Religion, as a modern concept, has been shaped by colonialism and socio-historical contexts. However, Disability and World Religions: An Introduction does not generally explore the impact of cultural contexts on religions’ approaches to disability. Nor does it often explore contradictions between the late-modern concept of disability and various ancient ways of thinking about bodies and minds, reflected in sacred texts. While the writers here are often critical of disabled people’s ways of thinking about disability, there is very little self-critique towards religions’ contributions to the social oppression of disabled people. Furthermore, there is a sense that many of the chapters could have said more about the experiences of disabled adherents in each of these religions, rather than considering disability solely from the perspective of non-disabled practitioners.
It is often unclear whether chapters are written by ‘insider’ practitioners of religions or ‘outsider’ scholars. In Stephen E. Harris’ chapter on Buddhism, he acknowledges that Buddhist texts are ‘almost always negative’ towards disability (25). Yet he also makes the claim that ‘the Buddhist commitment to the universal salvation of all beings implicitly commits them to making their teaching accessible to persons with mental or physical disabilities’ (25), an ideological statement for which no evidence – such as from Buddhist religious practice – is presented. This is one example of a general lack of clarity here on the relationships of the writers to the religious contexts discussed. Reflexivity over writers’ positionality in relation to disability would also have been helpful.
It is often assumed in these chapters that disabled people are objects of care (or enlightenment, or liberation), rather than being religious practitioners or even leaders in religious communities. The implicit assumption of the chapter on Buddhism is that religious leaders will be non-disabled, with a care model dominating their encounters with disabled people:
In relation to disability, the bodhisattva should minister to the sick, guide the blind, carry persons without legs when necessary and, significantly, communicate through hand gestures with the deaf. (43)
He requires constant assistance and, in a sense, lives suspended in infancy. Yet the infant is one of the models of Daoist living – free from preconceptions and indoctrination. (86)
Much of the content of the two chapters on Christian theology has been said elsewhere. The chapter on Catholicism, by Mary Jo Iozzio, focuses on the imago Dei – the image of God as revealed in humanity – and the importance in Catholic tradition of looking after the vulnerable. There is, however, recognition here of the exclusion of disabled people from Catholicism, boldly interpreted as the Church’s own sin. Thomas Reynolds’ chapter on Protestant Christianity discusses some of the more liberatory Christian theology of disability, and is critical of Christian ideologies that have marginalised disabled people. However, he does not distinguish between liberatory and pastoral approaches to disability in Christian thought, and so is uncritical of some less radical Christian writing on the subject.
Writing on Islam, Vardit Rispler-Chaim focuses on the reality of disabled people’s experience of Islam, including ways disabled Muslims have been oppressed. Some accommodation-model thinking is illuminated, such as the exemption from the hajj pilgrimage afforded to disabled people. However, it is not clear how far disabled people themselves would recognise the generally positive approach which is attributed to Islamic scriptures and cultural practice, including what Rispler-Chaim calls ‘the “no-fault” attitude’ (186) of the Qur’an towards disability.
The chapters on Hinduism and Judaism are those that perhaps take the most nuanced approaches to their religious contexts and their impact on disabled people. Julia Watts Belser’s chapter discusses disabled leaders of Judaism, representations of disabled people in Jewish scripture and practice, and the contributions that disabled people have made to Jewish life. In contrast with many of the other chapters, the role of disabled people themselves in Judaism is at the forefront of Rabbi Belser’s writing. This chapter also contains a fascinating section on Deaf Jewish practice. Much of the chapter on Hinduism by Amy Donahue focuses on colonialism in South Asian countries, which not only established Hinduism as a religion, but also brought new approaches to disability which were not always easily imported into Hindu contexts. A story of a woman’s diagnosis of schizophrenia, because she refused to perform the traditional duties of a wife in her household, highlights complex intersectional and postcolonial issues. Critical approaches to Hinduism and disability can only make sense in light of the global social relations of colonialism. Other chapters would have benefitted from a similarly critical approach to social contexts of religious practice.
The chapter on Confucianism presents a relational approach to the personhood of disabled people with intellectual impairments. A final chapter on indigenous religions unfortunately conflates many different cultural traditions, while still managing to represent disabled people as objects through which others can learn about the universe.
There is useful material in Disability and World Religions, particularly the summaries of sacred texts’ representations of disability and theologies of disability in each of these religions. There are also more critical approaches, in some chapters, towards ways in which religious practices and ideologies have oppressed disabled people. However, many of the approaches to disability here are relatively normative, and many chapters do not turn a critical eye on their own religious ideologies.
SOAS, University of London, London, UK
[email protected]
© 2017 Naomi Lawson Jacobs
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1321236