“Other” psychologists: An autoethnographic conversation about difference, deviance and defiance

Abstract

Within the framework of the current drive to transform psychology in South Africa, this paper highlights “other” axes of identity that are arguably largely overlooked within the field. The conversation exposes the discipline of psychology – specifically within the South African context – and its many unexamined assumptions concerning “expected” identities of psychologists – specifically, those along heterosexual and able-bodied lines. By engaging in an autoethnographic conversation, the two authors, both “other”, practising psychologists – one queer, one disabled – share and reflect on some of their experiences of feeling othered in their chosen profession. Drawing on parts of queer theory, critical disability literature, as well as the theoretical framework of biopolitical power, we start to make sense of our experiences of difference, deviance, and defiance. How the field of psychology marginalises “other” psychologists, and the impacts on those who bear the oppressions, is exposed; and a conversation is begun in which the discipline's assumptions around compulsory forms of identity – straight, not disabled, among others – are disrupted in productive ways.

Short and Locked Down: The Impact of COVID-19 on a Person With Dwarfism

“…Thus, autoethnography explores, challenges, and undoes the established ways of relating within different spaces. The method has proven successful in allowing “other” (minority and difference) experiences to be appreciated and understood within the relevant socio-political context—an aim of this article (Harvey & Kotze, 2022). Arguably, it is a particularly effective methodological approach for communicating disabled embodiment—untangling “the unspoken intricacies and interrelationships between a physical body that is disabled and a world that is not” (Lourens, 2020, p. 5).…”

“…Taking it further, these powerful effects of the normalized, able-bodied, taken-for-granted relations of bodies, spaces, and cultures are ingrained to the point of disabling anyone who differs from the norm (Schillmeier, 2020). The broad societal structures impose compulsory able-bodiedness (Harvey & Kotze, 2022). Thus, disabled people are socially and politically excluded.…”

“…. producing an intense awareness of the cause of discomfort and tension we become to those who are not ‘other’” (Harvey & Kotze, 2022, p. 12). My body is a “sore point” for (able-bodied) others because it produces discomfort and tension in them (Ahmed, 2009, p. 51).…”

“…. invokes a perpetual interrogation of self in relation to the politically dominant ideal in society” (Harvey & Kotze, 2022, p. 9). Consequently, the power relationship with the “other” as marginalized is maintained, and the discomfort of able-bodied people is soothed (Ahmed, 2009).…”

“….and create disabling conditions within which they must perform and measure up” (Waterfield et al, 2018, p. 344). Compulsory able-bodiedness as the dominant framework of society burdens the “other” to make their difference apparent (Harvey & Kotze, 2022). The colleague on the screen, who occupies a powerful normative position—not disabled—evokes “deviant” responses in me—the othered, disabled self.…”