Unfolding (of) theories, not programmes (programs?)

Authors

  • Tanmoy Bhattacharya University of Delhi

Keywords:

EOC, linguistics, Disability Studies, Gerund, Nominal

Abstract

I question, provocatively, whether disability studies (DS) as a discipline deserves to be called studies. When a field zeroes in on any claim about ‘realities’, I think, it actually treads on shaky grounds. The general fear of theories necessarily leads to a form of anti-intellectualism that is most often cloaked in an activist’s guise. The question really is how does one release DS from this bondage of pragmatism and practicalities. In this piece, I want to talk about a bit of this and a bit of that, aimlessly. In fact, that is the aim, I think.

Author Biography

Tanmoy Bhattacharya, University of Delhi

Department of Linguistics

Head & Professor

References

Bhattacharya, T. (2018). Being Human, Again, Part 2. neScholar, 4(1), pp. 44-53.

Bhattacharya, T. (2020). Service and Knowledge: The Emergence of Disability Studies Extension. In N. Mehrotra (ed.), Disability Studies in India, Singapore: Springer, pp. 111-132.

Downloads

Published

21.08.2022

How to Cite

Bhattacharya, T. (2022) “Unfolding (of) theories, not programmes (programs?)”, Indian Journal of Critical Disability Studies. Delhi, India, 2(1), pp. 66–71. vailable at: https://jcdsi.org/index.php/injcds/article/view/70 (ccessed: 6 October 2022).