Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory” is an article that really clarifies ways in which “all oppression is connected.” In the article, Garland-Thomson aim’s to find the parallels between feminist theory and disability studies and she does so in such a unique way that it is apparent that these two different fields of study are intertwined and can contribute greatly to each other. According to Garland-Thomson, “Integrating disability [with feminist theory] clarifies how the aggregate of systems operates together, yet distinctly, to support an imaginary norm and structure the relations that grant power, privilege, and status to that norm” (577). This quote is important because it brings us directly to the source of all problems and shows why “all oppression in connected”: because it grants power, privilege, and status to normalcy. For disability studies and feminist studies, the ideas of normalcy that are being challenged vary slightly. Being able-bodied is considered normal for the former and being a man is considered normal for the latter. These ideas of normalcy are problematic because they have become institutionalized in our society and serves to justify the legitimization of “unequal distribution of resources, status, and power within a biased social and architectural environment” (577). Similarly, the way that sexism in so deeply embedded in our society today and is used to preserve male privilege, Garland-Thomson draws a comparison with disability studies, where privilege is reserved for able-bodied people.
Garland-Thomson divided the article into four main sections (representation, the body, identity, and activism) to provide more examples of ways in which feminist theory and disability studies can help each other and create a more enriched discourse. In representation she discussed ways in which acting out femininity is associated with being disabled. In fact, in the article, she cites a study that states women who act out femininity are viewed as incompetent in the same way elderly people and disabled people are view incompetent. In the body section, she makes a wonderful point to start of saying that very early in history, body ideals were worshipped and not imitated but today, body ideals are the model that everyone seeks to attain (579). She goes on to discuss the similarities between reconstructive surgery, a procedure that is typically aimed at people who what to eliminate disability to become more “normal”, and cosmetic surgery, a popular procedure that offers people “solutions” to their beauty problems and helps them look beautiful based on the normal standards of beauty in society. In this respect, Garland-Thomson believes that a woman trying to change the shape of her nose is no different from a person attempting a breast reduction procedure to allow their greater functionality and reduce back pain. Now I appreciate the way that Garland-Thomson structures this article because it allowed me to see the ways we overlook similarities between different groups that are oppressed in society. Acknowledging our similarities and differences and uniting to reject the normative standards to oppress us will make each different field of study. This also changed my way of looking at disability. I’ve read Garland-Thomson’s work before but this article allowed me to see things clearer. In a way, feminist women are part of the oppressive system if we don’t acknowledge that we have privileges for being able-bodied in ways that disabled people don’t. This article really shows us how “all oppression is connected.” Towards the end of the article, Garland-Thomson notes that feminism embraces paradoxes and this is important when we are trying to draw comparisons between two equally oppressive fields. We will always find differences that challenge our views but we must not ignore them.
No comments:
Post a Comment