什么是残疾史?

IF 0.5 Q1 HISTORY
History Compass Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1111/hic3.12813
Coreen Anne McGuire
{"title":"什么是残疾史?","authors":"Coreen Anne McGuire","doi":"10.1111/hic3.12813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article has two connected aims. First, to contour the boundaries of modern disability history through outlining its development and second, to provide a new methodological agenda for disability history. The design model of disability has outlined an important new programme to integrate the social and medical models of disability by foregrounding materials. Yet ‘disability things’ (to use Ott's memorable term) have been part of disability history's genesis since the material turn, which started the process of social historians recovering the lives of those not recorded in textual sources through objects, including prosthetics. From considering objects as things, the influence of Science and Technology Studies scholars pushed disability historians to further consider objects as agents and objects in use. These approaches have highlighted the differential levels of autonomy and power that objects and their users have in making history. However, this focus on materials has highlighted visible and recorded disability over ‘invisible’ disability, which has perpetuated its opacity and created definitional difficulties around disability demarcation. Medical history methodologies aimed at revealing the ‘patient view’ can help bring people back into focus but uphold the categories of patients and biomedicine in a way that impedes the aims of disability scholars. Focusing on exactly <i>what</i> is hidden is less useful than focusing on <i>how</i> it is hidden, and science and technology study methodologies can illuminate these processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":46376,"journal":{"name":"History Compass","volume":"22 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hic3.12813","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is disability history the history of?\",\"authors\":\"Coreen Anne McGuire\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hic3.12813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article has two connected aims. First, to contour the boundaries of modern disability history through outlining its development and second, to provide a new methodological agenda for disability history. The design model of disability has outlined an important new programme to integrate the social and medical models of disability by foregrounding materials. Yet ‘disability things’ (to use Ott's memorable term) have been part of disability history's genesis since the material turn, which started the process of social historians recovering the lives of those not recorded in textual sources through objects, including prosthetics. From considering objects as things, the influence of Science and Technology Studies scholars pushed disability historians to further consider objects as agents and objects in use. These approaches have highlighted the differential levels of autonomy and power that objects and their users have in making history. However, this focus on materials has highlighted visible and recorded disability over ‘invisible’ disability, which has perpetuated its opacity and created definitional difficulties around disability demarcation. Medical history methodologies aimed at revealing the ‘patient view’ can help bring people back into focus but uphold the categories of patients and biomedicine in a way that impedes the aims of disability scholars. Focusing on exactly <i>what</i> is hidden is less useful than focusing on <i>how</i> it is hidden, and science and technology study methodologies can illuminate these processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History Compass\",\"volume\":\"22 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hic3.12813\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History Compass\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12813\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History Compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文有两个相互关联的目的。首先,通过概述现代残疾史的发展,勾勒出现代残疾史的边界;其次,为残疾史提供一个新的方法论议程。残疾的设计模式概述了一个重要的新方案,即通过将材料放在首位来整合残疾的社会和医学模式。然而,"残疾之物"(用奥特这个令人难忘的术语来说)自物质转向以来一直是残疾史起源的一部分,物质转向开启了社会史学家通过包括假肢在内的物品来恢复那些未被文字资料记录的人的生活的进程。从将物品视为事物开始,科技研究学者的影响推动残疾史学家进一步将物品视为媒介和使用中的物品。这些研究方法强调了物品及其使用者在创造历史过程中所拥有的不同程度的自主权和权力。然而,这种对材料的关注突出了可见的和有记录的残疾,而非 "不可见 "的残疾,这使得残疾的不透明性长期存在,并给残疾的划分造成了定义上的困难。旨在揭示 "病人视角 "的医学史方法有助于让人们重新关注残疾问题,但其坚持病人和生物医学类别的方式却阻碍了残疾学者的研究目标。关注究竟隐藏了什么不如关注是如何隐藏的,而科技研究方法可以揭示这些过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

What is disability history the history of?

What is disability history the history of?

This article has two connected aims. First, to contour the boundaries of modern disability history through outlining its development and second, to provide a new methodological agenda for disability history. The design model of disability has outlined an important new programme to integrate the social and medical models of disability by foregrounding materials. Yet ‘disability things’ (to use Ott's memorable term) have been part of disability history's genesis since the material turn, which started the process of social historians recovering the lives of those not recorded in textual sources through objects, including prosthetics. From considering objects as things, the influence of Science and Technology Studies scholars pushed disability historians to further consider objects as agents and objects in use. These approaches have highlighted the differential levels of autonomy and power that objects and their users have in making history. However, this focus on materials has highlighted visible and recorded disability over ‘invisible’ disability, which has perpetuated its opacity and created definitional difficulties around disability demarcation. Medical history methodologies aimed at revealing the ‘patient view’ can help bring people back into focus but uphold the categories of patients and biomedicine in a way that impedes the aims of disability scholars. Focusing on exactly what is hidden is less useful than focusing on how it is hidden, and science and technology study methodologies can illuminate these processes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History Compass
History Compass HISTORY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
×
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