奇异的怪物与残疾的乐趣:前现代批判残疾研究的新方向

IF 0.1 0 CLASSICS Exemplaria Classica Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/10412573.2021.2021003
J. Row
{"title":"奇异的怪物与残疾的乐趣:前现代批判残疾研究的新方向","authors":"J. Row","doi":"10.1080/10412573.2021.2021003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disability is often reduced to the status of a problem: building compliance issues, a pedagogical accommodation, a medical defect, a parking space. Until recently, scholarship in disability studies has emphasized that disability is an object — the object of inquiry, of social, medical, or legal studies of deformity or aberrance. These approaches endeavor to probe the origins of, correct, cure or even eradicate disability. Although well-intentioned, these approaches can unknowingly perpetuate and reinforce the hierarchies of ableism — the belief that able bodyminds are superior to disabled ones. When these objectifying socio-political treatments and received medical knowledges circulate around disability, it not only generates a category — into which disabilities must be placed, identified and tamed — but it can also ultimately perpetuate ableist marginalization. How then might one critically target the hierarchizing practices and structures that serve to winnow out certain bodyminds and elevate others? How to dismantle the prejudices and longentrenched beliefs that designate certain bodyminds as disposable and others as valorized? This is a quandary that prompts Merri Lisa Johnson and Robert McRuer (2014) to write:","PeriodicalId":40762,"journal":{"name":"Exemplaria Classica","volume":"30 1","pages":"87 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marvelous Monstrosity and Disability’s Delights: New Directions in Premodern Critical Disability Studies\",\"authors\":\"J. Row\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10412573.2021.2021003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Disability is often reduced to the status of a problem: building compliance issues, a pedagogical accommodation, a medical defect, a parking space. Until recently, scholarship in disability studies has emphasized that disability is an object — the object of inquiry, of social, medical, or legal studies of deformity or aberrance. These approaches endeavor to probe the origins of, correct, cure or even eradicate disability. Although well-intentioned, these approaches can unknowingly perpetuate and reinforce the hierarchies of ableism — the belief that able bodyminds are superior to disabled ones. When these objectifying socio-political treatments and received medical knowledges circulate around disability, it not only generates a category — into which disabilities must be placed, identified and tamed — but it can also ultimately perpetuate ableist marginalization. How then might one critically target the hierarchizing practices and structures that serve to winnow out certain bodyminds and elevate others? How to dismantle the prejudices and longentrenched beliefs that designate certain bodyminds as disposable and others as valorized? This is a quandary that prompts Merri Lisa Johnson and Robert McRuer (2014) to write:\",\"PeriodicalId\":40762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exemplaria Classica\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"87 - 101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exemplaria Classica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10412573.2021.2021003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exemplaria Classica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10412573.2021.2021003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

残疾往往被简化为一个问题的状态:建筑合规问题,教学住宿,医疗缺陷,停车位。直到最近,残疾研究方面的学术研究一直强调残疾是一个对象——是对残疾或异常的社会、医学或法律研究的调查对象。这些方法试图探究残疾的起源、纠正、治疗甚至根除残疾。尽管出发点是好的,但这些方法可能会在不知不觉中延续和加强残疾歧视的等级制度——即认为健全的身体比残疾的身体优越。当这些客观化的社会政治治疗和公认的医学知识围绕着残疾传播时,它不仅产生了一个类别——残疾必须被置于其中,识别和驯服——而且最终也会使残疾主义边缘化永久化。那么,一个人如何批判地针对那些用来淘汰某些肉体心灵和提升其他肉体心灵的等级制度和结构呢?如何消除偏见和根深蒂固的信念,这些偏见和信念认为某些身体是可以丢弃的,而另一些身体是可以被珍视的?这是一个两难的问题,促使梅里·丽莎·约翰逊和罗伯特·麦克鲁尔(2014)写道:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Marvelous Monstrosity and Disability’s Delights: New Directions in Premodern Critical Disability Studies
Disability is often reduced to the status of a problem: building compliance issues, a pedagogical accommodation, a medical defect, a parking space. Until recently, scholarship in disability studies has emphasized that disability is an object — the object of inquiry, of social, medical, or legal studies of deformity or aberrance. These approaches endeavor to probe the origins of, correct, cure or even eradicate disability. Although well-intentioned, these approaches can unknowingly perpetuate and reinforce the hierarchies of ableism — the belief that able bodyminds are superior to disabled ones. When these objectifying socio-political treatments and received medical knowledges circulate around disability, it not only generates a category — into which disabilities must be placed, identified and tamed — but it can also ultimately perpetuate ableist marginalization. How then might one critically target the hierarchizing practices and structures that serve to winnow out certain bodyminds and elevate others? How to dismantle the prejudices and longentrenched beliefs that designate certain bodyminds as disposable and others as valorized? This is a quandary that prompts Merri Lisa Johnson and Robert McRuer (2014) to write:
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Tra Iporchemi e Parteni (Pindaro, Hyporch. F9 Recchia) Il Paratesto in Catullo: alcune riflessioni su un saggio recente Pelasgus Sacca. Una nuova testimonianza su Sacada di Argo e alcune osservazioni sulla fortuna umanistica dei Deipnosofisti di Ateneo Cynthia e lo statuto dinamico dell’elegia, tra dream narrative, arte figurativa e modelli epici Olympica Pindarica (I)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1