Culture and carelessness: Constituting disability in South India

This is the author's accepted manuscript. The final published article is available from the link below.Professional and lay explanations of disability, collected via interviews and participant-observation during fieldwork in Hyderabad, South India, identify “carelessness” and “superstition” as major impediments to good health among the general population, and education as the key solution. In that such findings suggest a valorization of personal responsibility for self-care, the Foucauldian concept of biopower appeared a salient framework for analysis. Although illuminating, however, biopower was ultimately inadequate for explaining what emerged, on closer analysis, as significant discrepancies between assumptions about how disabled people engaged with healthcare services and their actual beliefs and practices; and between the moral interpretations different stakeholders made of “carelessness” in describing perceived causes of disability. My data also suggested that education was not in itself a key determinant in people's healthcare decisions. This article explores these differences between official and demotic discourses concerning the causes of disability and attempts to account for them ethnographically.The British Academ

Sacred Country

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/diversefamilies/1993/thumbnail.jp

The social model of disability as an oppositional device

This article engages with debates about the UK Disabled People’s Movement’s ‘Big Idea’ – the social model of disability - positioning this as an ‘oppositional device’. This concept is adapted from the work of the art activist and theorist Brian Holmes, elaborated using insights from Foucault and others. The model’s primary operation is introducing contingency into the present, facilitating disabled people’s resistance-practices. We recognise, however, that the device can operate in a disciplinary manner when adopted by a machinery of government. Whilst our primary goal is to understand the character and operation of the social model, by providing a more general definition of an oppositional device as the concrete operation of technologies of power, we also propose a concept potentially useful for the analysis of the resistance-practices of activists involved in a wide variety of struggles. This concept may thus have implications for wider social and political analysis