Advertisement

Subjectivity

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 224–242 | Cite as

Heidegger, subjectivity, disability

  • Thomas Abrams
Original Article

Abstract

In this article, I ask what a Heideggerian analysis of subjectivity can do for disability politics, and to the investigation of subject formation more generally. I begin by outlining the historically dominant ‘social model of disability’, which frames disability as a form of oppression. In the section ‘Michael Oliver and the politics of disablement’, I suggest that a re-reading of Heidegger on subjectivity allows us to chart aspects of disabled personhood missed by the social model. Heidegger argues human existence (Dasein) defies subjectivity; I argue it is more primordial, but that the two can co-exist, particularly when disabled persons shape their own subjectivity. I provide a threefold ontological structure, Dasein-Mitdasein-Subjectivity, sensitive to the politics of subject formation. Finally, I turn to two cases of ontological disability politics, those of the French Muscular Dystrophy Association and global thalidomider politics, to show how my reading of subjectivity is preferable to the social model’s.

Keywords

Heidegger disability phenomenology ontological politics subject formation 

References

  1. Abberley, P. (1987) The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap & Society 2 (1): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2006) Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annas, G. and Elias, S. (1999) Thalidomide and the titanic: Reconstructing The technology tragedies of the twentieth century. American Journal of Public Health 89 (1): 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrams, T. (2013a) Being-towards-death and taxes: Heidegger, disability, and the ontological difference. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 2 (1): 28–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abrams, T. (2013b) Taking tragic measures? Disability studies’ Anti-Metrology and the global government of Thalidomide. Theoria and Praxis 1 (2): 27–42.Google Scholar
  6. Abrams, T. (2014a) Boon or Bust? Heidegger, disability aesthetics and the Thalidomide memorial. Disability & Society 20 (5): 751–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Abrams, T. (2014b) Is everyone upright? Erwin Straus’ ‘The Upright Posture’ and disabled phenomenology. Human Affairs 24 (4): 564–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Abrams, T. (2014c) Flawed by Dasein? Phenomenology, Ethnomethodology, and the personal experience of physiotherapy. Human Studies 37 (3): 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes, C. (1992) Qualitative research – Valuable or irrelevant. Disability & Society 11 (1): 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnes, C. (1996) Disability and the myth of the independent researcher. Disability & Society 11 (1): 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackman, L., Cromby, J., Hook, D., Papadopolous, D. and Walkerdine, V. (2008) Creating subjectivities. Subjectivity 22 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boss, M. (1963) Psychoanalysis and Daseinanalysis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Callon, M. (2008) Economic markets and the rise of interactive agencements: From prosthetic agencies to habilitated agencies. In: T. Pinch and R. Swedberg (eds.) Living in a Material World: Economic Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 29–56.Google Scholar
  14. Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2004) Gino’s lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and Society 33 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2008) The growing engagement of emergent Concerned groups in political and economic life: Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 230–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dallamayr, F. (1993) Heidegger and Freud. Political Psychology 14 (2): 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dreyfus, H.L. (1991) Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dreyfus, H.L. (1992) What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. (Revised ed.) Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dreyfus, H.L. and Wrathall, M.A. (2005) Martin Heidegger: An introduction to his thought, work and life. In: H.L. Dreyfus and M.A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1978) The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. Translated by R. Hurley. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  21. Franks, M.E., Macpherson, G.R. and Figg, W.D. (2004) Thalidomide. The Lancet 363 (9423): 1802–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1983) The interaction order: American sociological association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review 48 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodley, D. (2001) ‘Learning difficulties’, the social model of disability and impairment: Challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society 16 (2): 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hacking, I. (2007) Our Neo-Cartesian bodies in parts. Critical Inquiry 34 (1): 78–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartsock, N. (1983) The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In: S. Harding and M. Hintikka (eds.) Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 283–310.Google Scholar
  28. Heidegger, M. (1971) Building, dwelling, thinking. Trans. and ed. by A. Hofstadter. In: Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: pp. 143–159. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  29. Heidegger, M. (1996) Being and Time. Translated by J. Stambaugh. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  30. Heidegger, M. (1993) Letter on humanism. In: D.F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, pp. 213–266.Google Scholar
  31. Heidegger, M. (2001) Zollikon Seminars. Translated by F. Mayr and R. Askay. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, B. (2007) Being disabled: Towards a critical social ontology for disability studies. Disability & Society 22 (7): 673–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes, B. and Paterson, K. (1997) The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society 12 (3): 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1992) Where are the missing masses? A sociology of a few Mundane artifacts. In: J. Law and W. Bijker (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp 225–258.Google Scholar
  35. Leder, D. (1990) The Absent Body. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by C. Smith. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickering, A. (2005) Decentering sociology: Synthetic dyes and social theory. Perspectives on Science 13 (3): 352–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pickering, A. (2009) The politics of theory. Journal of Cultural Economy 2 (1): 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. (2004) Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In: S. Jasanoff (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 142–160.Google Scholar
  42. Rae, G. (2014) Heidegger’s influence on posthumanism: The destruction of metaphysics, technology and the overcoming of anthropocentrism. History of the Human Sciences 27 (1): 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schillmeier, M. (2010) Rethinking Disability: Bodies, Senses, Things. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Shakespeare, T. (2006) Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Shakespeare, T. (2012) Still a health issue. Disability and Health Journal 5 (3): 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, E. (2007) Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Timmermans, S. and Leiter, V. (2000) The redemption of thalidomide: Standardizing the risk of birth defects. Social Studies of Science 30 (1): 41–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner, B.S. (2001) Disability and the sociology of the body. In: G. Albrecht, K. Seelman and M. Bury (eds.) Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (1975) Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Abrams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social Justice EducationOntario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations