Carol Thomas's "Female Forms: Experiencing and Understanding Disability" (Book Note)

 

 

In her book, Carol Thomas, a disabled woman and medical sociologist deeply committed to both disability and feminist studies, offers a thorough and thoughtful critique of the social model of disability. While the book is part of a series dedicated to disseminating views of the social model, Thomas takes the opportunity to challenge some of its fundamental principles. Drawing from her personal experiences as well as her academic expertise, Thomas divides her work into three sections, each building from current discussions in disability and feminist studies towards her own synthesis of relevant issues.

 

The book's style, heavily referenced and peppered with lengthy original quotes, is designed to appeal to readers new to disability studies, providing a comprehensive background on key writers and concepts. However, some readers may find this style detracts from Thomas's own arguments, which occasionally seem overshadowed by the exhaustive consideration of other viewpoints. Nonetheless, Thomas's perseverance in articulating her perspectives is rewarded with compelling and well-argued paradigms.

 

In Part One, titled 'Defining Disability,' Thomas embarks on a lengthy exploration of the history of the social model, particularly focusing on the definition put forth by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS). She delves into the reasons behind the perceived discord between social modelists and medical sociologists, highlighting the latter's adherence to the International Classification of Impairment, Disability, and Handicaps (ICIDH) model—a framework often dismissed by their counterparts. Thomas uses this discord as a lens to deconstruct the social model, identifying two intertwined strands within it: the social relational definition and the property definition.

 

The social relational definition posits that disability stems from the social imposition of restrictions on people with impairments, emphasizing unequal power dynamics. On the other hand, the property definition, reminiscent of the ICIDH model, acknowledges the role of social factors in causing activity restrictions but also leaves room for considering non-social causes of disablism. Thomas argues that this latter definition allows for a more nuanced understanding of disability, encompassing psycho-emotional aspects often overlooked by traditional social modelists.

 

Thomas critiques social modelists for neglecting the cultural dimensions of disability, particularly the role of negative internal messages in constraining individuals' activities. She proposes a modified definition of disability that incorporates both social imposition of restrictions and the socio-cultural undermining of psycho-emotional well-being. In her view, disability is a form of social oppression that encompasses both external barriers and internalized prejudices.

In Part Two of her book, titled 'Female Forms,' Carol Thomas extends her exploration of the psychoemotional dimensions of disability within the framework of feminist scholarship. While feminist writers often emphasize the significance of personal experience in understanding social phenomena, social modelists tend to be critical of this approach, doubting its efficacy in driving social change. However, Thomas, drawing from personal testimonials, makes a compelling case for the importance of personal narratives in both comprehending disability experiences and catalyzing efforts for societal transformation.

 

One significant aspect of Thomas's analysis is her observation that mainstream feminist discourse has largely overlooked the perspectives of disabled women. Consequently, there appears to be a disconnect between the priorities and concerns of disabled women and those of mainstream feminism. Thomas underscores that disabled women's perspectives are diverse and multifaceted, defying any simplistic categorization. While she acknowledges disagreement with certain viewpoints within disabled women's literature, she maintains that the methodologies developed within feminist scholarship could serve to enrich and broaden the discourse within disability studies.

 

Thomas's engagement with the intersection of feminist and disability scholarship reveals tensions as well as opportunities for collaboration. On one hand, she acknowledges the limitations of mainstream feminist discourse in adequately addressing the experiences and concerns of disabled women. This oversight perpetuates marginalization and reinforces the invisibility of disabled women within broader feminist movements. However, Thomas also highlights the potential for synergy between feminist and disability scholarship, particularly in the realm of methodology.

 

By advocating for the incorporation of feminist research methods, such as intersectionality and standpoint theory, into disability studies, Thomas suggests a way forward for bridging the gap between these two fields. These methods offer a framework for understanding the complex interplay of gender, disability, and other intersecting identities, thereby enriching our comprehension of diverse experiences within the disabled community.

In Part Three of her book, titled 'Understanding Disability,' Carol Thomas delves into theoretical concepts surrounding disability and impairment, tracing the historical and political evolution of contemporary perspectives. Through a succinct and insightful examination, Thomas provides a valuable reference point for readers seeking to navigate the complexities of disability studies. She ultimately concludes that a significant gap persists between materialist and post-modernist views within the field, highlighting the challenges of synthesizing socio-structural, cultural, and experiential dimensions of disability.

 

Thomas's analysis underscores the need for a more inclusive and nuanced approach to disability studies—one that embraces a diversity of theoretical perspectives. She argues that the incorporation of multiple viewpoints would not only enrich the field but also foster greater understanding of the complex dynamics shaping disability experiences. Thomas advocates for the acceptance of a variety of theoretical frameworks within disability studies, rejecting the notion that a single approach can adequately capture the multifaceted nature of disability.

 

In her assessment, Thomas contends that a non-reductionist materialist feminism holds promise as a theoretical framework for understanding and explaining disability, impairment, and their gendered dimensions. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of socio-structural, cultural, and experiential factors, this approach offers a more holistic understanding of disability that transcends narrow disciplinary boundaries.

 

However, Thomas acknowledges the inherent challenges of reconciling diverse theoretical perspectives within disability studies. She recognizes the limitations of attempting to synthesize conflicting viewpoints, expressing skepticism about the feasibility of achieving a comprehensive theoretical framework. Nonetheless, she maintains that embracing theoretical diversity can strengthen the field by fostering dialogue and collaboration among scholars with differing perspectives.

 

Returning to her own position as a disabled feminist, writer in disability studies, and medical sociologist, Thomas grapples with the dilemma of reconciling these distinct identities and perspectives. She acknowledges her vested interest in bridging the gaps between these groups and seeks to identify common ground that can facilitate dialogue and cooperation.

 

In this context, Thomas revisits the social relational model as a potential framework for achieving a truce between conflicting theoretical perspectives. By emphasizing the interconnectedness of social relations and disability experiences, this model offers a pathway towards greater understanding and collaboration within the field of disability studies.