• Do not use wikipedia.

• Make sure that you reference all of your sources correctly.

TASK 1 (worth 30%)
Write (in your own words) a definition of POPULAR (or common-sense) understandings of each of the following terms. You may consult a dictionary if necessary but do not reproduce dictionary definitions. Maximum 100 words per definition.
1) power
2) normal
3) abnormal
4) disability

(The aim of this task is to develop a clear sense of the popular understandings of the terms that the course sets out to critically interrogate and/or deconstruct).

Task 2 (worth 30%)
Write (in your own words) a short critique of the common-sense or popular understanding of each of the terms listed in task 1. Maximum 100 words per critique.

TASK 3 (worth 40%)

Critically analyse ONE of the essential or extension readings from weeks 1 – 5 of the course – you can choose whichever reading you want. You should write approximately 500 words.

Use the questions listed below to guide you in your analysis. You do not necessarily need to answer every question – it is up to you to decide which questions are pertinent to the piece you are analysing.

Think of this as a close-reading or comprehension exercise designed to enable you to develop a thorough understanding of the work of a particular critical theorist. (Please read the “further instructions” before you begin this exercise).

• What is the major point or points that the author seems to be making?

• How does s/he seem to be framing his/her analysis? (eg what critical concepts/theoretical frameworks does s/he employ?)

• Does the author support (or substantiate) his/her claims? If so, how? If not, why not? Does a lack of substantiation make the argument unconvincing or at least debatable?

• What are some of the (implicit) assumptions that inform the author’s claims and/or overall position? Are these assumptions problematic? If so, why?

• Does the author use examples, or anecdotes to illustrate her/his argument? What is the effect of using particular examples? Do some examples/anecdotes function polemically or rhetorically? Are they highly emotive? Do they appear to be objective and rational? If so, how does this effect your evaluation of the argument?

• What are the implications of the position taken by the author?

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument?

• Is it possible to accept some of the claims made by the author without drawing the same conclusions?
FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

* At the top of your critical analysis please write the title of the paper you are discussing, the name of the author, and publication details.
* Proper references are required: page numbers must be given for direct quotes.
* Express points in your own words as much as possible (with expressions creatively different from the original, but still capturing their sense and power) – this increases the value of the work. There is no need to consult further readings or lecture notes, and no need to compare different articles. The point is to articulate the significant points made by the author (but in your own words) rather than to explore your own thoughts (leave this for the final essay).

Readings:

Week 2 – * Perron, A., Fluet, C. Holmes, D. (2004) "Agents of care and agents of the state: bio-power and nursing practice" Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(5) pp.536-44

* Landsman, Gail (2009) "Chapter Two: Doing everything right: choice, control and mother blame" pp.15-49 from Reconstructing motherhood and disability in the age of ‘perfect babies’, London, Routledge

Week 3- * Davis, Lennard (1995) “Constructing Normalcy”, in Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body, New York: Verso

* Dreger, A. (1998) "The limits of individuality: ritual and sacrifice in the lives and medical treatment of conjoined twins" Studies in the history and philosophy of biology and biomedical science 29(1) 1-29

Week 4 – * Goodley, Dan (2011) "Introduction: Global Disability Studies", Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction, London: Sage, pp.1-21.

* Longmore, paul (1997) "Conspicuous Contribution and American Cultural Dilemma: Telethon Rituals of Cleansing and Renewal’ The Body and Physical Difference: Discourses of Disability (eds) David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder (eds) Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 134-158

Week 5- * Snyder, S. L. & D. Mitchell (2002) “Out of the Ashes of Eugenics: Diagnostic Regimes in the United States and the Making of a Disability Minority”, Patterns of Prejudice, 36:1.

* Novas, Carlos and Nikolas Rose (2000) “Genetic Risk and the Birth of the Somatic Individual”, Economy and Society, 29:4.