This document discusses disability theory and its application to identity, specifically focusing on deaf identity. It provides an overview of disability theory as presented by Tobin Siebers, outlining the three main agendas of disability theory: 1) transforming assumptions about identity, politics, and social injustice through a disability studies lens, 2) considering how disability relates to representation, and 3) theorizing disability as a minority identity. It then discusses how disability theory applies to understanding deaf identity, noting that deafness is often viewed through a medical/pathological lens but that identifying as Deaf and viewing deafness as a cultural identity is empowering. Sources that agree and disagree with viewing deafness as a disability versus a cultural identity are analyzed.

1. Running
head:
DISABILITY
THEORY
1
Disability Theory and Application to Identity *
Holly E. Ferrin
October 28, 2011
Jeff Torilina
SOC 3000
Utah Valley University
* Holly E. Ferrin, 7517 So. Jefferson St., Midvale, UT 84047,
holly.ferrin@yahoo.com

2. DISABILITY THEORY 2
Disability Theory and Application to Identity
INTRODUCTION TO DISABILITY THEORY
Since the beginning of time, human beings have sought to escape the stigma of
death, disease, and injury – all of which are associated with disability. Rather than
regarding the term, disability, as a way to disparage a person for a physical or mental
defect, disability can and should be regarded as a cultural and minority identity – this is
disability theory. This essay covers the criticisms that disagree and those that disagree
with disability theory, as well as an assessment of the potency of disability theory in
application. Before any of the above can be addressed however, an explanation of what
disability theory is necessary.
Tobin Siebers is the theorist and author behind disability theory. In his book,
appropriately titled, Disability Theory, Sibers explains disability theory as engaging in
three intermingling agendas. The agendas consider, first, “an intervention from the
perspective of disability studies” from the past thirty years; second, “an extended
discussion of the broad means by which disability relates to representation itself;” and
third, “disability as a minority identity,” since the characteristics of disability do,
generally, contribute to the advancement of minority studies (2008:1-3). Let us look
deeper at the first agenda of disability theory.
In the introduction of his book, Siebers writes about the way disability studies is
viewed and how it has changed – this is the first agenda of disability theory. He says
(2008:1) that the objective addresses two points, transformations of basic assumption and
theorization of disability theory both are explained in the following quote:

3. DISABILITY THEORY 3
on the one hand, to demonstrate for critical and cultural theories how disability
studies transforms their basic assumptions about identity, ideology, politics,
meaning social injustice, and the body; on the other hand, to theorize the
emerging field of disability studies by putting its core issues into contact with
signal thinkers in the adjacent fields of cultural studies, literary theory, queer
theory, gender studies, and critical race studies.
Both audiences, the one for transformation through disability studies and the other for
relating disability studies with theories/studies, agree that disability studies has radically
changed more recently and continues to change for the better. Not only has the view of
disability begun to change in regards to disability studies, but the way disability is
represented has become more broad – this leads us to Siebers’ second agenda.
Siebers writes that there is another way that we can think of his second agenda
regarding disability theory. It may be thought of as “an intervention in the field of
theory” mainly on a general level since the condition of representation has been “one of
the most significant issues in critical and cultural theory since the emergence of
structuralism in the 1960s” (2008:2). Siebers goes on to explain that the structuralists
accepted language as an overriding model for theorizing representation, which interpreted
almost all behaviors symbolic in austere linguistic terms. Concerning disability studies,
there are two consequences of a so-called linguistic turn.
The first consequence concerns language as the agent and not necessarily an
object of representation. Siebers continues by saying the representation process excludes
embodiment almost entirely. He further illustrates this by quoting Jean-Luc Nancy’s The
Birth to Presence, there is “no such thing as the body. There is no body” (1993:207).
Nancy is not the only source who shows agreement with Siebers writing about
representation and embodiment of disability. Linda Martín Alcoff, Donna Haraway, and

4. DISABILITY THEORY 4
N. Katherine Hayles all note that it is imperative to take imitative powers of embodiment
seriously. Furthermore, Siebers writes, the body disabled gives a good example of an
imitation of embodiment. How is this so? It is the resistance of typical ideas about the
body (normalcy) and coming to metaphorical blows when “confronted by language that
would try to misrepresent their realism” (2008:2). Looking back to disability theory’s
second agenda and the correlated two consequences of linguistic turn of disability
studies, we next look to the second ramification of that linguistic turn.
The second consequence looks at the linguistic turn and the theorists influenced
by it, who occasionally broaden the theory of representation away from an imitative
nature. Siebers writes about what the disabled body does for the theory of representation.
He says that the body disabled makes the theory of representation more abundant, which
allows for gestures, emotions, language and political representation, as well as the
opportunity as “an embodied representational category,” to bring up the body into
debates about identity politics (2008:2-3). The first and second agenda of disability
theory have been discussed; the third and final agenda discusses the allocation of
disability as an identity.
How is it possible for a person to claim what usually considered to be “a physical or
mental condition that limits a person’s movements, senses, or activities,” an identity
(Oxford American Dictionaries 2011, emphasis added)? Surely this cannot be so. On the
contrary, Siebers’ third, final, and most important agenda, “theorizes disability as a
minority identity,” such an identity has characteristics, which give to the progress,
overall, in minority studies (2008:2). Among different sociological views that disability

