Abstract

This article explores aspects of disability in M.T. Anderson's Feed and Frances Itani's The Deafening through the mechanics of the Phenomenological Theory. The phenomenological approach is defined by a focus on lived experience and subjectivity, with particular attention to how each constructs meaning from their knowledge of disability. In Feed, the characters are cognitively disabled because of a technological impairment in the form of a brain implant that regulates their thoughts, wants, and feelings for them, stripping them of their autonomy and agency. The analysis focuses on how structural aspects of the societal technological systems contribute to this condition of mental disability. In contrast, The Deafening depicts deafness as a socially invalidating disability, such that Grania's situated being was influenced by society's inability to improve access to communication, resulting in her social isolation. Both these works reveal that disability is not a straightforward biological fact; it is a socially reproduced, corporeal experience established through the mediation of external actors. This paper demonstrates the application of phenomenology to the theorisation of disability, examining the factors through which disability is lived and internalised by people in different societal contexts. Therefore, it presents phenomenology as a potentially important avenue for disability studies, as it offers a way to theorise disability.

Keywords

Phenomenology, Disability Studies, Lived Experience, Social Model of Disability, Embodiment,

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Ahmadi, A., Yulianto, B., Khoiri, A.A., Yani, M.T., Jamain, N.B., Yusuf, K., Efendi, A.N., Hariyati, N.R., Savira, S.I. and Khozin, N., (2025). Poetry therapy, disability, and trauma expression: A therapeutic-phenomenological perspective. Journal of Intellectual Disability-Diagnosis and Treatment, 13(3), 335-341.
  2. Anderson, M.T. (2002). Feed. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press https://archive.org/details/feed00ande
  3. Davis, L.J. (Ed.). (2013). The Disability Studies Reader (4th ed.). Routledge, 600. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203077887
  4. Goodley, D. (2024). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.torrossa.com/it/resources/an/5913821
  5. Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2021). Key concerns for critical disability studies. International Journal of Disability and Social Justice, 1(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.13169/intljofdissocjus.1.1.0027
  6. Hammer, S.T., Stutts, L. A. (2025). The impact of disability representation on disability stigma in a general population. Rehabilitation Psychology, 70(4), 365-371. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39760718
  7. Haraway, D. (1985). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York, Routledge, 149-181. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto
  8. Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. George Allen and Unwin ltd London, 465. http://indianculture.gov.in/ideas-general-introduction-pure-phenomenology-0
  9. Itani, F. (2003). The Deafening. Grove Press. https://groveatlantic.com/book/deafening/
  10. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press, 276.https://iupress.org/9780253009227/feminist-queer-crip/
  11. Lane, H. (1992). The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. Knopf.
  12. Lethem, J. (1999). Motherless Brooklyn. NewYork, Doubleday. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL34335M/Motherless_Brooklyn
  13. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge, New York.
  14. Mitchell, D.T., Snyder, S.L. (2000). Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11523
  15. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1
  16. Puar, J.K. (2017). The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability. Duke University Press.
  17. Siebers, T. (2008). Disability and the Politics of Embodiment. University of Michigan Press.
  18. Siebers, T. (2008). Disability Theory. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.309723
  19. ter Haar, A., Hilberink, S. R., & Schippers, A. (2025). Lived Experiences of Public Disability Representations: A Scoping Review. Disabilities, 5(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5020038
  20. Thomson, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. Columbia University Press. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1970304959893887177
  21. Tremain, S. (2017). Foucault and the Feminist Philosophy of Disability. University of Michigan Press.
  22. Ventura, J., Das, S. (2025). Somaesthetic socio-cultural design for disability: Rethinking body marginality. Journal of Somaesthetics and Anthropology, 11(1), 22–41. https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/JOS/article/view/10586
  23. Wilks, R. (2024). Challenging equality law: The deaf legal dilemma. Hart Publishing. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/12875046