In this paper, I first refer to “the social model of disability” which, contrary to the traditional view on disability and disabled people, claims that one's physical impairment itself does not consist with his/her disability. The social model insists that disability should be considered as social, and that disabled people are a group of the socially oppressed. The social model is now the theoretical standard of disability studies.
Although the social model has encouraged the disabled people's movement and generally promoted an unprejudiced view toward disabled people, I point out its (bio) foundationalist view on the body, and its problematic identity politics. Those principles hinder one from questioning a dichotomous categorization of human being as able/disabled or normal/abnormal, and eventually become obstructive to the emancipatory project of the movement. As a complement to the social model theory, I propose the approach acquaints with post-structuralism or radical social constructionism, which does not hesitate to de-naturalize impairment or the body, and thus will unsettle the categorization of the able/disabled body. In addition, the approach should be more attentive to the artificiality and instability of the “normal (able) body” that have been often neglected in disability studies.
In the last part of the paper, I examine M. Shildrick's analysis of “monster, ” in which she suggests that the “normal body” is as much phantasmic as the “abnormal body, ” as one capable study for disturbing the categorization. Applying Shildrick's idea, I also discuss the practice of compulsive rehabilitation of the disabled body.
The law of categorization is omnipresent and very insistent in our society. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile and indeed necessary for us concerning the field of disability to “trouble” the categorization. This paper is aimed at accomplishing such a purpose.
View full abstract