The minority body: a theory of disability

It has been and remains common amongst theorists and scholars to analyze disabled bodies in comparison to abled bodies. More so, disability theorists critically analyze disabled bodies as a social phenomenon that becomes categorized as a minority, similar to race and sexuality. In The minority body: a theory of disability, Elizabeth Barnes builds upon disability as a social category, specifically focusing her argument on well-being in association with the disabled body. She argues persuasively that the physically disabled body is not a defective body, but simply a minority body that does not by itself or intrinsically make someone worse off. Defending a mere-difference view of disability, the majority of her rationale is supported by first-person testimony as well as the disability pride movement, both of which she argues remain essential components in combating dominant stereotypes and assumptions surrounding disability and the disabled body.

To begin, Barnes establishes her pursuit to argue that ‘[physical] disability … is (by itself) neutral with respect to well-being’ (9; original emphasis), and spends the first section of her book constructing disability. While she acknowledges cognitive and behavioral disabilities as branches in the field, she limits her argument to physical disability for the purposes of this book. Following her claim that physical disability is neutral with respect to well-being, however, Barnes dismantles the idea that individual disabilities are unified under specific, physical characteristics that make up physical disability as a category. Rather, as she demonstrates, disability is socially constructed, and she adopts a moderate social constructionism ‘that says disability is socially constructed, but which places greater importance on objective features of bodies … determined by what your body is (objectively) like’ (38). In positioning these fundamental understandings, Barnes then incorporates the disability rights movements into her discussion, as ‘[they] didn’t just influence the category disability, they created it. … disability is socially constructed from group solidarity’ (44; original emphasis). Hence, disability is defined as a category of individuals treated as social minorities with non-standard bodies, seeking equality through social solidarity. Her argument hinges on the fact that ‘the essential link between disability and disadvantage is broken’ (52; original emphasis), and the remainder of her book provides arguments and implications.

Upon designating a definition of disability for the reader to understand through the rest of her book, Barnes moves into her main argument where ‘disability [is] simply another way of being a minority – something that makes you different but not something that makes you worse off’ (54; original emphasis). She assumes a mere-difference view, and flushes out different arguments in support of a bad-difference view: ‘the mere-difference view maintains that disability is not bad-difference’, but ‘one can maintain a mere-difference view of disability itself while still thinking that some features commonly associated with disability are bad difference … Something can be neutral overall, but have aspects which are bad’ (75–76; original emphasis). Her intention in making this distinction furthers her argument that disability in itself is not bad or a disadvantage. She furthers her stance that disability is mere-difference by incorporating the value-neutral model, in which ‘disability [is not] unique among comparable social categories’ (79) in terms of well-being. Barnes, after discussing good, bad, and neutral simpliciters, ultimately argues disability as a neutral simpliciter, or the ‘presence [of disability] doesn’t, by itself, make you better or worse off than people without [disability]’ (84).

Throughout the strongest section of her book, Barnes thoroughly details the value-neutral model, providing examples and situations relatable to the non-disabled reader. Each example and situation exists under the premise that something can be considered good or bad ‘depending on what (intrinsic or extrinsic) factors it is combined with’ (88). Specifically, some features that are negative, or a local bads, can accompany good features, or local goods, such that on the whole it is good, or a global good (89). Here, Barnes (90) gives an example of being male, and how being male could be bad for some people if those individuals desired to become pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed. Such inability would be bad for them, even though it is not a bad simpliciter. With this accessible example, Barnes’ following argument is more accessible to readers, as she uses the same logic with disabled bodies. A disability could be bad for an individual, but that disability does not become a bad simpliciter. Barnes accompanies her discussion of a neutral simpliciter with first-person testimony and disability pride, reminding readers how ‘we don’t … make decisions about what is suboptimal from Plato’s heaven (or our armchair). We observe, we evaluate, and – crucially, we listen to testimony’ (135). We have no reason to disbelieve the first-person testimony of individuals – who identify as happily and pridefully disabled – is irrational or misleading, and Barnes (135) demonstrates that when such testimony is not believed because of certain prejudices and biases, it becomes testimonial injustice.

Barnes finishes the remainder of The minority body: a theory of disability by returning to universal examples, where readers can understand adaptations based on preferences, limitations, and circumstances, as their own lives contain such experiences. Here, Barnes reiterates her argument to readers insofar that the connection between lack of well-being and disability is not evident. By concluding her book while discussing disability pride, readers are reminded, once again, how disability is linked to other groups categorized and treated as social minorities including race, gender, and sexuality. Barnes’ book successfully contributes to critical conversations involving disability and disability studies, going beyond a pathologization and rather adding personalization, awareness, and activism within a social sphere that has continued to face inequality. Barnes’ excellent The minority body: a theory of disability will be of interest not only to disability theorists, but to all theorists engaged in aspects of social construction and manifestations of inequality, whether that be ethnic studies, women and gender studies, interdisciplinary feminist research, and so on.

Madison Myers
Colorado State University
[email protected]
© 2018 Madison Myers
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1457496