Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Virtually any academic text written about disability will inevitably include some kind of statement about the author’s personal relationship to disability. Why? What kind of work do statements like that do? In my recent book, Loneliness and its Opposite: sex, disability and the ethics of engagement (2015, with Jens Rydström), I decided against such disclosure. This paper discusses the reasons for and possible consequences of my decision not to disclose, by re-examining the question of what it means to speak for an-other. I explore that question in relation to philosophers like Linda Alcoff, Iris Marion Young, and Gayatri Spivak, and disability studies scholars like Tom Shakespeare and Lennard Davis. The paper discusses these scholars’ work in relation to the limits and possibilities of academic selfknowledge, and ethical engagement. Keywords: disability; reflexivity; sexuality; crip theory; anthropology; subaltern
Knowledge Cultures – Addleton Academic Publishers
Published: Jan 1, 2015
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.