Therefore, Puar's intervention into disability research examines the methods wherein the difference of disability is produced and how explicit forms of disability develop into valorized. Intervening within the methods wherein the binary of disabled and abled is produced via the lens of capability and debility makes it possible to query the ways in which the difference of incapacity reifies an exceptionalism and simplified conceptualization of incapacity that only sure privileged disabled bodies can occupy (ibid.). In this fashion, Puar's undertaking grasps on the nonidentical-how disability will be theorized when the idea of incapacity will not be contained by processes of normativity. Puar's intervention is uncomfortable for disability studies insofar as she challenges the ways in which the sector of inquiry reproduces disability as an oppressed id and an aggrieved subject enacted by means of "wounded attachments" (Puar 2012, 157). Puar's project of rethinking incapacity is to maneuver from incapacity to debility, not with a purpose to "disavow the crucial political gains enabled by incapacity activists globally, but to ask a deconstruction of what means and capability imply, affective and in any other case, and to push for a broader politics of debility that destabilizes the seamless manufacturing of abled-our bodies in relation to disability" (166). In doing so, Puar asks: "How would our political landscape remodel if it actively decentered the sustained reproduction and proliferation of the grieving topic, opening instead toward an affective politics, attentive to ecologies of sensation and switchpoints of bodily capacities, to habituations and unhabituations, to tendencies, a number of temporalities, and becomings?" (157). Puar thus calls for a non-anthropocentric affective politics that moves us away from exceptional aggrieved human subjects whose harm may be converted into cultural capital.
My site ... chapmanbrogaard20.wordpress.com