Accommodating Critical Disability Studies in Bioarchaeology

  • Russell ShuttleworthEmail author
  • Helen Meekosha
Part of the Bioarchaeology and Social Theory book series (BST)


Disability studies has been put forth by some archaeologists and bioarchaeologists as potentially useful for their disciplines. In this chapter, we examine a number of models of disability in terms of their congruency with the aims of bioarchaeology and how they might be heuristically useful for this discipline. Given the currency of the differentiation between disability studies and critical disability studies , we further appraise several concepts employed by the latter and indicate points of convergence and tension with bioarchaeology. Suffice to say, in this chapter we do not offer definitive analysis of the issues we raise but seek to open a discussion between bioarchaeology and critical disability studies.


Bioarchaeology Disability studies Critical disability studies Models of disability 



The authors appreciate the encouragement, support, and feedback for this chapter provided by the editors, Jennifer Byrnes, and Jennifer Muller. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.


  1. Barrett, A., & Blakely, M. (2011). Life histories of enslaved Africans in colonial New York: a bioarchaeological study of the New York African burial ground. In S. Agarwal & B. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 212–251). Chichester, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battles, H. (2011). Toward engagement: Exploring the prospects for an integrated anthropology of disability. Vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology, 11(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
  3. Burchell, G., Gordan, C., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (1991). The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 322–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrnes, J. F., Muller, J. L., & Bethard, J. D. (2015). Embodying impairment: Towards a bioarchaeology of disability. symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropology, St. Louis, MO. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 156(S60), 40.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, F. (2009). Contours of ableism. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corker, M. (1999). Differences, conflations and foundations: The limits to ‘accurate’ theoretical representation of disabled people’s experience? Disability and Society, 14(5), 627–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross, M. (1999). Accessing the inaccessible: Disability and archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15, 7–30.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, L. J. (2013). The end of normal: Identity in a biocultural era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. DeJong, G. (1979, October). Independent living: From social movement to analytic paradigm. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 60, 436–445.Google Scholar
  12. Dettwyler, K. (1991). Can paleopathology provide evidence of “compassion”? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 84, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devlieger, P. (1999). Developing local concepts of disability: Cultural theory and research prospects. In B. Hollzer, A. Vreede, & G. Weigt (Eds.), Disability in different cultures: Reflections on local concepts (pp. 297–302). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finlay, N. (1999). Disabling archaeology: An introduction. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, K., Robinson, S., Graham, A., & Johnson, K. (2015, November). Recognition between people with intellectual disability and support workers. Paper Presented at The Australian Sociological Association Annual Conference. Cairns, Queensland.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Volume I: An introduction. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972–1977. In: C. Gordon (ed.), New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The foucault reader. Pantheon: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  20. Friedner, M., & Weingarten, K. (2016). Disability as diversity: A new biopolitics. Somatosphere. 23 May 2016.
  21. Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2004). Presage of a paradigm shift? Beyond the social model of disability toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Garland-Thomson, R. (2012). The case for conserving disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9(3), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garland-Thomson, R. (2015). Human biodiversity conservation: A consensual ethical principle. American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gill, C. (1989). Disability and sexuality research: Suffering from a case of the medical model. Disability Studies Quarterly, 9, 12–15.Google Scholar
  26. Goodley, D. (2014). Disability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Gravlee, C. (2009). How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(1), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hahn, H. (1985). Toward a politics of disability: Definitions, disciplines, and policies. Social Science Journal, 22, 87–105.Google Scholar
  29. Hammell, K. (2004). Deviating from the norm: A sceptical interrogation of the classificatory practices of the ICF. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(9), 408–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanks, J., & Hanks, L. (1948). The physically handicapped in certain non-Occidental societies. Journal of Social Issues, 4(4), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and practice in archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Horkheimer, M. (1986) Traditional and critical theory. In: M. Horkheimer, Critical theory: Selected essays (pp. 188–243) (M. O’Connell Trans.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Hughes, B. (2000). Medicine and the aesthetic invalidation of disabled people. Disability & Society, 15(4), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hughes, B., & 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
  35. Hughes, B., McKie, L., Hopkins, D., & Watson, N. (2005). Love’s labours lost? Feminism, the disabled people’s movement and an ethic of care. Sociology, 39(2), 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kasnitz, D., & Shuttleworth, R. (1999). Engaging anthropology in disability studies. Position Paper in Disability Studies. Oakland: World Institute on Disability.Google Scholar
