Ben-Moshe, Liat. (2016) [WWW] “Movements at War? Disability and Anti-occupation Activism in Israel.” Block P., Kasnitz D., Nishida A., Pollard N. (eds) Occupying Disability: Critical Approaches to Community, Justice, and Decolonizing Disability. Dordrecht: Springer. 47-61.

  • <– Abstract: “At the time of the first major disability protest in Israel in 1999 and then in 2000–2001, there were already many anti-occupation and peace organizations at play in Israel/Palestine. While participating in this budding disability movement, I began reflecting on my experiences of simultaneously being an Israeli anti-occupation activist and disabled activist publically fighting for the first time for disability rights. In the summer of 2006 I conducted research in Israel, trying to assess any changes that occurred since 2000 in the connections between the movements and within the disability movement itself. And then the war on Lebanon began. My intention in writing this chapter is to highlight the connections between disability activism and anti-war and anti-occupation activism, which seem to be at war with one another but in fact intersect in important ways. I hope this narrative and analysis will be useful for material resistance as well as a reflection on our current states of exclusion in activism and scholarship.”

– – – (2014). “Alternatives to (Disability) Incarceration.” Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada. Ed. Liat Ben-Moshe, Chris Chapman and Allison C. Carey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 255-272.

– – – (2013). “Disabling Incarceration: Connecting Disability to Divergent Confinements In the USA.” Critical Sociology 39.3: 385-403.

– – – Anthony J. Nocella, and A. J. Withers (2013). “Queer-Cripping Anarchism: Intersections and Reflections on Anarchism, Queer-ness, and Dis-ability.” Queering Anarchism: Addressing and Undressing Power and Desire. Ed. Deric Shannon, J. Rogue, C.B. Daring, and Abbey Volcano. Oakland: AK Press. 207-20.

– – – , Dave Hill, Anthony J. Nocella, II, and Bill Templer (2009). “Dis-abling Capitalism and an Anarchism of ‘Radical Equality’ In Resistance to Ideologies of Normalcy.” Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. Ed. Randall Amster et. al. New York: Routledge. 113-122.

– – – and Sandy Magaña (2014). “An introduction to race, gender, and disability: Intersectionality, disability studies, and families of color.” Women, Gender, and Families of Color 2.2: 105-114.

Bernal, Vanessa Gómez, and Beltrán Roca (2016). “Disability, Social Movements and Radical Theory: An Anthropological Approach.” Anthropological Notebooks 22.2: 79-92.

  • <– Abstract: “This article analyses how the development of theorisations of disability has been influenced by social movements. Firstly, it includes an analysis of the evolution of explanation models of disability, from the Medical Model to the Social Model. Secondly, it shows how the practice of social movements – especially, albeit not only, the movement for independent living – has been a key factor in the production of new concepts and theories to explain, and to act upon, disability. Finally, it selects a set of contributions from new social movements and contemporary radical theory in order to outline an anthropological perspective that surpasses the limitations of the Social Model, placing the axis of the reflection on the power devices and domination mechanisms that construct disability.”

Bottici, Chiara (2017). [WWW] “Bodies In Plural: Towards an Anarcha-Feminist Manifesto.” Thesis Eleven 142.1: 91–111.

  • <– Abstract: “In the last few years, it has become a commonplace to state that domination takes place through a multiplicity of axes, where gender, class, race, and sexuality intersect with one another. While a lot of insightful empirical work is being done under the heading of intersectionality, it is very rarely linked to the anarchist tradition that preceded it. In this article, I would like to articulate this point by showing the usefulness but also the limits of the notion of intersectionality to understand mechanisms of domination and then move on to argue for the need of an anarcha-feminist research program. Secondly, I will try to provide the philosophical framework for such an enterprise by arguing that it is in a Spinozist ontology of the transindividual that we can best find the conceptual resources for thinking about the plural nature of women’s bodies and thus of their oppression. This will allow me to attempt to articulate the question of ‘what it means to be a woman’ in pluralistic terms and thus also to defend a specifically feminist form of anarchism. In conclusion, I will go back to the anarcha-feminist tradition and will show why today it is the best possible ally of feminism in the pursuit of a critical theory of society.”

Graby, Steven (2015). “Access to work or liberation from work?: Disabled people, autonomy, and post-work politics.” Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 4.2: 132-161.

  • <– Abstract: “Waged work has been a central issue for the Disabled People’s Movement since its inception. For example, the influential analysis of the pioneering Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation in the United Kingdom placed the exclusion of people with impairments from work as the origin of disablement, which is therefore inherent in modern capitalism. Thus it has been traditional in the Disabled People’s Movement in the United Kingdom to regard the removal of barriers to participation in the wage labour economy as a key strategy for overcoming disabled people’s social exclusion and oppression.

    “However, some authors in the Disabled People’s Movement (e.g., Abberley, 1996; 2002; Taylor, 2004; Withers, 2012) have argued that waged work cannot be the route to liberation for all disabled people, pointing out the paradox of disabled people desiring to be included in the same economic system which is responsible for their exclusion in the first place, and whose values fundamentally privilege the ‘more able’. This issue is especially urgent in the present historical moment, when the ‘work ethic’ has been mobilised by neoliberals and neoconservatives in government and the mass media to justify the cutting of vital support systems for disabled people, who are being demonized as ‘workshy’, ‘scroungers’, etc.

    “This paper will examine critiques of work and workerism from anarchist, autonomist, and feminist writers and identify theoretical currents that conceptualize disabled people’s liberation as requiring a much more fundamental rejection of the values of capitalism.”

King, Ynestra. [WWW] “The Other Body: Reflections on Difference, Disability, and Identity Politics.” Ms 3.5 (1993): 72-75.

Merithew, Caroline Waldron (2013). “Navigating Body, Class, and Disability in the Life of Agnes Burns Wieck.” Journal of Historical Biography 13: 123-163.

Nocella, Anthony J. (2012). “Defining Eco-Ability: Social Justice and the Intersectionality of Disability, Nonhuman Animals, and Ecology.” Earth, Animal, and Disability Liberation: The Rise of the Eco-Ability Movement. Ed. Anthony J. Nocella, Judy K. C. Bentley, and Janet M. Duncan. Peter Lang, New York: 4-21.

– – – (2009). “Disabling Dis-ability: Re-Building Inclusive Into Social Justice.” Theory in Action 2.1: n.p.

– – – (2008). “Emergence of Disability Pedagogy.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 6.2: 77-94.

Waltz, Mitzi (2007). “Making Room for Difference: An Anarchist Response to Disability.” Fifth Estate 3.4: 9-11.

– – – (2005). “Reading Case Studies of People with Autistic Spectrum Disorders: A Cultural Studies Approach to Issues of Disability Representation.” Disability & Society 20.4: 421-435.

– – – Karin van den Bosch, Hannah Ebben, Lineke van Hal, and Alice Schippers (2015). “Autism Self-Advocacy in the Netherlands: Past, Present and Future.” Disability & Society 30.8: 1174-1191.