Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability

Abstract

In this article, we combine aspects of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Disability Studies (DS) to propose a new theoretical framework that incorporates a dual analysis of race and ability: Dis/ability Critical Race Studies, or DisCrit. We first examine some connections between the interdependent constructions of race and dis/ability in education and society in the United States and why we find it necessary to add another branch to Critical Race Theory and Disability Studies. Next, we outline the tenets of DisCrit, calling attention to its potential value as well as elucidate some tensions, cautions, and current limitations within DisCrit. Finally, we suggest ways in which DisCrit can be used in relation to moving beyond the contemporary impasse of researching race and dis/ability within education and other fields.

Keywords:

• race
• ability
• dis/ability
• Critical Race Theory
• Disability Studies

Notes

1. We deliberately use ‘dis/ability’ instead of ‘disability’ throughout this article to call attention to ways in which the latter overwhelmingly signals a specific inability to perform culturally-defined expected tasks (such as learning or walking) that come to define the individual as primarily and generally ‘unable’ to navigate society. We believe the ‘/’ in disability disrupts misleading understandings of disability, as it simultaneously conveys the mixture of ability and disability. We have maintained the use of ‘disability’ when referring to its official use within classification structures and organizations. We provide a more comprehensive discussion troubling of disability as fact in the introduction of this article.

2. Like Gutiérrez, Morales and Martinez (2009), we use the term non-dominant to recognize and emphasize ‘the central issue is the power relations between those who are in power and those who, despite their growing census numbers, are not’ (238). This term is an alternative to minority and other terms that may refer to but do not draw attention to those communities that have historically and currently experienced marginalization by dominant communities.

3. We are drawing insights here from the work of Crenshaw (1993) and Solórzano and Yosso (2001) on race and gender.

4. In the field of general publishing, for example, tags within the library of congress tags for books that have a dis/ability focus are often placed in the self-help category. This impacts where these books are shelved in libraries and bookstores, continuing to designate dis/ability to be seen as a health concern, rather than a cultural or political issue. Sports is also illustrative as there are times when dis/abled competitors are seen to be disadvantaged and in need of separate or segregated spaces in order to ‘level the playing field.’ Yet, at other times, it is argued that technologically advanced prosthesis or other dis/ability related accommodations provide unfair advantages. In this case, disabled athletes are seen as having super-human abilities, disqualifying them from competing with non-disabled athletes. Either too impaired or too enhanced, individuals with dis/ability are barred from participation. A third example can be seen in the way that recreational activities get coded as therapies when they involve dis/abled people. If an individual does art and is disabled, their activity is coded as art therapy. If a disabled individual works out, people assume they are in physical therapy.

5. We acknowledge that dis/ability is an elastic category because it expands and contracts over time and throughout cultures. What is considered a dis/ability today may or may not have been seen as a dis/ability 100, 50, or even 10 years ago! Because dis/ability is socially and historically contingent, dis/ability is always shifting and moving as a category of difference.

6. We do recognize and respect the rights of those from non-dominant communities to self-select segregation (e.g. some people with autism prefer smaller or quieter environments with less interaction, separate schools and programs for LGBTQ kids who may need them, schools for girls only, schools and programs exclusively for the deaf).