Abu-Lughod and Hall- Kim The

Questioning Culture

The readings Writing Against Culture and Cultural Identity and Diaspora challenge us to rethink and question our conceptualization of culture and cultural identity. Building off the concept of essentialism, these authors question how we conceptualize culture as stagnant, coherent, timeless, and meant for the Western gaze. Instead the authors of these readings argue that we perpetuate colonialist narratives when we do not highlight the multiplicity involved in cultural experiences as well as the imperfections, contradictions that are an inherent part of our work. We see these elements of challenging what culture means in works such as Fictions of Feminist Ethnography where Visweswaran shows the uncertainty in the research process in the way she writes and in describing her interactions and conversations. In Cultural Identity and Diaspora studies, we see a similar thread of thought when the author argues the importance of emphasizing difference and multiplicity. In addition, through his discussion on diaspora, Hall describes how identity is not fixed and emphasizes the importance of putting experiences in context and positioning them. Hall also discusses avoiding coherent and colonizing narratives such as the overused “returning to your home country to find yourself” narrative.

These lessons regarding culture can also be applied to disability. People with disabilities are often essentialized as objects of pity and as “a burden.” In the disability community, disability culture is promoted. However, in other spaces, such as medical spaces, disability is quickly boiled down to essentialized diagnoses. On the flip side, I have also seen the process of disability identity formation written and described in an essentialized way. I think the process of disability identity formation is often very uncertain, however, I see few academic works that describe disability identity formation written in this way. I tend to see this more in informal works where people with disabilities tell their stories. However, I think another problem that we run across is that we often value more coherent stories of identity and culture over imperfect and contradictory knowledge. It will be an ongoing challenge to highlight the multiplicity inherent in disability while at the same time retain the identity itself for organizing purposes and service needs.

In my own research, it will be important for me to find ways avoid essentializing disability. This means both from the standpoint of being too diagnosis-focused as well as from the other end of the spectrum as well. In disability studies, we are currently at a stage in the field where we are trying to blur the boundaries of disability and impairment and draw attention to experiences of impairment such as pain and how these can be addressed while still addressing social model concerns such as barriers that people with disabilities face. Avoiding essentializing disability culture is also something that I will need to be weary of. This can be done by highlighting the multiplicity of experiences that make up disability.

Discussion questions:

1.     Can concepts such as colonization and diaspora be applied to the disability experience with appropriation of terms? In what ways?

2.     How do we address concerns related to the essentialization of culture for fields such as the hard sciences and applied fields who may not have this theoretical background in ways that can be translated into practice?