What is Critical Disability Theory?

Defining Critical Disability Theory

Critical Disability Theory is a consolidation of the fundamental tenets of the field of Critical Disability Studies into an approach to research. Stanford University’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to Critical Disability Theory as “a diverse, interdisciplinary set of theoretical approaches. The task of critical disability theory is to analyze disability as a cultural, historical, relative, social, and political phenomenon” (Hall, 2019). The word “analyze” is important here; Critical Disability Theorists state that CDT was designed and developed to be applied as a methodology. CDT is intended for use as an approach to research; it is not merely a lens on the world of disability. Using CDT as a methodology means applying the values, convictions, and theorisations that make up CDT to analyze and deconstruct social and cultural scenarios and artifacts which pertain to disability. 

In “Enabling Whom? Critical Disability Studies Now,” Critical Disability Theorist Julie Avril Minich states that applying CDT as a methodology involves “scrutinizing not bodily or mental impairments but the social norms that define particular attributes as impairments, as well as the social conditions that concentrate stigmatized attributes in particular populations” (2016). What Minich highlights here is not only what CDT as a methodology is but also what it is not. As Minich states, CDT is not about focusing on the ways in which an individual is “impaired” but instead examining how we, as a society, decide what impairment looks like. This perspective on understanding disability is, compared to the origins of Disability Studies, a radical and novel approach.

The history of Disability Studies is one marred with tensions between academics of this field and their subjects. Prior approaches to Disability Studies have been more clinical in nature, medicalizing the disabled experience in a way which some argue de-centers the voices of disabled people and distracts from the sociopolitical mechanisms which define disability. In the mid-20th century, scholars began to challenge these conceptualizations of disability by exploring different “models” to explain how disability was defined and understood. The two predominant models which emerged were the medical model and the social model. The medical model stipulates that disability should be understood through the innate differences between a “disabled” body and the body of someone who is considered, based on various medical guidelines, to be healthy and “able-bodied.” The social model stipulates that disability should be understood through the structural barriers, social ostracism, prejudice, and discrimination that limit disabled individuals in engaging with wider society. 

The medical model was, particularly in the context of “Western” culture (notably the USA and UK), the dominant model throughout the 19th and early 20th century. In Caroline Lieffers’s chapter in Disability and the Victorians, she explains how this model operated and, crucially, who benefited from it. This passage makes reference to the “Palmer limb,” the first patented prosthetic limb: 

The medical model framed disability as a problem to be resolved or treated with interventions, instead of necessarily accommodated for. The medical model encouraged doctors to shape the bodies and capabilities of individuals to suit an able-bodied world grounded in the values established by “medical elites and popular desires” (Lieffers, 2020). The establishment of the social model, which began to emerge in the 1960s, contrasted this sharply. 

Where the medical model focused more on the perceived capabilities of the body, the social model looked beyond disability as a matter of anatomy and questioned how the values of society enabled a more subjective and shifting definition. How capability was defined by society became a key focus, and this shifting social perspective on disability throughout history is explored comprehensively in Bill Hughes’ A Historical Sociology of Disability. Hughes argues that the value assigned to disabled individuals sits outside an objective assessment of the disabled experience and is strongly impacted by the influence of capitalism. As Hughes states: 

Hughes applies Critical Disability Theory to his work by, as Minich writes, scrutinizing “the social norms that define particular attributes as impairments” (2016). Hughes notes how capitalism de-skilled “corporal, intellectual and sensory difference” (2019) — more simply, these attributes were considered to be of less or no value under a capitalist system because they couldn’t be used to make capital through labor. Therefore, under this capitalist system, the social guidelines for what human attributes are considered disabled are the same as those for what attributes are considered unprofitable. 

Critical Disability Theory is often applied outside of social studies and is a useful lens when analyzing disabled characters in literature or other media. For example, because Critical Disability Theory teaches us to notice “the social conditions that concentrate stigmatized attributes in particular populations” (Minich, 2016), we can apply CDT to an exploration of how and why popular media disproportionately portrays disabled individuals as villains and antagonists, alongside non-disabled heroes and protagonists. In The Changing Face of Evil in Film and Television, Martin Norden explains how recognising these concentrated stigmatized attributes teaches us to recognise this pattern of villainization and often dehumanization of disabled characters. Norden refers to a few well-known villains in a longer list: Dr. No and his prosthetic hands in the eponymous James Bond film, King Richard and his hunchback in Shakespeare’s Richard III, and Captain Hook in Peter Pan. Norden states that it is “[the] convention of all literature and art that physical deformity, chronic illness, or any visible defect symbolizes an evil and malevolent nature and monstrous behaviour” (2007). This example conveys how disability is often contingent on what society deems it to be — and that the term in itself carries the power to impose moralistic presumptions about those who can be identified under it. 

