Provincializing bodyminds, decolonizing disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In critical disability studies and crip theory, a key intervention has been to challenge Cartesian dualism by using terms such as bodyminds, body-minds, mind/bodies, and other hybrids. While the concept of "bodyminds" integrates physical and cognitive experiences and challenges dualistic thinking, it has been criticized by scholars for prioritizing Eurocentric notions of the mind and subjectivity over other understandings of bodily normality and difference. Drawing on ten years of ethnographic research in Tanzania, this article argues that the concept of "bodyminds" remains rooted in a Eurocentric framework that overlooks the relational and communal understandings of disability prevalent in Tanzania. We build on Sylvia Wynter's critique of “the figure of Man” to show how dominant disability discourses and practices often overemphasize secular and biological definitions of disability, marginalizing alternative ways of being human. Our ethnographic research highlights the diverse and relational experiences of disability among our Tanzanian interlocutors by thinking with Swahili concepts like mitandao ya jamii ” (social relationships), utofauti (difference), and kawaida (normality). We conclude by urging scholars to expand frameworks of bodily non-normativity beyond Eurocentric models and toward a more inclusive comprehension of ideas and experiences of normality and difference globally. • This article deconstructs prevailing Global North definitions of disability. • “Disability” is often a secular, biological term describing individual impairments. • In Tanzania, disability includes the inability to form/maintain social relationships. • Tanzanian experiences of disability are not well captured by terms like “bodyminds.” • Decolonizing “disability” requires a broader recognition of human experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".