Chapter 10. Irrational Perspectives and Untenable Positions: Sociology, Madness and Disability

K. Inckle
{"title":"Chapter 10. Irrational Perspectives and Untenable Positions: Sociology, Madness and Disability","authors":"K. Inckle","doi":"10.1108/978-1-78756-511-120181011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nIn this chapter, the author critically examines the relationship between sociology and the identities/experiences of disability and ‘mental illness’ (referred to throughout as distress). The author argues that despite sociology having an ethos of social justice and frequently producing critical accounts of inequalities – such as anti-racism and gender equality – it nonetheless uncritically reiterates the marginalisation of disability and distress. As such, sociology not only reflects the increasing ‘medicalisation of everyday life’ and shores up the essentialist discourses of genetics and neuroscience, but also consigns research and knowledge production about disability and distress to the medical sciences. The author challenges these sociological conventions and highlights the ways in which both disability and distress are socially structured, embodied experiences. The author argues that a sociological account of distress and disability are important not only in and of themselves, but also because they highlight the ways and means to challenge essentialism, inequality and the ever-narrowing definition of what is considered a normal or acceptable part of human experience. Furthermore, vibrant streams of user-led research, activism and practice-interventions – resulting in widespread social, legal and identity transformations – have emerged from the experiences of disability and distress. These user-led perspectives highlight the importance and potential of knowledge produced from the margins, not only for those experiencing disability and/or distress but also for the ways in which we perceive, theorise and research the social world more broadly.","PeriodicalId":439873,"journal":{"name":"Subcultures, Bodies and Spaces: Essays on Alternativity and Marginalization","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Subcultures, Bodies and Spaces: Essays on Alternativity and Marginalization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-511-120181011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In this chapter, the author critically examines the relationship between sociology and the identities/experiences of disability and ‘mental illness’ (referred to throughout as distress). The author argues that despite sociology having an ethos of social justice and frequently producing critical accounts of inequalities – such as anti-racism and gender equality – it nonetheless uncritically reiterates the marginalisation of disability and distress. As such, sociology not only reflects the increasing ‘medicalisation of everyday life’ and shores up the essentialist discourses of genetics and neuroscience, but also consigns research and knowledge production about disability and distress to the medical sciences. The author challenges these sociological conventions and highlights the ways in which both disability and distress are socially structured, embodied experiences. The author argues that a sociological account of distress and disability are important not only in and of themselves, but also because they highlight the ways and means to challenge essentialism, inequality and the ever-narrowing definition of what is considered a normal or acceptable part of human experience. Furthermore, vibrant streams of user-led research, activism and practice-interventions – resulting in widespread social, legal and identity transformations – have emerged from the experiences of disability and distress. These user-led perspectives highlight the importance and potential of knowledge produced from the margins, not only for those experiencing disability and/or distress but also for the ways in which we perceive, theorise and research the social world more broadly.
第十章。非理性的观点和站不住脚的立场:社会学、疯狂和残疾
在本章中,作者批判性地审视了社会学与残疾和“精神疾病”(贯穿全文)的身份/经历之间的关系。作者认为,尽管社会学具有社会正义的精神,并经常对不平等现象进行批判——比如反种族主义和性别平等——但它仍然不加批判地重申了残疾和痛苦的边缘化。因此,社会学不仅反映了日益增长的“日常生活的医学化”,支持了遗传学和神经科学的本质主义话语,而且还将关于残疾和痛苦的研究和知识生产委托给了医学科学。作者挑战了这些社会学惯例,并强调了残疾和痛苦都是社会结构和具体经验的方式。作者认为,对痛苦和残疾的社会学解释不仅本身很重要,而且还因为它们强调了挑战本质主义、不平等以及对人类经验中被认为是正常或可接受的部分的日益狭隘的定义的方法和手段。此外,从残疾和痛苦的经历中出现了由用户主导的研究、行动主义和实践干预——导致广泛的社会、法律和身份转变。这些用户主导的观点强调了从边缘产生的知识的重要性和潜力,不仅对那些经历残疾和/或痛苦的人,而且对我们更广泛地感知、理论化和研究社会世界的方式。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信