Reading Disability through DHM: Politicization and Historicization of Difference

To take a step toward a materialist conceptualization of disability, I refuse to disarticulate culture from hegemony, reduce all political issues into cultural ones, or convert culture into a private matter (Bannerji, 1995). As Nirmala Erevelles argues, we can theorize a disabled body only if we situate it within the historical conditions that constitute its material reality (2011), which means following the Marxist methodology of DHM. In The German Ideology (Marx & Engels, [1932], 1998), the foundational conception of DHM was set and constituted as a new method of social inquiry and of recording history. By understanding the material conditions of humans through history, Marx argued, human beings can come to understand their current social and political conditions. Marx criticized Hegel for "mystifying" social relations (Bannerji, 2015). For instance, Hegel gave an independent existence to the 'state', while Marx believed the state is just made up of people (Tucker, 1978). He developed DHM as a way to de-mystify human relations and understand history as a result of "sensuous activity of [hu]man[s]" (Marx & Engels, [1932], 1998, p.25). Marx believed that capitalism reduced all human/social relations to material relations of commodity production and exchange, despite any appearance that such relations might be intimate or personal.

Bannerji (1995, p. 18, 19) reveals that Marx perceived the distinction between "a sense of self or being, and the world that being inhabits" as wrong. Marx disagreed with both idealists and materialists, even though they each insisted that they respectively constituted independent separate approaches. On the one hand, idealists had mastered the "theorization of cultural self, of the sense and imaginative cultural beings" (Bannerji, 1995, p. 18). On the other hand, the materialists theorized the world as constitutive of "organizations or structures." Marx's project was a combination of the two stances. For Marx 4 "the project consists of an introjective and constitutive theorizing of the two moments—of the self or consciousness as being in and of the world, and of the world as history and structures made by the self with forms of consciousness" (Bannerji, 1995, p. 19). In other words, Marx argued that humans (as material and cultural selves) make history and structures of their world with forms of consciousness extended from the past. Here, the use of the word, "introjective," refers to the unity of the self and consciousness, meaning they affect, adopt, and constitute each other as two components in one relationship. As such, Marx's understanding of self and consciousness did not involve a "dichotomy between the two." Instead he theorized them as a unity—constituted by two components that are inseparable from each other. Marx, as he argues in the Theses on Feuerbach, believed that knowledge is not separate/separable from the physical body, and therefore not separate/separable from the material world (Marx, [1845], 1976). Marx according to his own words was out to change the world rather, not just interpret it ([1845], 1976). In formulating the approach of DHM, he developed a new knowledge adequate for creating change "with a centrally-situated agent or subject, without whom no transformative politics would be possible" (Bannerji, 1995, p.19).

From the standpoint of Marxist disability scholarship, the task is to use DHM to present a dialectical and reflexive understanding of disability, difference, subjectivity, and agency. The key in understanding DHM, and using it, is to understand everything as it relates to history and social structures, such as class and capital. This understanding includes social relations such as imperialism and social organizations such as slavery and colonialism. Unlike poststructuralists and postmodernists, for whom "experience" and "identity" are the ultimate destination around which they revolve and mobilize (Bannerji, 2000), I use the experience of the Iranian and Kurdish veterans of the Iran-Iraq war only as an entry point. This entry point manifests how and why that particular experience has been socially and politically organized in the way it has.

DHM helps to connect the personal experience to a much bigger picture comprised of the social organization of relations. Viewed from another angle, it also helps us understand how that bigger picture determines that specific experience in the first place. As such, DHM is useful because it grants us the necessary tools to draw the links between one story of disablement to the war, and from there to a larger organization/structure 5 of social relations that have caused war in the first place. By causing war, I do not mean just the particular action of initiating military hostilities; rather, I am referring the entire process that predated the Iran-Iraq war, started it, and prolonged it for eight years.

