From gnd-doku
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Puar's intervention is uncomfortable for disability research insofar as she challenges the methods through which the field of inquiry reproduces incapacity as an oppressed id and an aggrieved topic enacted by "wounded attachments" (Puar 2012, 157). Puar's mission of rethinking incapacity is to move from incapacity to debility, not so as to "disavow the crucial political positive factors enabled by disability activists globally, but to ask a deconstruction of what ability and capability mean, affective and otherwise, and to push for a broader politics of debility that destabilizes the seamless manufacturing of abled-our bodies in relation to incapacity" (166). In doing so, Puar asks: "How would our political landscape transform if it actively decentered the sustained reproduction and proliferation of the grieving subject, opening instead 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 strikes us away from exceptional aggrieved human subjects whose harm might be converted into cultural capital. In something akin to creating constellations, Puar moves us away from considering by means of binaries of abled/disabled and reframes this relationship in terms of debility and capability to attend to adjustments inside capitalism.

Stop by my blog post: