Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft|Austrian Journal of Historical Studies (OeZG); Monika Baar (Fiesole/Firenze) and Elisa Heinrich (Fiesole/Firenze/Vienna) (Web)

Proposals by: 15.11.2025

For decades, the perception of persons with disabilities has been dominated by the so-called medical or individualistic model, which defines disability according to biomedical and genetic paradigms and in contrast to ‘healthy’ and ‘functioning’ bodies and minds. Strongly building on the disability rights movement, the social model of disability developed from the 1970s onwards, based on the idea that people are more disabled by the societies in which they live rather than by their bodies, their physical/mental conditions, or diagnoses. (Shakespeare, Tom. 2006. “The Social Model of Disability.”) In this framework, scholars were also able to develop critical perspectives on society as a whole and especially on those who benefit from excluding and marginalising others. Starting in the 1990s, cultural studies perspectives became significant in disability studies, challenging notions of disability as well as ability (meaning normalcy, health, workability, etc.) as relating to and constantly referencing each other and, in general, emphasizing both as being socially constructed categories of power. (Snyder, Sharon L., and David T. Mitchell. 2005. Cultural Locations of Disability.) While all these models and perspectives are ideal types and thus have their limitations, they have allowed for more conscious and systematic engagement with the subject.
In many respects, disability studies have similarities to gender as well as queer studies. In all these fields, the main impetus for academic research and debate originated from social movements, whose protagonists had regularly also acted as knowledge producers. They were often the first to conduct research and write about their experiences, marginalization, and structural discrimination from the perspective of those concerned. This interconnection between political and epistemic practices has therefore been a critical issue in gender, queer and disability studies. It has also been one of the reasons why these fields have been (and are again recently) questioned, particularly often as being not credible, legitimate, or scientific. In addition, similarities and intersections exist between the concept of disability and race, ethnicity, class, religion and citizenship status (e.g. displacement). Continue reading →