We Have Never Been So Critical: When PCS Meets CDS

by Junbin Yang

What Is So “Critical” about Critical Disability Studies?

Although it is difficult to propose a one-dimensional definition of Critical Disability Studies (CDS), Meekosha and Shuttleworth’s 2009 article entitled “What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies?” provided several useful guidance for understanding CDS. First, CDS rejects implicit or explicit binary understanding, including social–medical and impairment–disability. Rather, it embraces multi-dimensional and intricate understanding of oppression within disabilities without fixating on deterministic interpretations, especially those inherent in the Marxism-based social model. Additionally, arguing that aspiring emancipation and social progress is “the core of disability studies’ raison d’etre” (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009, p. 55), CDS needs to be self-reflexive as well as “flexible and amenable” (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009, p. 64). Consequently, CDS should be uniquely interdisciplinary while remaining theoretically and empirically eclectic.

After Meekosha and Shuttleworth’s (2009) seminal paper, several scholars have tried to define CDS (cf. Boxall, 2019; Brighton et al., 2021; Garland-Thomson, 2019; Goodley, 2016, 2017; Shildrick, 2012). Among the various contributions, Goodley (2016, pp. 191–192) provided the most concise frameworks. His (re)interpretations of CDS necessitated the application of numerous social theories while acknowledging the benefits of the conventional social model and the influence of neoliberalism and globalization. Furthermore, he pointed out cultural diversities and specific contexts by highlighting the importance of comprehending complex connections as a primary characteristic of disability. Consequently, he maintained a critical view on disability and the necessity of political movement within any studies related to disability. 

It would be negligent not to address that Goodley (2016) also listed some aspects of research that are “not” CDS. First, the study cannot be regarded as CDS if one simply includes the word “critical” while rejecting all other previous associated studies or meaninglessly reiterating former dominant perspectives, such as the social model. Moreover, the resultant study cannot be viewed as CDS if related analysis merely focuses on culture and ignores material-focused factors. In short, Goodley (2016) revealed a strong rejection of simplistic (re)interpretations of disability without considering intellectual-political endeavors through CDS research.

Other than Goodley and his colleagues, it is debatably challenging to identify the continuation of this “definitional effort” (Andrews & Silk, 2015, p. 86) within the field of disability studies in general and CDS in particular. More importantly, as Flynn (2017) noted, without the critical reflections expressed in Goodley’s (2016) main points, CDS “is often reduced to a perspective only concerned with cultural and discursive issues, crticised for having no real material application” (p. 145). More specifically, while discounting “larger macro-level economic challenges” (Flynn, 2017, p. 146), fixation on micro-analysis-based cultural aspects is common in CDS research.

On this basis, I contend that one of the main reasons CDS remains “a nascent field of scholarship” (Goodley et al., 2018, p. 206) or “a contested entity with indistinct boundaries” (Flynn, 2020, p. 950) is that it is souncritical of the most fundamental question in the field: “What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies?” (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009). Hence, I believe that the mutual interaction between PCS and CDS can result in multiple significant advancements in both fields.

Possible Collaboration between PCS and CDS

I argue that “physical culturalization (the process of becoming more attuned to and focused on physical culture as a field of inquiry)” (Andrews & Silk, 2011, p. 2, italics in original) of (critical) disability studies is necessary as the first step in making CDS more critical. It does not indicate that CDS should exterminate all the studies; my argument is that it should be more attentive to the multifaceted aspects of disabilities. In the case of PCS projects, although sport is a crucial area of research, they do not exclusively concentrate on sport. For example, PCS either (1) analyzes sport as a center of study in relation to other different multifarious elements or (2) approaches miscellaneous elements including sport as one of the many factors among them (Silk & Andrews, 2011).

Similar to the PCS approach, CDS needs not to be “necessarily the same thing as the study of disability” (Bolt, 2019, p. 1), or—as Goodly (2017) stated—it can “start with disability but never end with it” (p. 82). In other words, it can not only delve into disability or people with disability as a core element of examination but also discern and highlight other factors, including but not limited to nationalism, neoliberalism, Confucianism, and androcentrism, with regard to dis/ability. To put it another way, CDS can include a variety of components and should not be limited for disabled bodies.