Applying Critical Disability Theory to real-world problems 

Critical Disability Theory can help us understand how and why particular blockades exist which impede disabled individuals’ full engagement and inclusion in wider society. In Crippled: Austerity and the Demonization of Disabled People, Frances Ryan includes several case studies from Great Britain’s disabled community, documenting the challenges they face in acquiring support and legal recognition and resisting social ostracism. In one of these case studies, Ryan documents the struggle of Christina, a disabled woman who is required to undergo a Work Capability Assessment to demonstrate her suitability for incapacity benefit:

What emerges in this case study is a common theme in disability research: bureaucratic barriers to resources which disproportionately disadvantage those who need them most. These issues are often blamed on poorly-designed processes or one-off cases of assessor ineptitude. However, through Critical Race Theory we can begin to question who benefits from and who is disadvantaged by this ineffective system. It is evident in this case study that disability, as noted by Bill Hughes, is defined in this context as “defective labour” (2019). However, it does not benefit a British Government interested in making financial cuts to provide incapacity benefit to individuals who meet a reasonable criteria for being “unfit for work.” It may unfortunately be argued that, in theory, keeping as many workers as possible in the British workforce will yield the most profit and economic growth. However, in practice, the psychological and physical impact on workers forced to work in spite of disability is counterproductive in the long term. Strain is deferred to other systems, such as the National Health Service. Critical Disability Theory shows us how, in these circumstances, the goalposts of “disability” are shifted to suit a national government at the immense expense of the country’s disabled citizens. Many Critical Disability Theorists do not agree with a singular definition of disability; this case study demonstrates one of the many ways in which this term is contingent on sociopolitical factors that even disabled individuals have no control over. 

Similar theories to Critical Disability Theory

We cannot fully understand the application of Critical Disability Theory without an awareness of intersectionality. Intersectionality, otherwise known as Intersectional Feminist Theory,  states that identity characteristics (such as race, sexuality, disability) create intersections where identities form that are a complex interplay of an individual’s characteristics, not merely a sum of their parts. To learn more about this subject, you can read our What is Intersectionality & Intersectional Feminism? study guide.

Returning to Hughes’ A Sociological History of Disability, Hughes’ writing has often focused on the social model, but has not shied away from bringing nuance to the medical model versus social model debate, challenging the more reductive facets of the social model. Hughes argues that the disabled identity was, when discussing social barriers, often boiled down to one very simplistic concept which did not effectively represent the complexity of disabled lived experiences. We can see that these early criticisms of the social model of disability echo key concepts from Intersectionality. Hughes critiques the presumed unity and solidarity of disabled people that is often assumed by scholars of the social model:

Hughes’ criticism employs an intersectional approach. Intersectionality focuses, in part, on the value of lived experience — and the risks of assuming a shared lived experience of an entire social group. Critical Disability Theory also employs this approach in its methodology, applying a tacit awareness of the heterogeneity of the disabled experience to disability research. This means acknowledging the broadness and subjectivity of the term “disability” and addressing the limitations of disability research studies on these grounds.

Critical Disability Theory also addresses its subject of inquiry from a similar perspective to Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory. Both Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory argue that socially constructed definitions of gender, sexuality, and race are used systemically to control populations and limit access to resources such as education, healthcare, and social capital. Critical Disability Theory, like Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory, critically analyzes how social norms stigmatize particular attributes of individual identities and create social categories which are often used to dehumanize or disempower said individuals. 

Between Critical Disability Theory and Queer Theory exists Crip Theory which blurs and merges the two theories to explore how social pressures around ability often coincide with social pressures around gender and sexuality. American scholar Alison Kafer represents one of the most important and influential voices in Crip Theory, and in her influential publication Feminist, Queer, Crip, she differentiates Crip Theory from mainstream disability studies in the following ways: 

This role of identity within the disability rights movement is visible in many social issues, but perhaps most notably the issue of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This epidemic, which became grounds for the stigmatization of the LGBTQ+ community, conveyed the overlap between the disability rights movement and the LGBTQ+ or “queer” rights movement. Marty Fink’s Forget Burial: HIV Kinship, Disability, and Queer/Trans Narratives of Care is a significant publication that effectively illustrates the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, and disability struggles. His work also conveys how, with individuals who are simultaneously minorities across these identity categories, narratives appear that blur the boundaries between the experiences garnered by these traits. On the subject of HIV’s impacts on gender, sexual, and racial minorities (and how it is analyzed in queer research), Fink writes, 