5. DISABILITY THEORY 5
seems to frequently fall into, educational, pathological, legal, sociocultural, the
pathological (medical) view seems to take precedence over all other views, at least
historically speaking.
Acting in contrast to the pathological view, disability must not be discussed as
being a “personal misfortune or individual defect,” but disability is the product of the
social context of one’s environment (Siebers 2008:3). Just like other minority groups
who are oppressed, persons who are negatively labeled as being “disabled,” in the
pathological sense, are tired of the discrimination against them. Instead they can (and
should) claim “disability,” as a positive identity. Disability is important to understand
when looking at the human condition. Claiming disability as an identity is positive
because it is a form of diversity from normalcy and it provides “a critical concept for
thinking about human identity in general” (2008:3). The more people know about
disability identity and associated experiences, the better they can understand it, rather
than disparage someone for the pathological view of disability. Not only will there be a
better general understanding, but sources on disability theory, studies, and identity will
change critical and cultural theory.
Application of the Third Agenda: Disability Identity
Again, disability has been regarded in the pathological/medical view for as long as
humans have “sought to escape the stigma of death, disease and injury” (Siebers 2008:3).
The pathological model of disability defines it as “an individual defect lodged in the
person, a defect that must be cured or eliminated” if the person wishes to be a fully
functioning human being.

6. DISABILITY THEORY 6
Again, in contrast to the pathological model of disability, disability studies defines
disability as being a result of social injustice(s) rather than an individual deficiency. And
instead of highly suggesting the cure or even the pathological, and/or socio/cultureal
eugenic elimination of the defective person, or body disabled – the idea of claiming
disability as an identity, in turn, demands significant changes regarding the physically
created environment as well as the social environment. Disability identity is related to
disability theory studies because it covers social meanings, symbols, and stigmas attached
to disability identity (Siebers 2008:3). Furthermore, disability studies questions how
“disability” relates to various systems of exclusion as well as oppression and how they
are connected to the vast belief that having a normal body, or an able body somehow
determines what the quality is of a human being. Let us consider the D/deaf human
being. Understanding that “Deaf” means to be a culturally identified deaf person and
“deaf” as a pathologically labeled deaf person, is a Deaf person more or less disabled
than a deaf person? Does the negative pathological view of disability apply to the
D/deaf? Let us review.
THE D/DEAF CLAIMING DISABILITY IDENTITY – SOURCES OF AGREEMENT
In a literary pathological view, Oxford’s first definition of “disability,” is “a
physical or mental condition that limits a person’s movements, senses, or activities”
(Oxford American Dictionaries 2011). It would seem with this pathological view alone,
all hope of not finding the Deaf disabled is lost, and only becomes worse with Oxfords
initial definition of the word “deaf,” which also focuses on the pathological view of
disability. The definition reads, “deaf |def| adjective – lacking the power of hearing or

7. DISABILITY THEORY 7
having impaired hearing” (Oxford American Dictionaries, 2011 emphasis added). This
definition definitely implies the negative connotation of “disability.”
Moreover, most of the populace views it as easier to view deafness as a medical
problem. There is science involved with medicine and therefore the implication is some
academic control over this “problem.” Again, most people take comfort with the idea
that deafness can possibly be “fixed,” even though the reality of a true and full repair of
the perceived damaged part of the body is not probable. If it happens that nothing can be
or will be done to medically to “fix” a person’s deafness, it is easier for most, especially
outside the Deaf community, to deem deafness as a disability. Is the legal and political
view of disability any less negative regarding deafness?
Legal experiences and documents are few and far between for the general public
to just happen upon in their daily lives. However, it is still important to know and
understand legal views and terms within legal documents. In the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), a legal document published in 1990, a person with a disability is
defined as “…someone who experiences a physical or mental condition that limits their
ability to perform a major life activity…” (Routledge 2007:Appendix 14B). So this legal
document does not seem much more encouraging to the deaf than Oxford’s pathological
definition of disability if one is hoping to see the Deaf as not being identified as being
“disabled.” Many educators are aware of the ADA and how it impacts students in their
classroom, how do educators view disability, in relation to deafness?
In the eyes of educators, in general, disability is some sort of learning hindrance
to be accommodated so that the disabled child can be treated equally and seemingly