In this light, I would like to cautiously point out problems related to the name, “(critical) disability studies.” Greenberg and Cork (2022) noted the following about the importance of language:

Language is situational. It is always dependent on context—who is using what words, when and where they are using them, whom the words are directed toward, and, perhaps most importantly, how and why the words were chosen and for what purpose. It makes sense, then, why language can never be objectively right for every person and every situation—context changes, and language changes with context. This is what sociologists and other theorists mean when they claim that language is a social construction: It is constructed both by and for the ever-changing social world. (p. 154)

Since the field of (critical) disability studies never just focuses on disabled bodies, I believe that it should question its very name because the word “disability” inevitably signifies “a lack of capability” (Garland-Thomson, 2019, p. 12). As a result—following Andrews’ (2008) critique regarding the term “sociology of sport”— “I would respectfully suggest that the very term, the [disability studies], is in fact a misnomer” (p. 51), and the term “Physical Cultural Studies” could be more appropriate.

As highlighted, it does not mean that CDS should be subordinate to PCS; my claim is that CDS should more intently expand and extend its research, not just about disabled bodies but the relationship between dis/ability and various other elements in society. In particular, I assert that CDS should pay more attention to “people with bodies and minds that are devalued or pathologized but who do not consistently identify (or are not consistently identified) as disabled” (Minich, 2016, para. 112), intentionally or unintentionally originated from the strictly quantitative-centered criteria concerning assessment of dis/ability and bodies (cf. Andrews et al., 2013; Silk et al., 2014)—which I term “visibly invisible” or “invisibly visible” groups of people with disabilities (cf. Atkinson 2018; Matthews & Harrington, 1999; Samuels, 2013)—in association with multiple factors in society.

Focusing more on (critical) disability studies is a pivotal issue for PCS since it can analyze why and how disabilities and people who have disabilities are marginalized in various studies and their daily lives. Therefore, I would like to introduce one newly emerging idea in CDS—DisHumanism (cf. Goodley, 2016; Goodley et al., 2014, 2017, 2019, 2022; Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2016; Liddiard et al., 2019)—which can provide novel suggestions regarding growing concern for “post-humanist and post-anthropocentric commitments” (Andrews, 2019, p. 47) in PCS research. As Goodley et al. (2022) explained:

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is but one example of a discourse that seeks to recognise the human rights of disabled people. And within this document is the humanist impulse to draw disabled people into the category of human. The fact that this discourse is required in the twenty-first century is a stark reminder that disabled people are all too often not considered to be as human as other human beings. When governments ratify this convention they are not just demonstrating a commitment to recognising disabled people as humans with rights. These governments are also indicating that their nation states have historically failed to assign these human qualities to disabled people. (p. 19)

In other words, any endeavors to (re)enact and rectify some laws and regulations for people who have disabilities demonstrate two points. On the one hand, it explicitly shows that each entity and individual is committed to creating a more inclusive and equal society for marginalized groups, including disabled people. On the other hand, it implicitly exhibits that minority groups have been disregarded as acknowledged members of society.

Although it has not been distinctly obvious, the (re)enactment and rectification of laws and rules for disempowered people imply that there has been an “unspoken archetype that sways our thinking about who matters and who does not” (Peña-Guzmán, 2022, p. 333). As a result, it means that certain groups of people, such as disabled people, unavoidably require endless efforts “to gain entry into the category of the human” (Goodley et al., 2019, p. 218), and, therefore, “the demand to be recognized as a productive human” (p. 218) is essential.