DHM theorists of disability argue that the social construction of the disabled body emerges from "the specific ways in which society organizes its basic material activities (work, transport, leisure, domestic activities)" (Gleeson, 1997, p.194). Historical materialism presupposes that labor is the core organizing force in history, for humans through their relationship to labor and within historical contexts "produce" their lives versus "just living their lives" (Erevelles, 1998, 2011). Historical materialism presents the ability to map out the dialectical relationship of individuals to social structures as determined by their locations in the social division of labor. In turn, the social division of labor is determined by the social organization of the economy within specific historical contexts (Erevelles, 1998).

To use Marxist theory, it is necessary to give central attention to the capitalist social relations that dominate the world economic system. The Marxist framework sheds light on the ways in which the capitalist economy survives the worst depressions and recessions through its enormous flexibility to accommodate various shapes and means of profitmaking (Harvey, 2004). This happens through the regeneration of resources via stealing (dispossessing) them from the global south, and redistribution of resources through preservation of class-hierarchy at home (Harvey, 2004; O'connor, 2010). Within this context, how is the disability of Iranian survivors produced and sustained with respect to their location in the social division of labor? Additionally, how have their race, ethnicity, and class determined their particular marginality? Perhaps it should be considered whether their location in the social division of labor has determined their disability, rather than the reverse (Erevelles, 1998, 2011).

In the Iranian context of 1980, the younger generation who volunteered for frontline combat were mostly from working class, poor, and uneducated families who were either underemployed or unemployed right after the 1979 revolution (Ghamari-Tabrizi, 2009). This is not a phenomenon specific to "third world" countries; even in North America many young people join the military because they want to have a job, a solid income, and perhaps change their socio-economic status/class. As such, it is important to note that sometimes people go to war and become disabled only because their initial intention was to have a secure employment. Thus, their disability is generated by their need to economically survive. This is a clear indicator that disability is connected to economic and social relations.

At the same time, we need to pay attention to how war is a necessity for capitalist and imperialist states. First of all, we need to look at every phenomenon in its own historical context. Marx's science is not transhistorical. For instance, we know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius; we also know that this never changes, no matter in which historical era we try to boil it. However, social relations such as capitalism are extremely historically specific, meaning they result according to their circumstances and pre-existing conditions.

After historicity and the significance of understanding every relation and phenomenon in its own historical context, the most important step in grasping the dialectical conceptualization is the relation between preconditions and results. With this concept, Marx emphasizes that certain preconditions set the stage for the rest of a process to emerge. This is not the same as expecting certain pre-ordained results, according to some religions or metaphysical ideology. What Marx means, according to Allman, is that "preconditions…lay the foundations for and…develop into specific results. Certain results, in turn, become the preconditions for more highly developed, more complex, results" (2007, p. 5). Marx invites us to pay attention to the pre-existing attributes of different processes and relations in order to understand why and how they result in their eventual consequence. For example, for this project, there are two key pre-existing attributes to consider: ideology and class. These two are the pre-existing attributes for all three relations that we discuss here: nationalism, capitalism, and imperialism. All are embedded in class-based societies and ideological foundations.

Marx avoids categorizational and linear thinking; instead, his unique paradigm of critical thought is based on internal relations. Marx's thinking is based on the pillars of internal contradictions. Categorizational thinking is based on distinction(s) between different categories, such as different animals and plants, but is insufficient for studying a phenomenon in relation to another phenomenon. In such a case we might have to invoke Marx's dialectical thinking, for it reminds us that social relations should be studied relationally as opposed to categorically (Allman, 2007).

Dialectics in Data Analysis

In this study, I did not just look for causality or correlations. Instead, to stay true to the Marxist method of inquiry, I went beyond what is apparent and examined my data dialectically. Marx believed that phenomena are 'processes' rather than discreet 'things' and that every phenomenon is mediated by relations and forms of consciousness in extended circumstances from the past. I adopted this way of thinking, dialectically examining what constitutes reality at any given time and space, and throughout the study. I tried to convince the reader to shift from binary, oppositional, and linear thinking to dialectical thinking and historical materialist understandings of contemporary social relations (Allman, 1999). While immersed in the collected data, I discovered several relations and processes as a way of analyzing data deductively according to an existing framework (DHM). Thus, I used both inductive (allowing dialectical relationships and processes to emerge from the data) and deductive analysis (relying on previous analytical categories, DHM reading, and engaging global politics accordingly).

