Integrating Disability Conforming Feminist Thought Garland-Thomson Analysis

“Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Thought” by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson takes a disability studies approach to redefining how we think of identity in a feminist context. Written in 2002, this piece neatly falls into what could be classified as a staple of Third Wave Feminism, in that it takes a more intersectional approach, considering not only how disability factors in with an individual’s sense of self, but also how it interacts with other areas of a person’s life. Specifically, Garland-Thomson frames this as a struggle between one’s disability and their femininity. As mentioned several times throughout her piece, this analysis also credits itself heavily to the Civil Rights and Disability Rights movements of the 1960’s, as

These are questions that influence each section of the article, and comprise the basics of its argument. Most simply, Garland-Thomson attempts to dismiss a stereotype about disability studies that claim it’s a very narrow and focused study (2). However, just as feminism discusses issue not solely confined to the identity of a woman or women in general, disability studies goes beyond simple activism for individuals with disabilities. Which is why it ties so closely to feminist studies. The goal of disability studies, as described by Garland-Thomson, is a goal of furthering ideas of intersectionality. Feminism recognizes that a person’s identity is made up of several inseparable pieces. Disability studies comprises another of those very important pieces. Therefore, it makes logical sense to include questions of disability and ability when considering the whole person in a feminist context. As she herself claims, “[f]eminist theory is a collaborative, interdisciplinary inquiry,” and factoring in disability studies “deepens, expands, and challenges feminist theory (Garland-Thomson 3).” With the understanding of what disability studies is, and how it connects to feminism, Garland-Thomson then proceeds to tackle why such a study and connection is important. The answer to that, as alluded to above, it because of the inherent value in

Each considers a different way the cultural notion of what disability is and should be affects a general perspective of the concept of disability, as well as an individual sense of self in relation to one’s level of ability. Beginning with Representation, Garland-Thomson looks at how disability is situated in relation to a mythical norm. She also takes a more liberal stance on how to define being disable. This is represented in her decision to consider the act of gendered or assigning a race to someone as a disabling action. The rationale behind this is that, just as disabled individuals as marked as either having a “deficiency” or an “abnormality (Garland-Thomson 7)”, other aspects of identity can also be labeled “too much” or “not enough (8).” She presents this example in the form of femininity: the overly feminine housemaker and the butch lesbian are two halves of the same issue in a societal view. And whether “deficient” or “too much”, Garland-Thomson insists that any “subjugated bodies” that do not fit strictly into this box of the normal version of a specific identity are viewed as “ungovernable, intemperate, or threatening (8).” Because this lack of or abundance is equated to disability, it further emphasizes a virtually unchallenged cultural ideal that disability is inherently