Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Disability and Domestic Citizenship: Voice, Gender, and the Making of the Subject

Disability and Domestic Citizenship: Voice, Gender, and the Making of the Subject Page 511 Veena Das and Renu Addlakha T T he figures of the diseased and the disabled have been at the center of analysis in conceptualizing certain postmodern forms of sociality. Paul Rabinow (1996) formulated the concept of biosociality to suggest the emergence of associational communities around particular biological conditions. Many others (Ginsburg 1989; Rapp 1999) have theorized that major transformations in biotechnology have led to new forms of community in which people with disability or impairment have formed associational relationships in order to act in civil society and to influence, on the one hand, the decisions of the state, and on the other, the course of scientific research. But while such political mobilizations are extremely important in changing the environment of the disabled, they locate the subject positions of the disabled firmly within a liberal political regime. Issues of sexuality and reproduction can only be addressed in such a framework in terms of the legal rights guaranteed by the state to its community of citizens. As Anne Finger (1992: 9) states the issue, “It is easier for us to talk about — and formulate — strategies of discrimination in employment, education, and housing, than talk about our http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Public Culture Duke University Press

Disability and Domestic Citizenship: Voice, Gender, and the Making of the Subject

Public Culture , Volume 13 (3) – Oct 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/disability-and-domestic-citizenship-voice-gender-and-the-making-of-the-gCq09VkFC1

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2001 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0899-2363
eISSN
1527-8018
DOI
10.1215/08992363-13-3-511
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Page 511 Veena Das and Renu Addlakha T T he figures of the diseased and the disabled have been at the center of analysis in conceptualizing certain postmodern forms of sociality. Paul Rabinow (1996) formulated the concept of biosociality to suggest the emergence of associational communities around particular biological conditions. Many others (Ginsburg 1989; Rapp 1999) have theorized that major transformations in biotechnology have led to new forms of community in which people with disability or impairment have formed associational relationships in order to act in civil society and to influence, on the one hand, the decisions of the state, and on the other, the course of scientific research. But while such political mobilizations are extremely important in changing the environment of the disabled, they locate the subject positions of the disabled firmly within a liberal political regime. Issues of sexuality and reproduction can only be addressed in such a framework in terms of the legal rights guaranteed by the state to its community of citizens. As Anne Finger (1992: 9) states the issue, “It is easier for us to talk about — and formulate — strategies of discrimination in employment, education, and housing, than talk about our

Journal

Public CultureDuke University Press

Published: Oct 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.