However, at the same time, “the human category is shrinking” (Liddiard et al., 2019, p. 157) under the massive expansion of neoliberalism in contemporary society. In particular, stressing self-reliance and responsible citizenship, officially acknowledged as a “neoliberal human subject” (Liddiard et al., 2019, p. 157) is more difficult than before as the public should constantly demonstrate that they are “a successful human” (Liddiard et al., 2019, p. 158) without the assistance of others, including the government. In addition, post-humanist sensibility or condition has swiftly broadened its influence, especially within disability studies, in alignment with the rapid evolution of cutting-edge digital and prosthetic technologies (Greenberg & Cork, 2022; Lewthwaite et al., 2019). More broadly, it indicates the intensifying dominance of digitalized and technological forces, which warrants more attention. Williams (2020) noted the following concerning humans’ increasing dependence on non-human entities:

This over-reliance and trust resulted in human gradually relinquishing the reins of their actor networks. ... Hence, the scale in the power relationships is actually tipping toward technology controlling human actor networks and invariably controlling human activity. This implies that someday, if it is not happening now, that technology will have the right to conscript and control human actions in certain actor networks. (p. 58)

Humans have invented most of the existing non-human entities. However, the power dynamics between humans and non-humans are gradually reversing. This also signifies that additional power and politics are becoming increasingly conspicuous, not only among human beings but also between humans and non-humans.

In response to the increasing importance of the relationship between human and non-human individuals and entities, Goodley and his colleagues proposed the concept of DisHuman (Goodley, 2016; Goodley et al., 2014, 2017, 2019, 2022; Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2016; Liddiard et al., 2019). For instance, Liddiard et al. (2019) explained the complex connection between humans and non-humans as follows:

A person with complex and profound impairments who draws on the 24/7 support of personal assistants maintains a standard of living through complex networks. Their autonomy (DisHuman) is made possible through a complex arrangement of care and supportive relationships that expand our understandings of independence (DisHuman). Impairment and support networks collapse into one another to reimagine what it might mean to live independently. (p. 162, emphasis in original)

Although it needs further examination, adopting the DisHuman idea within PCS could enrich its research by highlighting both anthropocentric and post-humanist understanding of physical culture. For example, PCS should be anthropocentric when dealing with the idea of DisHumanism because it should ponder how to expand and amend normalized citizenship in order to create more humanist society. However, it should simultaneously seek posthumanism (i.e., DisHumanism) to explore the expansion of assorted digitalized technologies in association with humans.

Consequently, the mutual partnership between PCS and CDS can elicit new possibilities that will ultimately be advantageous to both. CDS will evaluate intricate connections among various components without essentializing disability alone as a result of the physical culturalization of disability (Andrews & Silk, 2011). Moreover, embracing PCS will allow CDS to address “visibly invisible” or “invisibly visible” disabilities by (re)considering the impact of quantified categorization of dis/abilities and bodily forms. By recognizing that “we are not done with humanism” (Goodley et al., 2022, p. 22), PCS will also have the opportunity to broaden its project and (re)assess the complex relationship between humans, non-humans, and the influence of technologies through an examination of CDS and its relatively new concept, DisHumanism. Hence, both PCS and CDS can reciprocally “offer a template for consideration and an insight into lessons learned so that [both of them] can continue to forge [their] own unique path forward” (McRae, 2019, p. 219) while reaffirming their ultimate goal—not only social change but also social progress.

References

Andrews, D. L. (2008). Kinesiology’s inconvenient truth and the physical cultural studies imperative. Quest, 60(1), 45–62.

Andrews, D. L. (2019). Making sport great again: The uber-sport assemblage, neoliberalism, and the Trump conjuncture. Palgrave Pivot.

Andrews, D. L., & Silk, M. L. (2011). Physical cultural studies: Engendering a productive dialogue. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(1), 1–3.

Andrews, D. L., & M. L. Silk (2015). Physical cultural studies on sport. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the sociology of sport (pp. 83–93). Routledge.

Andrews, D. L., Silk, M., Francombe, J., & Bush, A. (2013). McKinesiology. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(5), 335–356.

Atkinson, M. (2018). Invisible disabilities. In M. Atkinson (Ed.), Sport, mental illness and sociology: Volume 11. (pp. 127–142). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Bolt, D. (2018). Cultural disability studies in education: Interdisciplinary navigations of the normative divide. Routledge.