In the figure below, violence of war is examined through the DHM lens, meaning it is considered as a relation and a process rather than an event, thing, or phenomenon. It then makes the transition to the final result, which according to DHM is called form. How violence creates disability is a mediation that leads to a form called disability. In the figure below, the small circles around violence represent the preexisting conditions that cause violence. In order to prevent violence, it is necessary to step back and first abolish the preexisting conditions that cause violence. For instance, if poverty causes disability, then we have to go beyond fighting poverty to understand what kind of a socio-economic system requires poverty to sustain itself? This forces us to think about distributing wealth equally so as to ensure that one person's poverty does not lead to another's enrichment. The historical circumstances extended from the past should be changed, not just the apparent violence.

Step One: A Priori Specification of Constructs and Defining them Using Evidence from the Case Study

Eisenhardt (1989) argues that a priori specification of constructs is useful in designing and conducting theory-building research. She posits that the specification of constructs has not been common in theory-building so far; however, she finds it worthy because it allows researchers to determine/define/measure constructs more accurately. Additionally, Eisenhardt argues the theory-building process is intimately intertwined with material evidence collected in the case study. If theory building is done properly, the actual evidence will be a direct response to the emerging theory and vice versa. This means that the theory will in all likelihood mirror reality (1989). Translating this step from theory-building into action requires presenting the questions that guided the case study in order to start hypothesizing about features of the first aspect (i.e., disability caused by war) of the new disability theory. The questions are: How do social/economic relations mediate mechanisms of disability production, such as war? What produced and sustained disability/injury in the disabled Iranian and Kurdish populations?

The case study analysis signified the role of several crucial factors and relations which, through two processes, resulted in death and disablement for hundreds of thousands of people. In the theory-building process, we should translate those components to the theoretical constructs upon which one important aspect of our new theory will stand. These important constructs are: Dialectical historicity (pre-existing conditions leading to unavoidable forms), class, nation-state, violence of capital (or capitalist relations) along with other violent social relations (such as imperialism, nationalism, patriarchy), and ideology. Let's define these theoretical constructs as well as present the evidence from the case study analysis that supports their existence.

Step Two: Sharpening Emerging Theoretical Constructs

Following Eisenhardt, I next moved to sharpen my constructs. This process, she argues, has two parts: 1) "Refining the definition of the construct," and 2) "Building evidence which measures [or determines] the construct in each case." In order to sharpen our constructs, we need to go back to the case study. The DHM analysis of the case study was organized in two parts: (1) 'processes of disablement' that are carried out through (2) 'social relations'. Processes included production of disability, as well as perpetuation of disablement, as a socially organized condition. We unpacked the relations that have produced and sustained disability in the affected Iranian war survivors (i.e., capitalism, imperialism, and nationalism). The case study analysis found that relations carry out processes, and processes, in turn, (re)produce relations.

Step Three: Keep Other Potential Cases in Mind

Following Eisenhardt (1989), building the new theory using the case study, I compared my case study to other similar cases of "production of disability by the violence of exploitative social relations (e.g., capitalism, nationalism, militarism, patriarchy, and imperialism)" to ensure that I still observe a similar frame emerging. Very much like any emerging line of thinking in every field of research, thinking of similar cases that confirm the emerging relations increase the researcher's confidence in the case. For instance, there are children in some parts of the world, such as India, who are put in huge pots right after birth in order to grow up with tilted legs. The perpetrators who do this to children force them to beg on the streets as disabled children in order to provoke people's pity (Srivastava, 2014). This is another case that cannot be explained by the medical or social model of disability because it involves several more factors than just medical treatment/fixing, inaccessible social attitudes, and physical barriers. There is more than a trace of the violence of ideology, capital, state, and class in this case. I conjecture that this case, if properly investigated, can be explained by the TDM.

