![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This article explores possibilities and challenges in facilitating a global dialogue about inclusion and exclusion for girls with disabilities. Drawing from a critical perspective on transnational activism, we argue that this conversation can tackle an understanding of inclusion and exclusion of girls with disabilities at different levels. We suggest that this approach could engage more deeply with the challenges of inclusive research and activism, as well as in connecting knowledge across global North and South. In so doing, this work can contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable research practice related to disability, inclusion and social justice in global contexts.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Do Thi Huyen, Chairwoman of Bac Tu Liem Association of People with Disabilities, and Nghiem Thi Thu Trang for having collaborated with us in organising these workshops.
Notes
1. Ortoleva and Lewis, Forgotten Sisters, 31; Nguyen and Mitchell, “Inclusion in Vietnam,” 3; and Human Rights Watch, Human Rights of Women, 3.
2. United Nations, Convention, Article 6; and United Nations, Thematic Study, 4.
3. Don et al., “Voices of Girls,” 807; Ghai, Rethinking Disability in India, 6; and Frohmader and Meekosha, “Recognition, Respect and Rights,” 287.
4. Although the concepts of inclusion and exclusion are not poignant in the global South, they shed light on the ways social, cultural, economic and political institutions have structured and perpetuated oppressions in specific contexts (see Nguyen and Mitchell, “Inclusion in Vietnam,” 4).
5. Alexander and Mohanty, “Cartographies of Knowledge,” 24.
6. Southern theorists argue that knowledge produced by Northern sociologists assumes an ‘aspiration to universal relevance,’ thus failing to understand the local specificity (for instance see Connell, Southern Theory, 28).
7. Meekosha and Soldatic, “Human Rights,” 1390.
8. Soldatic and Grech, “Transnationalising Disability Studies,” Introduction, para 4.
9. Grech, “Disability, Poverty and Development,” 2.
10. Ibid., 6.
11. See also Nguyen, The Journey to Inclusion, 61.
12. Available at http://www.cbm.org/Inclusive-Development-246768.php; https://www.dvv-international.de/adult-education-and-development/editions/aed-682007/adult-education-for-persons-with-disabilities/inclusive-development/
13. Dingo, “Making the ‘Unfit, Fit,’” 96.
14. Jarman, “Resisting ‘Good Imperialism,’” 115.
15. Meekosha and Soldatic, “Human Rights,” 1390. We use the term ‘exclusions’ here as an overarching concept that signifies different dimensions of human rights violations.
16. Gorman, Disablement, 250.
17. Stienstra, “Trumping All?” 60.
18. United Nations, Convention, Article 3.
19. Wehbi, “Crossing Boundaries,” 514.
20. United Nations Development Programme, Briefing Note, 2. According to UNDP, HDI includes three dimensions: a long and healthy life/life expectancy; access to knowledge; and a decent standard of living. In 2014, Vietnam is ranked 75.9 in terms of life expectancy; 11.9 expected years of schooling with the mean year of schooling being 7.5 years; Gross National Income (GNI) at $5092.
21. Bercholz and Kohn, To Understand Buddhism, 127.
22. Do, “Women with Mobility Disabilities,” 22.
23. Ibid., 22.
24. Dean, Governmentality: Power and Rule, 176.
25. For instance, see Titchkosky, “Governing Embodiment,” 517; and Rioux and Zubrow, “Social Disability,” 148.
26. Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Law on Persons with Disabilities, Article 2.
27. Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Civil Code, Article 22.1.
28. See Endnote 18.
29. Meekosha and Soldatic, “Human Rights,” 1389.
30. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Reaching the Marginalized, 28.
31. Schratz and Walker, Research as Social Change, 2.
32. Kirby et al., Experience Research Social Change, 43.
33. Goodley and Moore, “Doing Disability Research,” 873; and Rioux et al., Advancing Rights, 5–6.
34. Barnes, “‘Emancipatory’ Disability Research,” 5.
35. De Lange et al., “Creating Dialogue on Inclusion,” 115.
36. Some of the public spaces that were used to organise the exhibitions include Bac Tu Liem’s Headquarter of People’s Committee and the Guest House of the National Assembly.
37. MRGD: Tiếng nói của trẻ em gái khuyết tật. https://www.facebook.com/groups/850343171675631/.
38. Kim, “The Specter of Vulnerability,” 138.
39. We have used pseudonyms for all informants in this study to maintain their confidentiality.
40. Caption produced by Lam Anh in a visual workshop.
41. Nguyen, “Girls with Disabilities,” 65.
42. Field notes from the Antigonish workshop, November 2015.
43. Jenny, group discussion #1.
44. Field notes from group discussion #1.
45. Huong, Toronto workshop, January 2016.
46. George, fieldnotes from the Toronto workshop, January 2016.
47. Todd, “Disabled Girlhood,” 26.
48. McRuer, Crip Theory, 2.
49. Stienstra, “Trumping All?” 59.
50. Arenas Conejo, “Disabled Women,” 99.
51. Stienstra, “DisAbling Globalisation,” 114.
52. Nguyen, The Journey to Inclusion, 7.
53. Kim, “Heaven for Disabled People,” 103–104.
54. See Endnote 41.
55. Naples and Desai, Women’s Activism and Globalization, 28.
56. Erevelles and Nguyen, “Disability, Girlhood, and Vulnerability,” 7; Kim, “Heaven for Disabled People,” 102; and Kim, “The Specter of Vulnerability,” 145.
57. Gorman, Disablement, 251.
58. Ibid., 257.
59. Connell, Southern Theory, 228; and Nguyen, “Genealogies of Disability,” 78.
60. Soldatic and Grech, Introduction, para. 5.
61. See Endnote 11.
62. Grech, “Disability and Majority World,” 53.