Subject: Others
Topic: Answer Question from Reading
Language: English (U.S.)
Pages: 3
Assignment #7 1) Read the Erevelles article on Race and Disability: Summarize the key arguments (1 1/2 pages) Be sure to include: a. What are they saying about disability as social construct rather than clinical category? b. How does disability oppression intersect with racial and gender oppression? c. How does a disability analysis critique “normativity” and “productivity.”? d. How does disability increase vulnerability to violence? I will upload the reading 2) Read the Singer and the Tran articles? How are they disagreeing in terms of how they are analyzing productivity as well as the value or lack thereof of disability? What is your analysis of this debate? Fully explain. 1 page. The other reading I will upload it

Student’s Name:

Professor’s Name:



Ethnic Studies

           Prominent scholars on disability consider it as an essential transgression categorized to exist outside the socio-historical world. In that respect, scholars do not give considerations for the world economic system creating devalues or obliterating disability. The antics on disability have made it impossible for the field to identify, hence making ableism inherent and persistent in the economy.

           The features of a poststructuralist thought about disability entails several features. The first characteristic is the turn towards linguistic analysis denying the existence of any reality outside the linguistic language used. The second relates to the simultaneous and contradictory tendency view of disability as a historical category to which all humans inevitably will have access. The last characteristic describes the forms of social organization that dominate.  

           Erevelles’ argument relates to the conception with which disability is viewed. Focus is on the social and economic conditions affecting the disabled people. Moreover, she also highlights the influence on people’s opinions finding a basis on race, gender, and sexuality within transnational capitalism. To her, disability is not another identity category, so that it provides the key to the makeup of transnational capitalism. She introduces the conception of a class analysis that talks of the notes on the political economy of the flesh. She discusses materialist disability studies by analyzing one of the African American literary critics.

           The critic discusses the role violence played in the middle passage during the formation of identities. Erevelles makes disability part of the narrative by highlighting the plight of slaves who get disabled due to violence. The only way to get rid of the violence that leads to disability is to change the economic relations of production. She mentions that history of disability is an embodiment of contemporary education policy. 

           A combination of disability studies in the analysis of race theory highlights the mutual enforcement of nature on racism and ableism. The feminist disability studies help in the understanding of imperialism while creating and undermining the same disability in the non-Western contexts. Her analysis on the role of disability in the United States’ invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan highlights that no attention is rendered to civilians disabled from the mentioned wars.

           Liberal theories of citizenship also form part of the pact that excludes the disabled. The latter are excluded from their participation in politics as well as other duties of intellect. Erevelles makes an argument on the critical race theory, mentioning that socio-economic factors neutralize the abstract nature of the formal justice socio-economic factors. These factors are responsible for the exclusion of people based on their color, disabilities or political participation. Her resolve is to develop an ethic that would attempt to provide care on the basis for reimagining both labor relations and body politic. She is critical of feminist theories that celebrate caretaking relationships that do not consider power inequalities.

           The Singer and Tran articles, on the other hand, highlight the organization of struggles around disability. Tran mentions that being disabled is not a person’s fault. The alienation that an individual faces following being disabled is not the fault of the community. On a critical perspective on the issue, however, the community often attempts to invoke visions for transformative change by exploiting the internalized ableism and capitalism among all persons. Ableism asserts that unless a person is normative with a normative body, then they are not capable of participating in the society. The sentiments by Tran on the community go against the arguments expressed by Erevelles.

           Another area of concern is insight invoked from the notion of capitalism. An argument on the latter reveals that if one is not producing or doing then, they are not participating in the society. Such a system is only meant to make others feel unworthy of themselves due to lack of value associated with them. Tran’s acceptance of his state as a disabled person marks a positive step towards his wellbeing. His resolve to try to heal the silences communicated that disabled persons cannot actively participate in the journey of capitalism or ableism seconds the sentiments of Erevelles concerning equality for all.

           The nature of the negative treatment that the disabled continually receive even in the midst of advocacy for equality highlights that individuals are not doing enough. Tran suggests the relearning of ableism and capitalism. According to him, such a move would address the concrete and logistical needs of the disabled people. Moreover, with individuals committing to kindness, care and compassion against one another, there can be a revolution that will change the treatment of disabled persons as per the arguments of Erevelles.