Furthermore, I observed that the TDM may potentially be able to encompass congenital disabilities if they are created as a result of violence, such as poverty, chemical, or nuclear weapons. In Japan, for example, after more than seventy years, there are still children born with disabilities as a result of the effects of the U.S.' atomic bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Oftedal, 1984). Moreover, nuclear testing and nuclear waste elimination are two other important factors to be considered. One example is the disabilities created in some remote villages in India as a result of people coming in contact with the dumped nuclear waste of France (Patwardhan, 2002). The same thing happens in Canada, when nuclear waste is dumped near Aboriginal reserves (Briarpatch, 2012). In these situations, children have been born with congenital disabilities created, in effect, by colonial and imperialist violence, which the TDM certainly covers. The other possibility is malnourishment of pregnant mothers that could lead to disabilities in the child. This also may potentially be coverable by the TDM, because it is concerned with economic relations—the capitalist system—that cause poverty.

Step Four: Confirming the Emerging Relations

Collecting evidence from the case study, I learned that in addition to the necessity of war for capitalist economies and nationalist states, there are other factors that have bearing on who gets killed/injured and who does not. When a bomb goes off in a war, there are lots of relations involved to make that happen as a material reality. First of all, there is someone, or a class, who invest in manufacturing weapons (social relations of production in the form of human labor); there is a second person or class who buy/sell those weapons (social relations in the form of human consumption); and finally, a person or class who use the weapons (human labor in the form of paid work). Once the pain and injury is inflicted upon a person or class, disability has occurred as (a result of) an embodied experience and a form of consciousness.

Here is how I confirmed the emerging relations: I identified recurring dialectics as the first transposition from empirical to theoretical, which is considered to be the "first inductive gap" (Bendassolli, 2013, p. 9). Secondly, I kept wondering about social, economic, and political relations (e.g. nationalism) and processes (e.g., disablement) behind the phenomena that I investigated by (re)reading every word and (re-)looking at every picture and document, scenes from videos, and even a single sentence in a memoir. I remembered Marx believed that the key into understanding dialectics is always being suspect of how things appear at the first sight. Dig deeper. He developed DHM as a way to de-mystify human relations and understand history as a result of "sensuous activity of [hu]man[s]" (Marx & Engels, 1932/1998, p.25). Conducting this research, I adopted DHM and used it to understand everything as it relates to history and social structures, such as class and capital. This understanding includes social relations such as imperialism and social organizations such as slavery.

Step Five: Conceptualization of A Transnational Disability Theory based on the DHM

The social model of disability has been successful in taking over the global north and their institutions, such as the United Nations. The social model has even tried to globalize itself through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), by advocating for disabled people's rights and benefits as an oppressed group of people (Meyer, 2014). The same logic has never been applied to disabled people in the "third world." They have never been approached by the "rights" and "benefits" discourses, as if their disability is part of the natural state of affairs there. This indicates that a "universal" idea of disablement has abysmally failed, because transnational, local, and international advocacy groups do not fight for equality for disabled people in the "third world." Instead, they just fight for their "survival." Even though good intentions likely motivate the globalizing of DS, it is essential not to assume that we know the problems that disabled people deal with everywhere in the world. For example, the medical model is disfavored by DS scholars here in the "first world," while in Iran, the disabled veterans are in absolute need of proper medical care that is not provided for them.

The social model, on the other hand, is a good prescription but not for every disabled person and every context. I argue that the international disability movement is not a transnational movement because it is stuck between borders, and therefore, nation-states and their approval. Even though the UNCRPD is celebrated as an achievement, it is based on the social model while it has never been concerned with people who become disabled by the violence of transnational capitalism, class, and ideology everywhere in the world. It has especially neglected to focus on disability caused by wars in the "third world," which has been the focus of this project.