what you are.” Signs 18(4): 866–91.10.1086/494846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendell, Susan. 1996. The rejected body. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilde, Oscar. 1908. Lady Windemere's Fan. London: Thoemmes. Reprint, London: Routledge, 1993.Google Scholar
Williams, Simon J. 1998. Bodily dys‐order: Desire, excess and the transgression of corporeal boundaries. Body & Society 4(2): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar