Archive for October, 2013

October 31 (Week 11): Rehabilitating the Nation

This week, we will focus on the transatlantic emergence of rehabilitation programs aimed at “restoring” disabled veterans to breadwinner statuses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Rehabilitators, policymakers and, at times, disabled veterans borrowed from each others’ programs and advocacy efforts.

Please use the comment function to post two discussion questions about this week’s readings by Thursday at 2 pm.  Focus on intriguing or controversial points in the readings that you think will spark discussion.  Strong discussion questions are open-ended, engage with major points in author(s)’ arguments, and are not factual in nature.

Please also post one of the following:

  • a short description (1-3 sentences) of your “muddiest point,” that is, what important point of the author’s argument did you have trouble grasping
  • your “most interesting connection” for this week’s reading

If you refer to a specific point or quote in one of the readings, please provide the author and page number.

***

1)     Beth Linker, The War’s Waste: Rehabilitation in World War I America (University of Chicago Press, 2011)

2)     Jennifer Davis McDaid, “‘How a One-Legged Rebel Lives’: Confederate Veterans and Artificial Limbs in Virginia,” in Katherine Ott, David Serlin, and Stephen Mihm, eds., Artificial Parts, Practical Lives: Modern Histories of Prosthetics in America (NYU Press, 2002), pp. 119-143 (MavSpace)

3)     Choose one of the following:

    • Greg Eghigian, “The Regenerative Welfare State: Therapy, Work, and the Birth of Rehabilitation, 1884-1914,” in Making Security Social, Disability, Insurance, and the Birth of the Social Entitlement State in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 117-158 (MavSpace)
    • Seth Koven, “Remembering and Dismemberment: Crippled Children, Wounded Soldiers, and the Great War in Britain,” American Historical Review 99, no. 4 (October 1994): 1167-1202 (MavSpace)
    • Joanna Bourke, “Effeminancy, Ethnicity, and the End of Trauma: The Sufferings of ‘Shell Shocked’ Men in Great Britain and Ireland, 1914-1939,” Journal of Contemporary History 35, no. 1 (2000): 57-69 (MavSpace)

      October 17 (Week 9): Migration and the Costs of Care

      Note: Enabling Disability: Disability Studies at UT Arlington conference happens today, October 17th: 12:30-5:00 pm in Chemistry and Physics Building (CPB) 303

      This week we will continue exploring the impact of industrialization on notions of disability, the “fit citizen” or colonial subject, migration patterns, and experiences of people with disabilities and their families.

      Please use the comment function to post two discussion questions about this week’s readings by Thursday at 2 pm.  Focus on intriguing or controversial points in the readings that you think will spark discussion.  Strong discussion questions are open-ended, engage with major points in author(s)’ arguments, and are not factual in nature.

      Please also post one of the following:

      • a short description (1-3 sentences) of your “muddiest point,” that is, what important point of the author’s argument did you have trouble grasping
      • your “most interesting connection” for this week’s reading

      If you refer to a specific point or quote in one of the readings, please provide the author and page number.

      ***

      READINGS FOR OCTOBER 17

      1)     Julie Livingston, Debility and the Moral Imagination in Botswana (Indiana University Press, 2005)

      2)     Natalia Molina, “Medicalizing the Mexican: Immigration, Race, and Disability in the Early-Twentieth-Century United States,” Radical History Review 94 (Winter 2006): 22-37 (MavSpace)

      October 10 (Week 8): Capitalism and Cultures of Risk and Disability

      This week we will focus on the relationship between disability and the spread of industrial capitalism, as well as the ways in which the disabling effects of industrial workplaces reshaped relationships between the nation-state and individuals.

      Please use the comment function to post two discussion questions about this week’s readings by Thursday at 2 pm.  Focus on intriguing or controversial points in the readings that you think will spark discussion.  Strong discussion questions are open-ended, engage with major points in author(s)’ arguments, and are not factual in nature.

      Reminder: We will also finish discussing the Obregon, Bender, and Carson pieces from last week.

      Please also post one of the following:

      • a short description (1-3 sentences) of your “muddiest point,” that is, what important point of the author’s argument did you have trouble grasping
      • your “most interesting connection” for this week’s reading

      If you refer to a specific point or quote in one of the readings, please provide the author and page number.

      ***

      READINGS FOR OCTOBER 10

      1)     Jamie L. Bronstein, Workplace Accidents and Injured Workers in Nineteenth-Century Britain (2008)

      2)     John Williams-Searle, “Cold Charity: Manhood, Brotherhood, and the Transformation of Disability, 1870-1900,” in The New Disability History, pp. 157-186 (MavSpace)

      3)     Greg Eghigian, “Embodied Entitlement: The Policy, Practice, and Politics of Disability Compensation,” in Making Security Social, Disability, Insurance, and the Birth of the Social Entitlement State in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 67-116 (MavSpace)

      October 3 (Week 7): Fit Citizens? Disability and the Nation-State

      This week we will focus on the relationship between disability and nation-states: how disability has been used to define the character and boundaries of the nation-state and how disability history may shed light on the relevance of the nation-state to transnational history.  We will also look at a more recent historiographic article on the field of disability history.

      Please use the comment function to post two discussion questions about this week’s readings by Thursday at 2 pm.  Focus on intriguing or controversial points in the readings that you think will spark discussion.  Strong discussion questions are open-ended, engage with major points in author(s)’ arguments, and are not factual in nature.

      Please also post one of the following:

      • a short description (1-3 sentences) of your “muddiest point,” that is, what important point of the author’s argument did you have trouble grasping
      • your “most interesting connection” for this week’s reading

      If you refer to a specific point or quote in one of the readings, please provide the author and page number.

      ***

      READINGS FOR OCTOBER 3

      Defining Disability History (Redux)

      1)     David Turner, “Disability History: Looking Forward to a Better Past,” History Workshop Journal 71, no. 1 (2011): 283-287 (MavSpace)


      Quarantining the Nation

      1)     Examples of “ugly laws” from Susan M. Schweik, The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public (New York University Press, 2009), pp. 201-206 (MavSpace)

      2)     Douglas C. Baynton, “Defectives in the Land: Disability and American Immigration Policy, 1882-1924,” Journal of American Ethnic History (Spring 2005): 31-44 (MavSpace)

      3)     Daniel Bender, “Perils of Degeneration: Reform, the Savage Immigrant, and the Survival of the Unfit,” Journal of Social History 42, no. 1 (2008): 5-29 (MavSpace)

      4)     Diana Obregón, “Building National Medicine: Leprosy and Power in Colombia, 1870-1910,” Social History of Medicine 15, no. 1 (2002): 89-108 (MavSpace)

      5)     Sandy Sufian, “Mental Hygiene and Disability in the Zionist Project,” Disability Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (2007) (available at http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/42/42)


      Measuring Citizens

      1)     John Carson, “The Science of Merit and the Merit of Science: Mental Order and Social Order in Early Twentieth-Century France and America,” in States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, ed. Sheila S. Jasanoff (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 181-205 (MavSpace)