ABSTRACT

The politics of knowledge creation is a critical dimension in the success of any socialmovement.Thecreationofknowledge andmeaning is also implicated inmaintaining structures of control and exclusion. In tracing the emergence of disability studies as part of the disability rights movement, this article will be mindful of these sometimes paradoxical dimensions in the politics of knowledge creation. In any academic offshoot of a social movement, the terms of engagement and debate must adapt to newly perceived articulations of oppressive structures, even if some of those structures are discerned within the movement itself. This article self-reflexively turns the

focus on disability studies to consider the question of why critical disability studies (CDS) is emerging as the preferred nomenclature by many scholars, and whether this constitutes a radical paradigm shift or simply signifies amaturing of the discipline. While the influence of critical theory in disability studies has often been assumed because of its critique of the status quo in

the study of disability, the influence of critical theorists is not always acknowledged. We seek to unpack this complexity in the formulation of CDS. The diversification of critical social theory

that has occurred in recent years has opened up new modes of critical enquiry. Yet there are nevertheless several principles that we feel it is important to maintain and we briefly examine these.We then reviewwhere critical theory has been used in disability research.CDS is still in its infancy, soa review of the literature, as such, is not appropriate, but we intend to draw out instances of scholarly work that we consider reflect some of the major developments in critical theory. Emancipation is a cornerstone of critical theory, so it is inevitable thatCDSalso encapsulates questions of human rights such as those identified in the recent UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that came into force in 2008. This article is selective and is intended to stimulate debate on the meanings and interpretations of CDS, not to provide definitive answers.