8. DISABILITY THEORY 8
achieve as much as any other student. Rhetorically speaking, how can a deaf student (in
a mainstreamed situation) be sufficiently accommodated to get past their communication
barrier, to be seen as equal to their peers, and to achieve as much as any other student?
In the book, When the Mind Hears, Harlan Lane writes about how society affects
the education of deaf children. He says, “…our society is irresponsibly tearing many
deaf children form the social fabric of the signing community in which their lives are
interwoven… the mainstreaming movement is proceeding with near total disregard of the
wishes of the signing community…” (1984:xiv). Lane notes that those “…who use
manual language in the United States are not handicapped in the usual sense; theirs is
largely a problem of overcoming language barriers, not a problem of disability”
(1984:xiii). It is apparent that Lane’s view of an ideal education for a deaf child would
be in an environment where there isn’t a language barrier.
John Schuman, author of Hollywood Speaks, makes note of the Deaf’s language
barrier in the eyes of educators. “There is little disagreement among educators of deaf
children that the handicap of deafness is primarily a communication disorder…”
(1999:23). So, from what Schuman says, most educators will agree that the form of
disability lies in the fact that Deaf students have a harder time communicating with their
teachers, this view does not focus on the Deaf lacking the power of hearing, but focuses,
rather, on the social aspect of disability. The social/cultural view of disability probably
has the most influence on the general population since social/cultural views are formed
by the general population based on the media and the stigma(s) it creates.

9. DISABILITY THEORY 9
Apart from stigmatizing media, there are several authors whom reflect their fairly
positive observations on social/cultural views of disability as an identity, one of whom is
Joseph Shapiro, who wrote the book called, No Pity. He writes, “The main thing disabled
people need to do is to claim their disability, to feel okay about it. Even if you don’t like
the way society treats you as a disabled person, it’s part of your experience, it’s part of
how you come to be who you are” (1999:14). It becomes a part of one’s identity.
Authors Longmore and Siebers add on to the idea of disability being a cultural identity.
David K. Longmore writes, in Why I Burned My Book, “…’disability’ is
primarily a socially constructed and stigmatized identity…” (2003:44). This statement
allows acknowledgement for the negative and positive aspects of disability identity. In
addition to Longmore’s sentiments, Tobin Siebers writes encouraging information
regarding disability, which applies to the Deaf, in Disability Theory (2008:4),
Disability is not a physical or mental defect but a cultural and minority identity.
To call disability an identity is to recognize that it is not a biological or natural
property but an elastic social category both subject to social control and capable
of effecting social change.
So, we have come full circle, discussing various sources who concur with Siebers in the
idea of focusing on disability as an identity and how it is more beneficial for the person in
the disabled body to claim that identity and not allow themselves to be denigrated by the
negative connotation of the various views of “disability.”
From within a disability theory lens, if Deaf people are oppressed due to their
deafness, this shared oppression, and/or audism, brings the Deaf Culture together and acts
as a bonding agent (Harris 1995). Deaf people come together to form and share opinions
of their oppression, and these beliefs permeate throughout the community. Issues about

10. DISABILITY THEORY 10
schooling can be a hot topic as well. Should Deaf children be taught by Deaf teachers in
Deaf schools, or should they be assimilated into traditional schools, be taught by hearing
teachers, associate (or not) all day long with hearing peers, and be accommodated by a
Deaf interpreter? (Baynton 2005). Outside of the Deaf Community many
accommodations are shared – closed captioning, phone services, interpreters, etc. – all
these shape the values and beliefs in and around Deaf Culture.
To indentify in disability, however, one must understand the various views of
disability and be able to accept certain ideas about disability and resist other ideas. In
addition, one must be able to navigate through an environment, which constantly
stigmatizes disability and is disabling because of its absent willingness to effectively
communicate.
There is great value in Resistance Capital, or the ability to resist stigmatized
disability ideas. The idea of Resistance Capital, regarding deafness, comes from a
presentation by Becca Halls, a Utah Valley University student in the Deaf Studies
program (2011). She discussed how the knowledge of oppressive and audistic behavior
enables individuals and groups within Deaf Culture to act in opposition to such
behaviors. She gave such examples such as George Vedittz, a man who wanted to retain
the worth of American Sign Language during a time when it was heavily oppressed. She
reminded us of the campus-wide movement at Gallaudet University – Deaf President
Now (DPN) in 1988, where thousands of students demonstrated their resistance to the
country via national television. Then there are the small-scale acts, such as a student in
oral classes, who eats garlic before class to make sure that their teacher suffers the stench.

