The Irony of Crip Theory and the Academy’s Inaccessibility

-- By AndreaRuedas - 30 Apr 2024

In “Coming Out Crip: Malibu is Burning”, John McRuer deconstructs the origins of crip theory and its manifestation in marginalized identities in specific cultural and geographical locations. Crip theory, as defined by McRuer, is “how bodies and disabilities have been conceived and materialized in multiple cultural locations, and how they might be understood and imaged as forms of resistance to cultural homogenization, it also has a lot to do with self-identified crips in the streets” (2006). Towards the end, McRuer outlines five of the principles of crip theory, of which I am interested in the following:

Demanding … that another world is possible, or that - put differently- an accessible world is possible. “Access,” however, needs to be understood, according to this principle, both very specifically and very broadly, locally, and globally. An accessible world on both levels would of necessity be constructed in opposition to neoliberalism and to …. “cultures of upward distribution”. (McRuer 2006)

While disability studies focus on the literal experiences and oppression against disabled bodies, queer studies is inclusive of other identities which can be disabling in a white, cis-heteronormative society; thus crip theory focuses on the narratives of those who possess one or many of multiple disabling identities, such as would be a “fat, black, queer woman” who is physically disabled and homeless (Schalk, 2013).However, if a principle of crip theory is to create a world where accessibility is always in mind and disability is normalized, contrary to current ableist thought and institutions, then the very medium for this theory, academic research and writing, is inaccessible in itself and runs opposite to its key principles. While reading the article, I struggled to understand its complex writing level and its expansive vocabulary; it made me question, if the purpose of intersectional writing and theory, such as crip or queer theory, is to demand change for those with the most marginalized identities, why does our writing spew of elitism and alienation towards those identities?

According to Martin, academic jargon continues to thrive because it is a tool for control and power; if one knows the jargon it is easier to exert position and credentials over those who don’t (1992). But those who don’t are primarily people of color; for both black and latinx adults, less than 15 percent hold bachelor's degrees or higher (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011; Kim, 2011). Across institutions nationwide, faculty, at its best, is only eight percent of color, which translates into academia being a white-dominated sphere (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011). Those who know the jargon necessary to enter and gain status in an academic field are primarily white which perpetuates systems of inequity in education and continues to bar students of color from entering and dismantling the white supremacy in elite institutions and the academy.

Education is regarded as the “Great Equalizer”, but the academy’s complex jargon and writing makes it difficult for even those who have pursued a higher education or are in the process of, to be able to read, understand, and disperse the theory and research which is supposed to be a catalyst for social change and mobilization. For example, to even be able to begin to understand McRuer’s key principle quoted above, one would have to understand the allusions to theory behind systems of oppression and have a vast academic vocabulary. If one is to demystify the line “‘Access,’ however, needs to be understood, according to this principle, both very specifically and very broadly, locally, and globally” , one has to first define access in the context of marginalized and disabled identities, then consider where access needs further prioritization, Such as in institutions (“broadly”) where there is a need for expansion of policies to always include disabled identities and work against ableism, or in the architectural infrastructure of one’s town hall (“locally”), or in international relations and policies (“globally”) which continue to be Western-centric and are not inclusive of people with nontraditional educations from developing countries. But to be clear, if I hadn't had the privilege of having radical, queer, women and men of color as my life mentors or professors, I would not be able to deconstruct McRuer’s writing and much less apply it to local and global institutions and systems.

McRuer states “in general the term “crip” and the theorizing as to how that term might function have so far been put forward more by crip artists and activists, in multiple locations outside the academy” (2006). He admits that the actual practice of crip theory is often performed by those who are not crip theorists because of the disconnect between the academy and the communities it studies. Crip theorists write with the purpose to dismantle the stigma around disability, to encourage the reclamation of the label “crip”, but in the process of abiding to the academy’s elitist norms, they perpetuate inaccessibility to those who do not understand their writing, who have not shared similar educational backgrounds, and/or who do not care enough about their theory surrounding them because their lives and identities are on the line and writing about how we are crippled does not do enough to end the system crippling us. As I write this, I can’t help but wonder if this is even accessible or if I have myself succumbed to the pressure and perpetuated the alienation caused by unnecessarily complex academic writing.

References

McRuer, Robert. “Coming out Crip: Malibu is Burning”. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. NYU Press, 2006.

Schalk, Sami. "Coming to claim crip: Disidentification with/in disability studies." Disability Studies Quarterly 33.2 (2013).

Kim, Young M. “Minorities in Higher Education”. American Council on Education, 2011.

Martin, Brian. “Secret Passwords at the Gate of Knowledge”. The Australian. September 23, 1992.

“Race and Ethnicity of Full-Time Faculty Members at More Than 4,200 Institutions”. Chronicle of Higher Education. September 25, 2011.