This acknowledgement of the medicalization and pathologization of queer identities draws parallels between mistreatment of queer individuals and the reductive interpretation of disabled identities through the medical model. Given the intersectional nature of identity, an understanding of Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory (and where they cross over in Crip Theory) will greatly benefit any disability scholars looking to fully investigate their subject matter. For a deeper explanation of the tenets of Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory, consider reading our study guides. 

Significant texts on Critical Disability Theory

Although Critical Disability Theory is a relatively new methodology, its core tenets and approaches have been the subject of writing in Disability Studies for many decades. Many of these writings do present intersections of social issues such as disability and gender, disability and sexuality, or disability and race. This is the case for a seminal text in the study of Critical Disability Theory which unites disability, gender, and sexuality at the axis of bodily autonomy. Robert McRuer’s Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability is a publication whose articulation of the transgressions of queer and disabled bodies became a cornerstone for CDT as we know it today. Its interdisciplinary content unites case studies, performance art, and thematic analyses of media under the umbrella of critical exploration of disabled and queer bodies in the public sphere. 

For those looking to understand disability through a post-colonial lens, Crip Colony by Sony Coráñez Bolton offers incredible insight into the incorporation of ableism into US imperialism. Examining the relationship between the United States and the Philippines in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Crip Colony addresses how particular American values and sentiments informed their conceptualisation of the “able body” and how those conceptions paved the way for the assimilation — or rejection — of Filipinos into US culture. 

For those looking to understand the use of Critical Disability Theory through the lens of politics and social care, Critical Theory and Disability by Teodor Mladenov is essential reading. Mladenov’s publication investigates how access to disability support and basic resources are determined and how shifting social norms make accessing these resources a challenging and at-times impossible task. This book largely focuses on systems of inequality which exist in Bulgaria, but the content of its case studies present wider social issues relevant to disability activism in both Europe and beyond. 

Critical Disability Theory, as an emerging methodology, is fast proving its value and applicability across a variety of disciplines. Wherever lived human experience is a relevant research factor, CDT is a useful tool of inquiry. CDT represents more than disability inequality; it represents how regulations and social norms can influence who is considered valuable to a society and who is not. Any scholar of the social sciences stands to benefit from inducting Critical Disability Theory into their methodological toolbelt. 

Further CDT resources & reading on Perlego

Disability Politics and Theory - A.J. Withers

Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice - Michael Oliver 

Handbook of Disability Studies - Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine Delores Seelman, Michael Bury

Crip Kinship - Shayda Kafai

Crip Times: Disability, Globalization, and Resistance - Robert McRuer

Disability: The Basics - Tom Shakespeare

The Disability Studies Reader - Lennard J. Davis

Bibliography

Albrecht, G. L., Seelman, K. D., & Bury, M. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of disability studies.

Anderson, J. (2020). Disability and the Victorians: Attitudes, interventions, legacies. Manchester University Press.

Bolton, S. C. (2023). Crip Colony: Mestizaje, US Imperialism, and the Queer Politics of Disability in the Philippines. Duke University Press.

Davis, L. J. (2016). The disability studies reader. Routledge.

Fink, M. (2020). Forget burial: HIV kinship, disability, and queer/trans narratives of care. Rutgers University Press.

Hall, M. C. (2019). Critical disability theory.

Hughes, B. (2019). A historical sociology of disability: Human validity and invalidity from antiquity to early modernity. Routledge.

Kafai, S. (2021). Crip kinship: The disability justice and art activism of Sins Invalid. Arsenal Pulp Press.

Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.

McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. NYU press.

McRuer, R. (2018). Crip times: Disability, globalization, and resistance (Vol. 1). NYU Press.

Minich, J. A. (2016). Enabling whom? Critical disability studies now. Lateral, 5(1).

Mladenov, T. (2016). Critical theory and disability: A phenomenological approach. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Norden, M. F. (2007). The “uncanny” relationship of disability and evil in film and television. In The changing face of evil in film and television (pp. 125-143). Brill.

Oliver, M. (2018). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Ryan, F. (2020). Crippled: Austerity and the demonization of disabled people. Verso Books.

Shakespeare, T. (2017). Disability: the basics. Routledge.