11. DISABILITY THEORY 11
All of these acts, large or small, are critical to the identity of the Deaf and, on a larger
scale, resisting oppressive forces of stigmatized disability.
There is also significant value in Navigational Capital, or the ability to pilot one’s
way through a pillorying environment. The idea of Navigational Capital, regarding
deafness, comes from a presentation by LauraKay Hunt, a Utah Valley University student
in the Deaf Studies program (2011). She discussed how there are various cultural spaces
and the importance of how to navigate through them. Ideas relating to humor, hard work,
and good attitudes as well as knowing where to go for sites of empowerment, such as
family, friends, deaf clubs and/or community centers. Again, these are ways of coping
and making way through life; they are critical to the identity of the Deaf relating to their
claim of disability as an identity, and, on a grander scale, resisting repressive forces of
disability.
Once more, this is a part of Disability Theory to indentify in disability, while
realizing that one must understand the various views of disability and be able to accept
specific ideas about disability and reject other ideas. In addition, one must be able to find
their way through an environment (in this case, the hearing environment), which
constantly stigmatizes disability.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE PERSON WITH DISABILITIES – SOURCES OF
DISAGREEMENT
Besides of the effect general media has upon the view of disability, the common
definition and legal descriptions of disability are by far the greatest sources of
disagreement with Disability Theory and discouraging, oppressive, stigma that exists

12. DISABILITY THEORY 12
today. The above negative forces connect with the dominant powers of enforcing
normalcy.
According to Lennard J. Davis, author of Enforcing Normalcy, “the problem is
the way that normalcy is constructed to create the ‘problem’ of the disabled person”
(1995:24). Davis continues by saying that a common assumption among the majority is
that the norm must have always existed. In order to agree with society, (and not
necessarily human nature) those who are not considered normal should change to fit the
mold. Evidence is shown, by another author, to affect even the disability community to
its core with the construction of normalcy.
According to Willim C. Gaventa, in a section from A Look Back: The Birth of the
American with Disabilities Act, it was only 20 to 30 years ago that “the prime vision of
the disability community was normalization…” (1996, 29). That vision has begun to
change and is still changing and progressing as more awareness is raised about a person’s
rights regardless of their disability and the ability for them to claim disability as an
identity and begin to live a life apart from stigma, oppression and ridicule.
ASSESSMENT & CONCLUSTION
Ulimately, the heart of Disability Theory lies with the person claiming disability
as a part, of their identity. It is truly a person’s viewpoint and attitude that defines
Disability Theory and applications of identity. Without the use and application of
disability as an identity, “disability” can no long be defined as being biological or natural.
Without disability identity, within Disability Theory, “disability” is a demeaning and
elastic social category to which the majority has social control.

13. DISABILITY THEORY 13
Just like any other civil rights movement, the power lies within the people who
publicize and promote it. While the influences of opposing forces may seem more strong
and innately dominant, there is more depth and consideration taken with Disability
Theory. One can acknowledge, yes, it does seem easier to be “normal” rather than
“disabled,” but such convenience does not, in fact, lead to an increased value of one’s
life. Presumptions about the horrors of disabilities are usually made by those not living
life in a disabled body. People who have learned about disability studies, theory and
identity know that the preference is, to have “disability” be regarded as a cultural and
minority identity, rather than regarding it as a way to disparage a person for a physical or
mental defect – this is disability theory.

14. DISABILITY THEORY 14
References
Baynton, D.C. 2004. “Reviews in American History.” Disability and the Justification of
Inequality in American History. 32(2):10
Davis, Lennard J. 1995. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body.
London: Verso.
Gaventa, William C. 1996. “Re-Imaging the Role of Clinical Training for Hospital
Chaplaincy and Pastoral Care: Moving Beyond Institutional Walls to the
Community” Pp. 27-41 in A Look Back: The Birth of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, edited by Robert C. Anderson. Binghamton, NY: Haworth
Pastoral Press.
Halls, B. 2011. Resistance Capital. Critical Deaf Theory: Utah Valley University
Hunt, L. 2011. Navigational Capital. Critical Deaf Theory: Utah Valley University
Lane, H. 1984. When the Mind Hears. New York: Vintage Books.
Longmore, P.K. (2003). Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2011.
Routledge. 2007. Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice.
Schuman, John S. 1999. Hollywood Speaks: Deafness and the Film Entertainment
Industry. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Shapiro, J. 1994. No Pity. Three Rivers Press.
Siebers, T.A. 2008. Disability Theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.