This is a book that I had a general sense of already from how people I know talk about its concepts— crip time, cripping composition, etc. for example. I am friends with lots of people who read and work in disability studies, some of whom identify as disabled and some of whom do not (that I know of), but I haven’t done much reading in the field myself, so most of my knowledge is second-hand (third-hand?). So, while many of the concepts in this book were already familiar to me, I was very glad to read this book and encounter them directly myself.
Crip theory is similar to queer theory like compulsory able-bodiedness is similar to compulsory heterosexuality— one of the arguments of the book is that both fields and experiences of oppression have a lot in common. This is partially because homosexuality used to be classified as a disease, or disability, or symptom of some other mental disability/deficit. So some of their respective histories is actually the same history. But McRuer also shows how many liberation movements make their arguments by distancing themselves from others— the disabled. For example, in Imagining Transgender, David Valentine talks about how homophile organizations argued for homosexual rights based on the premise that homosexuals are normal, that there is nothing wrong with us, and that gender nonconformity (which implicitly is something abnormal/wrong) is not an inherent part of homosexuality. This line of reasoning led to homosexuality being deleted from the DSM, but also to the creation of gender identity disorder. We can also see this in the women’s movement and in the civil rights movement— arguments (which are true!) that women and people of color are no less mentally/emotionally/physically capable than men and white people. But these arguments are still based on certain values/standards of ability. They’re also similar in that perfect heterosexuality or perfect gender and perfect able bodiedness are impossible ideals, so society develops cultural mechanisms with which to defend the categories and do maintenance on the boundaries.
Crip time is the idea that there is no length of time that a given task “ought” to take, because different people’s bodyminds are capable of doing things at different rates! It takes me longer to write a first draft than it takes other people. I run out of social/emotional steam faster than other people. But I’m also fast at reading and math. Some people need more sleep to function at their best/happiest than other people do. That sort of thing.
An emphasis on efficiency and there being something Wrong if you take longer on a task than someone else might (what the “standard” is) comes from capitalism. Capitalism always needs to grow, needs to not only generate profit but generate MORE profit, so efficiency is key. If you can hire someone for the same price who does the job faster, you hire the other person. McRuer approaches a materialist analysis, following the work of John D’Emilio in “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” but whereas D’Emilio diagnoses capitalism as the problem, the root source of homophobia, McRuer doesn’t take his own analysis that far. Instead, he says we need “alternate systems” or ways of being. Which isn’t wrong or contradictory to D’Emilio, but it implies a much more reformist solution to the problem. The necessary alternate systems require overthrowing capitalism. They cannot exist on any widespread scale at the same time. If we make a perfectly accessible university, it’s still only a perfectly accessible university— not a perfectly accessible world. To make everything perfectly accessible would require eliminating the profit/efficiency motive, which means eliminating capitalism.
Another section I found very thought provoking is the discussion around pages 36 and 37 about “what if nondisabled people identify as crips” and appropriation. McRuer’s treatment of identification and appropriation in relation to disability is very different than the discussions on these issues I’ve seen in other areas— in relation to queerness and race, for example. Essentially, there is nothing inherently wrong with identifying as crip if you are nondisabled, but it is unlikely to happen in part because identifying as crip is a political commitment. By aligning yourself with the community, you need to be continually and actively refusing and challenging able-bodied privileges and procedures. You can be disabled and not identify with crip, too, because some disabled people may not be interested in participating in disability rights efforts. (This relates to the complicated discussion of people wanting medical treatment for various things but also rejecting the notion that there is anything wrong with them. People’s relationships with the medical model of disability are complicated and I don’t fully understand all of the distinctions between the medical model and the social model and what the social model has to say about medicine.)
This reminds me of a conversation I had with Ruth Osorio about “neurodivergent.” At the time, she had recently begun identifying as neurodivergent, and I asked her what that meant to her/what kinds of things she sees as “counting” as neurodivergent vs. not. One thing she said was that she views a neurodivergent identity as a political commitment to fighting for the wellbeing and rights of everyone in the neurodivergent community— as a term, it has a function as a banner to collect people for political organizing, much like Pan-Africanism and Pan-Indian organizing and “queer.” So, if you have two people with the same diagnosis, one may consider themselves neurodivergent and the other may not. Just like whether or not someone considers themselves “disabled” or "a survivor” varies.
Another part that kind of blew my mind was the discussion of efficiency studies and home economics. I had always thought home economics was some made up bullshit term to make it sound like “how to be a good wife” was a legitimate thing to teach/study in school, because patriarchy. And that’s sort of true, except because capitalism. As the spheres of home and work were increasingly separated, workplace efficiency became a new science, but so did the study of how to optimize homemaking. So, home economics really was a realm of social science, and helped create the notion of What a Good White Middle Class Wife Should Be. (Not going to go down the sidetrack of Engels’s theorizations of capitalism and the family right now, but it’s totally relevant.) But this means that there are ways the home Should Be Run and how things at home Should Be Done. And it makes me think of the modern dilemma, not unique to millennials but certainly widespread among my generation:
In a world where it’s no longer possible for a couple to live a middle class lifestyle on one income, each individual has to work while also living up to impossible standards in every other area of their life— standards that previously, the non wage-earner took care of. So, I’m supposed to be successful at my career and work 40 hours per week or else I’m lazy, but I’m also supposed to go to the gym to stay sexy and fit and cook homemade meals to be healthy and fiscally responsible, and keep my apartment super clean, and be a good friend and invest the right amount of time into my relationship and on and on and on. And I don’t even have kids. There are literally not enough hours in the day for people to do all of this on their own, even if the chores are split between two people. Those who achieve everything are outsourcing it to hired help— most often women of color. So, the standards for compulsory able-bodiedness— in this case, “Everything I would be able to do if only I had my shit together and wasn’t Somehow Wrong” — are impossible for even the most able-bodied people on their own. So this situation is just one end of the spectrum for all other levels of ability/disability. It’s already impossible, and an acceleration of standards for what an individual ought to achieve, but for disabled people, it’s even more impossible, which then casts disabled people as even more failed/flawed/broken/wrong/inadequate.
So, in short, I liked this book a lot but also all the actual solutions to compulsory able bodiedness require overthrowing capitalism. Everything else is either localized so it leaves people out, temporary, or a nice reform that does in fact make things better for people, but hasn’t actually solved the problem.