Manufacturing disability: HIV, women and the construction of difference

Abstract

In 1998, the US Supreme Court first held that asymptomatic HIV infection constituted a disability when it ruled on the case of Bragdon v. Abbott. The use of yet another label (disabled) to identify women living with HIV has been rarely (if ever) questioned. While we do value the use of this label as an anti-discriminatory strategy, we believe that there is a need to examine how language and more specifically, the use of words such as disability, limitation, and impairment may create new forms of identities for women living with HIV. Using this legal case as a starting point, the goal of this paper is to critically examine the 'fabrication' of asymptomatic HIV infection as a disability. Grounded in a feminist poststructuralist perspective, this paper exposes the relationship between language, social institutions, subjectivity, and power in the construction of difference. By doing so, it addresses the identification of women living with HIV/AIDS as disabled and the self-differentiation process that they must go through in order to live as normally as possible.

Revising modern divisions between blindness and sightedness: Doing knowledge in blind assemblages

“…Disability is considered a deficit, a loss or a tragedy (Braidotti, 2013, p. 161), an abnormal and disturbing difference (Gagnon & Stuart, 2009, p. 47), and the author conceptualized blindness as a deviation from the norm, as a defect.…”

Introducing political disability identity as a framework for studying disability in physics

“…Other critics [25][26] claim that PDI focuses too heavily on visible disabilities to be warranted for use with invisible disabilities. It follows then, that PDI would not be useful for studying a large percentage of the disabled population in physics [13].…”

“…However, other scholars who have examined PDI as a framework have stated that PDI is generalizable, and can be used for both visible and invisible disabilities [27]. Others suggest that a PDI could provide support to those identifying with invisible disabilities [25]. Moreover, other scholars have proposed using a multidimensional approach to the social model used by Putnam [1] as a solution to including invisible disabilities in research [28] Further, other critics [29] state that PDI could potentially be too western for universal use.…”