Boxall, K. (2019). Revisiting the foundations of (critical) disability studies: Manifesto for an inclusive social model. In K. Ellis, R. Garland-Thomson, M. Kent, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies: Volume 1 (pp. 199–208). Routledge.

Brighton, J., Townsend, R. C., Campbell, N., & Williams, T. L. (2021). Moving beyond models: Theorizing physical disability in the sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 38(4), 386–398.

Flynn, S. (2017). Engaging with materialism and material reality: critical disability studies and economic recession. Disability & Society, 32(2), 143–159.

Flynn, S. (2020). Theorizing disability in child protection: Applying critical disability studies to the elevated risk of abuse for disabled children. Disability & Society, 35(6), 949–971.

Garland-Thomson, R. (2019). Critical disability studies: A knowledge manifesto. In K. Ellis, R. Garland-Thomson, M. Kent & R. Robertson (Eds.), Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies: Volume 1 (pp. 11–19). Routledge.

Goodley, D. (2016). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.). Sage.

Goodley, D. (2017). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. In A. Waldschmidt, H. Berressem & M. Ingwersen (Eds.), Culture–theory–disability: Encounters between disability studies and cultural studies (pp. 81–97). transcript publishing.

Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2016). Becoming dishuman: Thinking about the human through dis/ability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(1), 1–15.

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., & Runswick Cole, K. (2014). Posthuman disability studies. Subjectivity, 7(4), 342–361.

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick Cole, K. (2017). Critical disability studies. In B. Gough (Ed.), The palgrave handbook of critical social psychology (pp. 491–505). Palgrave Macmillan.

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2019). Towards a DisHuman civil society. In B. Watermeyer, J. McKenzie & L. Swartz (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of disability and citizenship in the global south (pp. 211–222). Palgrave Macmillan.

Goodley, D., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2018). Feeling disability: Theories of affect and critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 33(2), 197–217.

Goodley, D., Runswick-Cole, K., & Liddiard, K. (2022). Theorising disability: Towards a DisHuman perspective. In K. Liddiard., ‎S. Whitney-Mitchell., ‎K. Evans., L. Watts., R. Spurr., E. Vogelmann., K. Runswick-Cole., & D. Goodley (Eds.), Living life to the fullest: Disability, youth and voice (pp. 11–23). Emerald Publishing. 

Greenberg, M., & Cork, S. J. (2022). Disability, sport, activity, and public health. In R. Pitter, D. L. Andrews & J. Newman (Eds.), Sociocultural issues in sport and physical activity (pp. 153–169). Human Kinetics.

Liddiard, K., Runswick-Cole, K., Lawthom R., & Goodley, D. (2019). A DisHuman manifesto: ProjectDisHuman, UK. In K. Ellis, R. Garland-Thomson, M. Kent & R. Robertson (Eds.), Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies: Volume 1 (pp. 156–165). Routledge.

Matthews, C, K., & Harrington, N, G. (1999). Invisible disability. In D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 241–250). Routledge.

McRae, L. (2019). Disciplining disability: Intersections between critical disability studies and cultural studies. In K. Ellis, R. Garland-Thomson, M. Kent, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies: Volume 1 (pp. 217–229). Routledge.

Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75.

Minich, J. A. (2016). Enabling whom? Critical disability studies now. Lateral, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.25158/L5.1.9

Peña-Guzmán, D. M. (2022). Disability studies meets animal studies. In J. M. Reynolds & C. Wieseler (Eds.), The disability bioethics reader (pp. 333–341). Routledge.

Samuels, E. (2013). My body, my closet: Invisible disability and the limits of coming-out discourse. In L. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 316–332). Routledge.

Shildrick, M. (2012). Critical disability studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 30–41). Routledge.

Silk, M. L., & Andrews, D. L. (2011). Toward a physical cultural studies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(1), 4–35.

Silk, M. L., Francombe, J., & Andrews, D. L. (2014). Slowing the social sciences of sport: On the possibilities of physical culture. Sport in Society, 17(10), 1266–1289.

Williams, I. (2020). The robots are here. In I. Williams (Ed.), Contemporary applications of actor network theory (pp. 51–75). Palgrave Macmillan.