Jump to: navigation, search

Therefore, Puar's intervention into disability studies examines the methods in which the difference of incapacity is produced and how explicit forms of incapacity change into valorized. Intervening in the ways wherein the binary of disabled and abled is produced through the lens of capacity and debility makes it potential to question the methods in which the difference of incapacity reifies an exceptionalism and simplified conceptualization of incapacity that only sure privileged disabled our bodies can occupy (ibid.). In this way, Puar's undertaking grasps at the nonidentical-how disability can be theorized when the idea of disability is just not contained by processes of normativity. Puar's intervention is uncomfortable for disability studies insofar as she challenges the methods in which the sphere of inquiry reproduces disability as an oppressed identity and an aggrieved topic enacted via "wounded attachments" (Puar 2012, 157). Puar's project of rethinking incapacity is to move from disability to debility, not in an effort to "disavow the essential political gains enabled by incapacity activists globally, however to invite a deconstruction of what ability and capacity mean, affective and otherwise, and to push for a broader politics of debility that destabilizes the seamless manufacturing of abled-bodies in relation to disability" (166). In doing so, Puar asks: "How would our political landscape remodel if it actively decentered the sustained reproduction and proliferation of the grieving topic, opening as an alternative towards an affective politics, attentive to ecologies of sensation and switchpoints of bodily capacities, to habituations and unhabituations, to tendencies, multiple temporalities, and becomings?" (157). Puar thus requires a non-anthropocentric affective politics that moves us away from exceptional aggrieved human subjects whose damage may be converted into cultural capital.

Feel free to surf to my web blog -