Over the past three decades, there has been a substantial increase in the numbers of disability and sexuality research studies. Much of this increase could be attributed to the growing concern about disability rights globally, and the acknowledgement that sexuality is a central aspect of being human and a matter of human [disability] rights (WHO , 2002; UN, 2006). On closer reflection of the surge in disabled sexuality studies, it is also clear that research has shifted beyond a mere biomedical [voyeuristic] discourse (i.e. how well do our genitals work? How does our sex life compared to non-disabled people?), and now recognises the development of disabled sexualities within the complexities of sociopolitical structures and the intersection with other identity categories such as gender , race , class and sexual orientations .
One of the earliest and the most influential studies is âThe Sexual Politics of Disabilityâ by Tom Shakespeare , Kath Gillespie-Sells and Dominic Davies (1996), which by all intentions was a landmark study that has paved the way for further inclusive sexuality and disability research. This large-scale study, situated in the United Kingdom, was a first of its kind to explore the lived sexual experiences of disabled people with varying impairments, gender , race , age and sexual orientations . Since publication of this seminal text, Shakespeare has written further articles that examined disabled sexualities in relation to constructs of masculinities (Shakespeare, 1999) and sexuality rights (Shakespeare, 2000). Other important works include those of Russell Shuttleworth and Teela Sanders (2010) who have explored sexual access and sexual surrogacy in the context of disability, and Robert McRuer (2012, 2006) and Margrit Shildrick (2005, 2007) who have written extensively on the intersectionality of disabled sexualities, feminism and queer theory.
Despite the increased scholarship surrounding disabled sexualities, a large proportion of it is situated in the Global North (chiefly North America, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia). According to Shuttleworth (2010, p. 1), there has been little research in non-Western societies on disabled peopleâs sexual issues and the barriers that they sometimes face in trying to lead enjoyable and meaningful sexual lives. From the outset, this may seem surprising given that of the one billion disabled people globally, 80% of the disabled people live in the Global South (WHO , 2011). However, just like other researched issues, it may be due to the dominance of resources in the Global North and the imbalance of power between the global spheres.
Moreover, throughout the histories of disability studies, most of the popular theories and concepts of disability (i.e. medical model and social model) have emerged from the Global North and then liberally exported to the Global South. This has often been done without acknowledging sociocultural and historical contexts, geopolitics, the impact of imperialistic and colonial practices, or scholarship or theorists from within the Global South (Grech, 2015; Meekosha, 2011). In this context, we simply cannot just rely on the export of knowledge or practices around disabled sexualities from the Global North and apply it to the Global South. In agreement with Meekosha (2011), this surmounts to nothing more than âscholarly colonialism â. At the same time however, I wish to caution against creating a binary between disabled sexualities in the Global North (also referred to as the âWestern Worldâ) and the Global South. To do so would only replicate colonial projects of the past. Instead, it is essential that we move beyond reductive approaches that âlocate(d) the sexual cultures and practices of other societies along a continuum of sameness versus difference from those of the Westâ (Martin, Jackson, McLelland, & Yue, 2008, p. 6).
Given the current dominance of research in the Global North , disabled sexualities in the Global South appear to remain in what Kosofsky Sedgwick (1990)âa well-known queer theoristâdescribes as the âepistemology of the closetâ. In this regard, Diverse Voices of Disabled Sexualities in the Global South could therefore be depicted as the âcoming outâ of disabled sexualities within the context of the Global South.
Purpose of Diverse Voices of Disabled Sexualities in the Global South
The production of this book, which is a first of its kind, is both critical and timely, especially as growing evidence suggests that people with disabilities in some areas of the Global South are at increased risk of HIV and sexual exploitation in comparison to their non-disabled peers (Frohmader & Ortoleva, 2013; Hanass-Hancock et al., 2016; UNAIDS, 2017). By bringing together an array of youth and adults with disabilities, academics, researchers and disability activists who either live or work in the Global South, Diverse Voices of Disabled Sexualities in the Global South aims to critically engage with constructs and experiences of disabled sexualities throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. In doing so, it is hoped that the questions raised, reflections, analyses and arguments will provide readers with a catalyst through which to think about disabled sexualities from the perspective of the Global South.
When putting an edited volume like this together, it undoubtedly raises several questions: What is sexuality? What constitutes the Global South? What is disability? How are the experiences of sexuality any different between disabled people in the Global North /South? Through this chapter and other contributions in this book, we will certainly go some way in answering these questions. However, from the outset, I contend that the discourses of sexuality, the Global South, and disability, are socially constructed and ultimately, are shaped and defined not just by geographical location, but also by issues such as history, colonialism , power , globalisation , laws, policy and legislation, culture, religion, medicine, neoliberalism and capitalism . In this context, I wish to make it clear that Diverse Voices of Disabled Sexualities in the Global South does not intend to situate disabled people in the Global South as a homogenous group. Instead, this edited volume recognises that individual disabled people are uniquely positioned within intersectoral discourses (Galvin, 2006), and their experiences and beliefs around sexuality are (re)constructed and understood in culturally and historically different ways. In this regard, I draw on the United Nationâs (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , which defines disability as âan evolving concept that results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full participation in society on an equal basis with othersâ (UN, 2006, p. 5).
Before giving more detail of the process in putting this book together and a brief overview of contributions, I intend, in this chapter, to situate disabled sexual voices within the context of the Global South. In doing so, I will first provide a brief historical overview of the construction of sexual discourse in the Global South. My intention for this section is not to provide a grand narrative of the sociopolitical histories of the Global South, but rather to indicate the socialisation of sexualities from pre-colonial to contemporary understandings. Following this, I will then discuss how the socialisation of sexualities has impacted on disabled people, and what we already know about disabled sexualities in the Global South.
Sexualities in the Global South
The World Health Organizationâs (2015) working definition describes sexuality as:
a central aspect of human life and encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism , pleasure, intimacy and reproduction. Sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships. Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors. (WHO , 2015, p. 5)
As illustrated by the WHOâs definition, although sexuality is largely perceived as a private and personal discourse, it is at the same time also public and political. Likewise, sexuality has many histories and these histories of sexuality have and continue to be governed and shaped in cultural institutions, political economies, medicine, laws, religions and families. In accordance with Foucault (1978), these institutions also constitute a diverse collection of sites of power /knowledge whereby certain people (e.g. medical practitioners, psychologists, lawyers, politicians, religious and traditional leaders, educators and parents) are positioned to enforce regulatory control of our sexual behaviour. One of the key aspects of these sites of discourse is to ensure that individuals are effectively incorporated into systems of knowledge and disciplinary practices that privilege particular understandings of sexuality as âsexual truths â.
While individuals are recognised as autonomous agents (Foucault , 1988), these sites of discourse instil mod...