A New Disability History

I have four books on disability that I am currently reading through. I had to order these books -- all of them -- through interlibrary loan because neither of the two public libraries nearest me had ANY of them. I think I will have to talk to their acquisitions person about not only not having these particular books but NO disability books at all. NONE!

The book I'm currently reading is a collection of essays called A New Disability History edited by Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky. I've been keeping track of passages that catch my attention for various reasons. Here are ones I've recorded so far:


"The elision of disabled people from the historiography also surely reflects the 'existential anxiety' that disability often evokes. A considerable literature in psychology verifies that the presence of individuals with disabilities stirs dis-ease in many individuals who view themselves as normal. A more recent literature in cultural studies of disability strongly suggests that those nervous reactions stem from more than individual temperament. To a significant degree, they arise from the most basic of modern, and particularly American, cultural values and social training. Americans often perceive disability – and therefore people with disabilities – as embodying that which Americans fear most: loss of independence, of autonomy, of control; in other words, subjection to fate. The culturally conditioned psychological response to disability may help explain disabled peoples’ [sic] absence from historical accounts. That which we fear, we shun.” [Longmore, PK and Umansky, L. 2001. Introduction. Pp. 1-29 in Longmore, PK and Umansky, L. (editors), The New Disability History – American Perspectives. New York University Press, New York. Quote pp. 6-7]

"The natural and the normal both are ways of establishing the universal, unquestionable good and right. Both are also ways of establishing social hierarchies that justify the denial of legitimacy and certain rights to individuals or groups." [Baynton, DC. 2001. Disability and justification of inequality in American history. Pp. 33-57 in Longmore, PK and Umansky, L. (editors), The New Disability History – American Perspectives. New York University Press, New York. Quote pp. 35]

"Just as the counterpart to the natural was the monstrous, so the opposite of the normal person was the defective. Although normality ostensibly denoted the average, the usual, and the ordinary, in actual usage it functioned as an ideal and excluded only those defined as below average. 'Is the child normal?' was never a question that expressed fear about whether a child had above-average intelligence, motor skills, or beauty. Abnormal signified the subnormal." [Baynton, DC. 2001. Disability and justification of inequality in American history. Pp. 33-57 in Longmore, PK and Umansky, L. (editors), The New Disability History – American Perspectives. New York University Press, New York. Quote pp. 36]


Feel free to discuss any of these as you like. I will post more as I gather them