Crip Theory

R. Mcruer
{"title":"Crip Theory","authors":"R. Mcruer","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crip theory began to flourish in the interdisciplinary fields of disability studies and queer theory in the early decades of the 21st century. These fields attend to the complex workings of power and normalization in contemporary cultures, particularly to how institutions of modernity have materialized and sedimented a distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” and to how subjects deemed “abnormal” have contested such ideas. Disability studies pluralizes models for thinking about disability: if a culture of normalization reduces disability to lack or loss and positions disability as always in need of cure, disability studies challenges the singularity of this medical model. Disability studies scholars examine how able-bodied ideologies emerge in and through representation, and how such representations result in a culture of ableism that invalidates disabled experiences. Crip theory, in turn, emerged as a particular mode of doing disability studies, deeply in conversation with queer theory. The pride and defiance of queer culture, with its active reclamation or reinvention of language meant to wound, are matched by the pride and defiance of crip culture. Crip theory, however, is generatively paradoxical, working with and against identity and identification simultaneously. Crip theory affirms lived, embodied experiences of disability and the knowledges (or cripistemologies) that emerge from such experiences; at the same time, it is critical of the ways in which certain identities materialize and become representative to the exclusion of others that may not fit neatly within dominant vocabularies of disability. Many works in crip theory focus on the supposed margins of disability identification as well as on the intersections where gender, race, sexuality, and disability come together. Crip theory, additionally, offers an analytic that can be used for thinking about contexts or historical periods that do not seem on the surface to be about disability at all. Cripping offers a critical process, considering how certain bodily or mental experiences, in whatever location or period, have been marginalized or invisibilized, made pathological or deviant. Within queer theory, crip theory thus perhaps has its deepest affinity with queer of color critique, with its attention not just to substantive identities but also to processes of racialization and gendering that pathologize or make aberrant particular groups. Queer theory, queer of color critique, and crip theory, moreover, often combine studies that focus on a macrolevel recognition of the complex workings of political economy (neoliberal capitalism, in particular) and the seemingly microlevel vicissitudes of identity, embodiment, or desire.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literary and Critical Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Crip theory began to flourish in the interdisciplinary fields of disability studies and queer theory in the early decades of the 21st century. These fields attend to the complex workings of power and normalization in contemporary cultures, particularly to how institutions of modernity have materialized and sedimented a distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” and to how subjects deemed “abnormal” have contested such ideas. Disability studies pluralizes models for thinking about disability: if a culture of normalization reduces disability to lack or loss and positions disability as always in need of cure, disability studies challenges the singularity of this medical model. Disability studies scholars examine how able-bodied ideologies emerge in and through representation, and how such representations result in a culture of ableism that invalidates disabled experiences. Crip theory, in turn, emerged as a particular mode of doing disability studies, deeply in conversation with queer theory. The pride and defiance of queer culture, with its active reclamation or reinvention of language meant to wound, are matched by the pride and defiance of crip culture. Crip theory, however, is generatively paradoxical, working with and against identity and identification simultaneously. Crip theory affirms lived, embodied experiences of disability and the knowledges (or cripistemologies) that emerge from such experiences; at the same time, it is critical of the ways in which certain identities materialize and become representative to the exclusion of others that may not fit neatly within dominant vocabularies of disability. Many works in crip theory focus on the supposed margins of disability identification as well as on the intersections where gender, race, sexuality, and disability come together. Crip theory, additionally, offers an analytic that can be used for thinking about contexts or historical periods that do not seem on the surface to be about disability at all. Cripping offers a critical process, considering how certain bodily or mental experiences, in whatever location or period, have been marginalized or invisibilized, made pathological or deviant. Within queer theory, crip theory thus perhaps has its deepest affinity with queer of color critique, with its attention not just to substantive identities but also to processes of racialization and gendering that pathologize or make aberrant particular groups. Queer theory, queer of color critique, and crip theory, moreover, often combine studies that focus on a macrolevel recognition of the complex workings of political economy (neoliberal capitalism, in particular) and the seemingly microlevel vicissitudes of identity, embodiment, or desire.
瘸子理论
残障理论在21世纪初开始在残障研究和酷儿理论的交叉领域蓬勃发展。这些领域关注当代文化中权力和正常化的复杂运作,特别是现代性制度如何物化和沉淀“正常”与“不正常”之间的区别,以及被视为“不正常”的主体如何对这些观点提出质疑。残疾研究使思考残疾的模式多元化:如果一种正常化的文化将残疾减少为缺乏或损失,并将残疾定位为始终需要治疗,那么残疾研究就挑战了这种医学模式的独特性。残疾研究学者研究了健全身体的意识形态是如何通过表征出现的,以及这种表征是如何导致残疾歧视文化的,这种文化使残疾经历无效。反过来,残障理论又成为残障研究的一种特殊模式,与酷儿理论进行了深入的交流。酷儿文化的骄傲和反抗,以及它对意在伤害的语言的积极改造或重新发明,与蹩脚文化的骄傲和反抗相匹配。然而,蹩脚的理论是一种生成悖论,它同时支持和反对身份和认同。瘸腿理论肯定了活生生的、具体化的残疾经历,以及从这些经历中产生的知识(或瘸腿论);与此同时,它也批判了某些身份的物质化和代表性,而排除了其他可能不符合主流残疾词汇的身份。残障理论的许多研究都集中在残障识别的边缘,以及性别、种族、性取向和残障的交叉点上。此外,残障理论还提供了一种分析方法,可用于思考表面上与残疾完全无关的背景或历史时期。瘸腿提供了一个关键的过程,考虑到某些身体或精神经历,在任何地点或时期,被边缘化或隐形,病态或异常。因此,在酷儿理论中,残障理论可能与有色酷儿批判有着最密切的联系,它不仅关注实质性的身份认同,还关注种族化和性别化的过程,这些过程将异常的特定群体病态化或制造出来。此外,酷儿理论、酷儿色彩批判和蹩脚理论往往结合了对政治经济(特别是新自由主义资本主义)复杂运作的宏观认识和看似微观层面的身份、体现或欲望的变迁的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信