With disability studies becoming an increasingly intersecting field, Friedner and Weingarten ask the question "what other alternatives might exist as scholars and activists disorient, divest and diverge from the category of disability?" (2019, p. 486) This focus upon alternatives and contributions to the field from activism is important (Berghs et al, 2019).

The journal begins by asking in the introduction what it means to disorient disability when disability as a category is implicitly disoriented. The editors then turn that question on its head by suggesting that really to understand the ways in which disability is disoriented, what it means to orient disability needs to be unpacked. The intent for this edition of South Atlantic Quarterly is to disorient disability through the use of articles that are not solely tied to disability studies, thus expanding disability studies as a field and reaching new ideas and concepts.

Arguing that we find "disability worlds" (Ginsburg and Rapp, 2013) and disability activism that originates in these worlds, "in many different sites and temporalities" (Dokumaci, 2019, p. 493), Dokumaci asks along with Kafer "where do we as disability studies scholars and activists, continue not to look?" (Dokumaci, 2019, p. 493; see also, Kafer, 2013, p. 149). This focus on uncovered or little understood areas within the field such as chronic pain and invisible disabilities becomes a theme across the journal.

Within the article entitled: 'A theory of microactivist affordances: disability, disorientations and improvisations', Dokumaci explores questions relating to embodiment and existing in an environment that does not acknowledge the needs of certain abilities, body shapes and sizes. Dokumaci argues that the ways in which disabled people disorient things happen through the ways in which they "come up with creative workarounds, invent tools with existing materials, and author highly creative choreographies" (2019, p. 493).

These are what are termed micro activist affordances; these small ways in which people with disabilities find creative ways around ableist products and concepts. Dokumaci defines micro activist affordances as "disabled people's micro, ongoing and (often) ephemeral acts of world-building with which they make the world offer affordances that are otherwise unimaginable" (2019, p. 493).

Moving away from micro activist affordances, we move to Schaffer's article focusing upon care communities.

In the article, Schaffer uses a definition that spans the two previous and polar opposite definitions of care by defining it as "meeting another's need" (2019, p. 525) and specifies that "cared-fors may have needs that differ from their wants" (Schaffer, 2019, p. 525).

Schaffer goes on to qualify that the cared-for could be anyone and that, rather than diagnosing and using labels such as disability, finding the amount of care needed is more focal.

As needs fluctuate, a disabled person may need more help at times than others. Taking the care out of the condition is an insightful thought, though many believe that people with the same disabilities have the same needs which can be erroneous. Whilst people may have the same disability they may not need the same level of care or use the same methods to cope with day to day life.

Moving from care communities to marginalisation, Cassandra Hartblay's fieldwork looked around the ways in which disabled people are marginalised in Russia. The main view was that "Russians with disabilities live segregated lives, isolated on the margins of society - set both spatially and politically apart from the cultural centers of public life" (Hartblay, 2019, p. 544).

Diedrich at the beginning of her article highlights the need to "include disability as an essential component of intersectional analysis" (2019, p. 571). Following this Diedrich goes on to define the term 'double bind' in the context of the issue of the journal: "a double bind might be considered a kind of disorientation device that then potentially engenders new articulation (2019, p. 575). Disorienting disability through intersectionality highlights the diversity within disability and the part that individuality plays.

Shildrick in the article 'neoliberalism and embodied precarity: some crip responses' offers disorientation through a cripqueer lens keeping disability as a central concern. This focus upon crip responses is gaining support with feminist thinkers at the forefront showing how 'cripping the body' can lead to "the potential of escape from disciplinary norms and empty promises" (Shildrick, 2019, p. 607).

The final article by Crosby starts in a different way to the other articles; in the introduction we are told that they authors are not working within the field of disability but in fields that intersect with disability studies.

Crosby approaches disability from a personal place of pain and grief beginning with her own narrative of loss and pain. Detailing the ways in which the environment is ill equipped for wheelchair users and other needs, the journal ends by reinforcing this concept of a disabling environment which was first introduced in the opening article.

From Dokumaci's discussion of affordances; through Schaffer's theories of care; Hartblay's insight into marginalisation; delving deeper with Deidrich's article on double binds and vulnerabilities; through Shildrick's embodied precarity; to Crosby's first-hand experience with grief. Within the journal there is a clear draw of intersectional approaches to disability studies, which enables and prompts the reader to understand a range of disabilities from the perspective of a range of viewpoints, and opens the mind to realities that articulate difference in experience.