This book explores the possibilities and limitations re-theorizing disability using historical materialism in the interdisciplinary contexts of social theory, cultural studies, social and education policy, feminist ethics, and theories of citizenship.
Would be far stronger if it had engaged with Marx's own historical-materialist theorising of humanism, instead of equating humanism with bourgeois universalism and relying on poststructuralisms as a foil.
An amazing book that foregrounds systemic violence and asks us to use disability as an essential lens and not just tack it onto other categories as an afterthought.
While Erevelles emphasis on a historical-materialist approach to disability studies is to be applauded, not least for the attention to detail brought to it, I take issue with the way posthumanism is presented. It strikes me that Erevelles has not understood Deleuze and Guattari's concept of desire, or the contribution posthuman philosophy has made to political economy (and vice versa). First off, contrary to the author's opinion that D&G's theory of desire neglects historical materialism, I would argue that historical materialism is foundational to desire as they see it. From a disability studies perspective, this objection may seem obscure or unnecessary - the problem is, Erevelles sets historical materialism against posthumanism, misrepresenting it and drawing it into an unnecessary dichotomy.
Beyond that, this is a worthy contribution to disability studies, and worth a look if you're interested in the work Michael Oliver and Colin Barnes.