查看文章

The plaint that theorizations of postmodernism ignore the embodied conditions of varied physical disabilities, and equally that disability studies have little or no time for the insights of postmodernism, is well-founded, but ultimately self-defeating for both. In this chapter, we will pick up the challenge to bring the two fields together, and in doing so-as one writer who fits into the category of disability and the other who does not-we will question the very notion that such clear-cut distinctions can be drawn. If it is not apparent at any given point which of us is speaking, then that is intended. This is not because we wish to mask our identity or wilfully confuse readers, but because we believe firmly that it is in an acknowledgement of the permeability between bodies and between embodied subjects that disability studies might move forward. Against an ingrained tendency for disability activists and scholars to claim a clear set of identities as disabled people, the trajectory within postmodernism has been to fragment the concept of identity in general and to substitute a fluid, shifting notion of a process of becoming that defines neither its own corporeal boundaries nor a fixed context. In suggesting such a radically different approach, our purpose in part is to open up the ethical agenda to encompass not just the liberal humanist pursuit of rights, interests or even individual moral flourishing-all of which presuppose identity-but the post-conventional concerns with encounter, with relationship and becoming-in-the-world-with-others. Addressing disability from the perspective of the embodied subject has been especially contentious within disability studies. In countering …