Ableism in IR and beyond

A sepia toned highly-abstract illustration with different shapes.

In the March IR Reading Group meeting we discussed the topic of ableism in the field or IR and in academia more generally on the basis of two texts, one examining the use of autism metaphors in IR and the second detailing an author navigating her PhD research as a blind scholar and trying to find methods of working with the data that do not prioritize the sense of sight.

Readings and blog post curated by Maisa Borg

In the March IR Reading Group meeting we discussed the topic of ableism in the field or IR and in academia more generally. Two texts were selected to discuss the topic in more detail. The first text, a journal article by Stephen Micheal Christian (2017), examines the use of autism metaphors in IR. The second text, a book chapter by Cynthia Bruce (2020), details the author navigating her PhD research as a blind scholar doing qualitative data analysis and trying to find methods of working with the data that do not prioritize the sense of sight. Christian’s text explicitly deals with the issue of ableism in IR and Bruce’s examines the topic from a wider sociological/social research perspective.

To start with, both texts zoom in on the concept of ableism. Christian defines ableism as:

– – [A] sociopolitical system of narratives, institutions, and actions collectively reinforcing an ideology that benefits persons deemed able-bodies, able-minded, and normal by others, and devalues, limits, and discriminates against those deemed physically and/or mentally disabled and abnormal. (p. 2)

Bruce, similarly, highlights the hierarchical relationship between ability and disability. She defines ableism as “– – the maintenance of the ability/disability binary and the certain belief that ability is disability’s desirable and even essential other” (p. 127).

Both texts problematize the ways in which current academic practices, be it the methods we use or the language we build our theories with, reproduce ableism and in so doing limit the understanding and agency of disabled peoples.

As per usual, the discussion on the two texts was lively and constructive. All the Reading Group members agreed that the texts’ core argument about the harmfulness of ableism in academia holds true. Also, we widely shared the sentiment that ableist practices should be troubled and challenged in general. The conversation we had was perhaps a small step in the right direction.

Rather than trying to capture all the insightful comments and questions of the Reading Group meeting, the rest of this blog text post focuses on three specific themes that generated lively conversation.

  • Can we imagine research differently? As one participant noted, Bruce’s book chapter helps us to broaden our imagination on how science can be conducted. At its best, addressing ableism in research and supporting/advancing disability studies can enrich our thinking and analyses. It can offer creative and transgressive ways to conduct research and, in doing so, offer us new insights about the world around us. That said, we also discussed the potential challenges and downfalls of an ever-expanding boundary of science and research. Can it lead to the loss of common ground and shared understanding?
  • Who am I to do this research? Another topic that we discussed at length was a researcher’s positionality and how explicitly that should be spelled out in a given text (and genre of text). We noted how scholars in general as well as the Reading Group members have varied and differing views on the matter. On the one hand, a positionality statement can be a way of enhancing scientific rigor by being transparent about the biases and contexts that guide and affect the research endeavor. On the other hand, a positionality statement can also seem more like a metaphorical liability statement whereby anything can be said without scrutiny and the research outputs are conflated with the attributes of the researcher.
  • Can we avoid essentialization? Another topic of conversation was the use of the term “disability/disabled” and whether that is ableist itself. One Reading Group member also noted that the use of the term might show how deeply rooted ableism is in our linguistic structures and textual communication to begin with. Also, we discussed how it can be hard to further a minority’s/marginalized people’s cause in a truly diverse and inclusive manner. It seems that language-use too often freezes and reduces diverse identities and creates monoliths of them. That said, terms can also be reclaimed and used to highlight a collective’s existence and fight for rights.

All in all, we discussed ableism in IR and academia in general from multiple viewpoints critically but without compromising on a constructive tone of conversation. Similar to previous meetings, we did not search for nor find grand conclusions, but the joint discussion hopefully helped us to understand the pervasiveness of ableism around us and in our own practices.

Sources

Christian, S. M. (2018). Autism in International Relations: A critical assessment of International Relations’ autism metaphors. European Journal of International Relations24(2), 464-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117698030

Bruce, Cynthia. 2021. “Unsettling Ableism in Research Traditions: Toward Establishing Blind Methodologies.” In Social Research and Disability: Developing Inclusive Research Spaces for Disabled Researchers, by Ciaran Burke and Bronagh Byrne, 127–40. Sociological Futures. London: Routledge.