Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Fiona Kumarien_US
dc.contributor.editorBerns, Sandraen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T13:32:33Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T13:32:33Z
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.identifier.issn10383441en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/3714
dc.description.abstractActivists with 'disabilities' have placed great trust in the legal body to deliver freedoms in the form of equality rights and protections against discrimination. This article argues that, while such equalisation initiatives have provided remedies in the lives of some individuals with 'disabilities', the sub-text of 'disability' as negative ontology has remained substantially unchallenged. Understanding disability requires more sustained attention to the ontological nature of disability, in particular the ways in which a 'disabled person' is produced. The article opens with a discussion of the difficult and complex(ing) area of ontology - in particular the performativity of 'disability' as a history of unthought and then moves on to a discussion of the ways 'disabled bodies' negotiate the symbol trade in 'disability' within the confines of the ableist regime of law. The increasing disability ontology wars are foregrounded by discussing the ways in which 'negative ontologies' are written into the practices and effects of law. As such, the article's focal concerns extend to law's understanding of the autonomous individual and technologies of freedom, strategies of 'social injuries', and attempts to introduce new formations of disability related to matters of 'election' and 'mitigation'. These battles over the (re)writing of disability are important because they affect the access of people with disabilities to welfare provision, protection under anti-discrimination legislation and formations of the perfectible, abled human self. Finally, the article concludes by suggesting that the law's continual reiteration of defective corporeality through the signification of 'disability' as legal proclamation (prescription) not only disallows the 'disabled' subject any escape from the normalising practices of compensation and mitigation but continues to negate possibilities of imagining the desiring 'disabled subject' in any voluptuous way.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent1122780 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherGriffith Universityen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.griffith.edu.au/criminology-law/griffith-law-review/previous-issues/volumes-5-11/volume-10-1-2001en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom42en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto62en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalGriffith Law Reviewen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume10en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode390305en_US
dc.titleInciting Legal Fictions: 'Disability's' date with Ontology and the Ableist Body of Lawen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Lawen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2001 Griffith Law School. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.date.issued2015-01-20T01:05:00Z
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record