The article “Becoming dishuman: thinking about the human through dis/ability” criticizes the term disability and the way it isolates people who do not fit the category of “able”. It explores the way the term dis is used in other words in the English language. Whether it is in the context of slang as a “dis” or insult, or in the form of troubling something like disagree troubles an agree (Goodley, para. 16). To engage in this troubling of common language such as “disabled” would mean for me to take the bold step of no longer using words as if they are neutral. It would mean that I would have to use terms as if the are not powerless to people’s judgements, views or identities. Engaging in disrupting norms goes against a society’s set ways and this disruption would additionally mean to cause friction with common beliefs and ideas. Troubling norms mean thinking words like disabled do not begin to have attached connotations and insinuations to them once criticized, instead they are continually present and criticism just brings them to the forefront. “Dis” is attached to numerous word to convey the message “is not”, (i.e. distasteful, dissociation). Finding faults in this norm as well as others makes me responsible for what I am saying and responsible for what effect it may have on others when they are defined by these norms.
The understanding of this term may change once viewed from this perspective because it shows the divisions made when grouping people as the able and the disabled. This understanding also displays that terms are capable of things as powerful as dehumanizing people. In terms of non living things disabled means taking the function out of an object, anyone not conditioned to the normalization of this word would assume we are referring the same thing towards a human. This means the word disabled is capable of taking away something as important in defining someone as their ability, or overall function. It is easy to see how problematic it is to group people by what they cannot do, yet our society uses this as a politically correct term. This perspective of the term disable is interesting in the way our conditions tell us disabled is an appropriate word but our general knowledge should identify that a different characteristic should be used to define a group of individuals. An understanding of what disabled could insinuate about people gives an insight into the oppression that someone with a physical or learning disability face with labels they are given alone.
“Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies” (Clare) is an article with a powerful reflection on the interconnection of identities which trouble normality. In one section of the article Clare writes, “Homophobia is all about defining queer bodies as wrong, perverse, immoral. Transphobia, about defining trans bodies as unnatural, monstrous, or the product of delusion” (Clare, 2001). These enforced identities and specification about people are worn on their bodies and carried in their day-to-day lives. Disability, gender identification, race these are a few of the things people can have written on their bodies; all which are vulnerable to the intolerance and indifference to dissimilarity . In the article Clare proclaims, “There are so many ways oppression and social injustice can mark a body, steal a body, feed lies and poison to a body” (Clare, 2001). All are different minorities but every individual exposed to the same indignity and self-hatred caused by society’s subtle and not so subtle messages.