| Description |
This dissertation explores how disability studies can critique the prevalence of normalcy in international relations. Since the rise of constructivism, IR scholars use the idea of norms to explain how ideas shape identities, which in turn define interests. Critical constructivists and postcolonial theorists have scrutinized international norms, but I argue that their critiques are insufficient. Disability studies suggests three critiques of norms. First, the norms literature largely overlooks how ableist rhetoric and stereotypes of disabled people play into the spread and contestation of norms. Second, disability studies historicizes the notion of norms. Third, the norms literature often overlooks the importance of quantitative norms in disciplining states and (dis)abled people to spread, change, and/or manage qualitative international norms. Chapters 2 to 4 lay out the literature I engage and critique. Chapters 5 and 6, meanwhile, respectively provide case studies that challenge the International Relations literature and the global-health regime. In the Conclusion, I engage the notion of "cripping" international society to decenter norms and to rearticulate the complexities of international politics. |