  37. Kasnitz, D., & Shuttleworth, R. (2001). Anthropology in disability studies. In B. Swadener & L. Rogers (Eds.), Semiotics and dis/ability: Interrogating categories of difference (pp. 19–41). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kelly, C. (2013). Building bridges with accessible care: Disability studies, feminist care scholarship and beyond. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 28(4), 784–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klaus, H. (2012). The bioarchaeology of structural violence: A theoretical model and a case study. In D. Martin, R. Harrod, & V. Perez (Eds.), The Bioarchaeology of violence (pp. 29–62). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, D. (2013). The practice of bioarchaeology. In D. Martin, R, Harrod, & V. Perez (Eds.), Bioarchaeology: An integrated approach to working with human remains (pp. 1–21). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Meekosha, H. (1998). Body battles: Bodies, gender and disability. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The disability reader: Social science perspectives (pp. 163–180). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  42. Meekosha, H. (2011). Decolonising disability: Thinking and acting globally. Disability & Society, 26(6), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What’s so critical about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
  44. Meskell, L. (2007). Archaeologies of identity. In T. Insoll (Ed.), The archaeology of identities: A reader (pp. 23–43). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Metzler, I. (2006). Disability in medieval Europe: Thinking about physical impairment during the high Middle Ages, c. 1100–1400. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Metzler, I. (2013). A social history of disability in the middle ages: Cultural considerations of physical impairment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Murray, T. (2011). Archaeologists and indigenous people: A maturing relationship? Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oliver, M. (1983). Social work with disabled people. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Overboe, J. (2006). Disability and genetics: Affirming the bare life (the state of exception). Canadian Review of Sociology, 44(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roberts, C. (1999). Disability in the skeletal record: Assumptions, problems and some examples. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15, 79–97.Google Scholar
  52. Rowlands, M. (2007). The politics of identity in archaeology. In T. Insoll (Ed.), The archaeology of identities: A reader (pp. 59–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Scotch, R., & Schriner, K. (1997). Disability as human variation: Implications for policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 549, 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scotch, R., & Schriner, K. (2001). Disability and institutional change: A human variation perspective on overcoming oppression. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(2), 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shakespeare, T. (1994). Cultural representations of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowal? Disability & Society, 9(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shakespeare, T. (1999). Commentary—Observations on disability and archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15(2), 99–101.Google Scholar
  57. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Shanks, M., & Hodder, I. (1995). Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies. In: I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last, & G. Lucas (Eds.), Interpreting archaeology. Finding meaning in the past (pp. 3–29). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Shildrick, M. (2012). Critical disability studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 30–41). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Shuttleworth, R. (2004). Disability/difference. In C. Ember & M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of medical anthropology: Health and illness in the world’s cultures (pp. 360–373). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shuttleworth, R., & Kasnitz, D. (2006a). The cultural context of disability. In G. Albrecht (Ed.), Encyclopedia of disability (pp. 330–337). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Shuttleworth, R., & Kasnitz, D. (2006b, March 31). Critically engaging disability studies and anthropological research on impairment-disability. Invited Presentation, School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  63. Shuttleworth, R., & Meekosha, H. (2013). The sociological imaginary and disability enquiry in late modernity. Critical Sociology, 39(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siebers, T. (2006). Disability studies and the future of identity politics. In L. Alcoff, M. Hames-Garcia, S. Mohanty, & P. Moya (Eds.), Identity politics reconsidered (pp. 10–30). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soafer, J. (2011). Towards a social bioarchaeology of age. In S. C. Agarwal & B. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 285–311). Chichester UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  66. Southwell-Wright, W. (2013). Past perspectives: What can archaeology offer disability studies In: M Wappett & K. Arndt (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on disability studies, (pp. 67–95). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. Sparrow, R. (2015). Imposing genetic diversity. American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sullivan, M. (2005). Subjected bodies: Paraplegia, rehabilitation, and the politics of movement. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 27–44). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  69. Tilley, L. (2015). Theory and practice in the bioarchaeology of care. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tilley, L., & Oxenham, M. F. (2011). Survival against the odds: Modeling the social implications of care provision to seriously disabled individuals. International Journal of Paleopathology, 1(1), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tilley, L., & Cameron, T. (2014). Introducing the index of care: A web-based application supporting archaeological research into health-related care. International Journal of Paleopathology, 6, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tremain, S. (2005a). Foucault, governmentality, and critical disability theory: An introduction. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 1–24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  73. Tremain, S. (Ed.). (2005b). Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wasserman, D. (2015). Disability, diversity, and preference for the status quo: Bias or justifiable preference? The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Watson, N., McKie, L., Hughes, B., Hopkins, D., & Gregory, S. (2004). (Inter)dependence, needs and care: The potential for disability and feminist theorists to develop an emancipatory model. Sociology, 38(2), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. World Health Organization (WHO). (2003). International classification of functioning, disability and health (Version 2.1). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  77. World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). World report on disability. Geneva:World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health and Social DevelopmentDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations