Based on the text Disability Theory by Tobin Siebers, the ideology of ability is a pervasive system of belief that establishes able-bodiedness as the preferred state and the baseline for determining humanness, effectively asserting that "the lesser the ability, the lesser the human being". This ideology functions to suture a fundamental contradiction in modern thought: the simultaneous belief that the body is merely a vehicle for the mind and thus irrelevant, and the opposing urgent desire to perfect the body and eliminate death. Within this framework, disability occupies an invisible center, serving as the negative limit against which ability is defined; consequently, the ideology treats disability as an individual defect to be feared and eliminated rather than a common human feature. Its manifestations include the naturalization of technology used by the able-bodied (such as stairs) while stigmatizing assistive devices as burdens, the assumption that able bodies are capable of infinite self-transformation, and the projection of negative psychological traits, such as narcissism and bitterness, onto disabled people.

Tobin Siebers' 'Ideology of Ability'

Kerschbaum draws on Tobin Siebers to define the "ideology of ability" as a "preference for able-bodiedness" that generates a pervasive fear of disability. This ideology acts as a mechanism that constrains identity by enforcing a contradiction: it requires individuals to imagine that "bodies are of no consequence" while they simultaneously dream that they might "perfect them".

State University of New York at Binghamton

- Defining the 'Ideology of Ability'
- The Role of Relationships
- Critique of Current Research

Ideologies of Ableism

Lester, J. N. (Ed.). (2021). Discursive Psychology and Disability. Palgrave Studies in Discursive Psychology. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Reference For: Discursive Psychology and Disability

Defining of 'Ideology of Ability'

The discursive construction of disability is deeply influenced by the relationships between interlocutors, noting that these constructions often shift based on who is present in the interaction. Kerschbaum points to Gabriel and Kelley’s study in chapter 6, observing that the student Ethan used his actual relationships with other dyslexic people to support the portrayal of his own experience. Furthermore, she references Wan’s analysis of Xiao-kun in chapter 7, who constructed "abled-ness" and "disabled-ness" differently regarding her hearing aid—which was associated with shame—versus her cochlear implant. However, Kerschbaum emphasizes that this specific construction was not shared uniformly by the other hard-of-hearing women participating in the conversation.

The Role of Relationships

Kerschbaum notes that interactional analyses of disabled people talking to one another are significantly "rarer than accounts in which disabled people navigate interactions" with service providers or researchers. She cites Stinesen et al. in chapter 4 as an example of the latter, arguing that while such studies are important, researchers must recognize that medical practitioners possess different relationships to disability, power, and "forms of embodiment" than disabled peers, factors which fundamentally inform how these interactions are navigated.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After