Advertisement

Disequilibrium: Disability, Gender, and Belonging in Mahesh Dattani’s Tara and Manjula Padmanabhan’s Harvest

  • Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter gestures toward addressing how the theories and practices of folding disability perspectives in, with, and alongside other categories of difference can provoke a generative politics of intimacy and related states of belonging. This consideration will include the development of a brief (and still provisional) genealogy of such translocal intimacies in a transnational Indian context. In order to do so, I will include: (1) a sketch of a philosophy of translocal intimacies through art (primarily but not only performance); (2) an explication of how prior scholarly work on South Asian disability and gender studies points to the need for a revalorization of the body, culture, public space, and disability rights; and (3) a consideration of India-specific performance examples—Mahesh Dattani’s Tara (1990) and Manjula Padmanabhan’s Harvest (1997)—plays that address social issues revolving, in part, around pressing questions about disability and gender identities in an Indian context.

We urgently need new critical and performance methods that can chart an emerging politics of intimacy along, with, and through the dramatization of “disequilibriums”: new approaches that, for this project, articulate how South Asian disability theaters can provide new understandings of, and engagement with, the translocal. These considerations have implications for emerging work in the performing arts, the interlinking of cultural and disability and deaf rights, diverse approaches to the interweaving of performance cultures, and the broader terrain of socio-cultural transformation. Translocal intimacies of disability and deaf theaters can help delineate ways of reworking the politics of intimacy and belonging.

Keywords

Translocal Disability Gender Indian-English theater Disequilibriums Tara Harvest 

Works Cited

  1. Adams, R. 2001. Sideshow U.S.A.: Freaks and the American Cultural Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bondeson, J. 1997. A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities. London: I.B.Tauris.Google Scholar
  3. Budiani-Saberi, D.A., and F.L. Delmonico. 2008. Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism: A Commentary on the Global Realities. American Journal of Transplantation 8 (5): 925–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dattani, M. 2000. Tara. In Collected Plays, Volume 1. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, M. 2006. Universal Design: The Work of Disability in an Age of Globalization. In The Disability Studies Reader, ed. L. Davis, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Foreign. n.d. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign.
  7. Ghai, A. 2002. Disabled Women: An Excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism. Hypatia 17 (3): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2015. Rethinking Disability in India. New Delhi: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert, H. 2006. Manjula Padmanabhan’s Harvest: Global Technoscapes and the International Trade in Human Body Organs. Contemporary Theatre Review 16 (1): 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin, M. 2006. Black Markets: The Supply and Demand of Body Parts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kochhar-Lindgren, K. 2006. Hearing Difference: The Third Ear in Experimental, Deaf and Multicultural Theater. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2009. What Happens If You Put American Disability Studies at the Center? (Writing Deafness: The Hearing Line in Nineteenth-Century American Literature, Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability, and Cultural Locations of Disability). American Quarterly: The Journal of the American Studies Association 61 (2): 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2013a. Dramatizing Translation: Performance, Cultural Tourism, and the Transnational. Journal of Contemporary Thought 38: 73–84.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2013b. Dramatizing Water: Performance, Anthropology, and the Transnational. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities: 22–33. http://rupkatha.com/v5n2.php.
  15. ———. 2014. The Turbulence Project: Touching Cities, Visual Tactility, and Windows. Performance Research International, ed. Paul Carter, 19(5), 13–22.Google Scholar
  16. Lowe, L. 2015. The Intimacies of the Four Continents. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell, D.T., and S.L. Snyder. 2000. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nelson, D. 2012. India ‘Most Dangerous Place in World to Be Born a Girl.’ The Telegraph, February 1. Online. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9054429/India-most-dangerous-place-in-world-to-be-born-a-girl.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2017.
  19. Padmanabhan, M. 2001. Harvest. In Postcolonial Plays: An Anthology, ed. Helen Gilbert. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Rancière, J. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. Ed. and Trans. Gabriel Rockhill. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  21. Shildrick, M. 2017. Border Crossings: The Technologies of Disability and Desire. In Culture – Theory – Disability: Encounters Between Disability Studies and Cultural Studies, ed. A. Waldschmidt. Beilefeld: Transcript-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Shildrick, M., and J. Price. Fall 2005/Spring 2006. Deleuzian Connections and Queer Corporealities: Shrinking Global Disability. Rhizomes (11/12). http://www.rhizomes.net/issue11/shildrickprice/. Accessed 6 Sept 2017.
  23. Snyder, S.L., and D.T. Mitchell. 2001. Re-engaging the Body: Disability Studies and the Resistance to Embodiment. Public Culture 13 (3): 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomson, R.G. 2017. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature (20 ed, 1997). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. van Dijck, J. 2002. Medical Documentary: Conjoined Twins as a Mediated Spectacle. Media, Culture & Society 24: 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wald, P. 2005. What’s in a Cell?: John Moore’s Spleen and the Language of Bioslavery. New Literary History, Essays Probing the Boundaries of the Human in Science 36 (2): 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren
    • 1
  1. 1.Folded Paper Dance and Theatre LimitedHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations