ABSTRACT

I find thismodelofanalogyespeciallyuseful, both because of its acknowledgment of the instability of its terms and because of its foregrounding of the issue of visibility as a key component of analogical language. Indeed, when we consider that ‘‘theories and practices of identity and subject formation in Western culture are largely structured around the logic of visibility, whether in the service of science (Victorian physiognomy), psychoanalysis (Lacan’s mirror stage), or philosophy (Foucault’s reading of the Panopticon),’’ it becomes apparent that the speculative or ‘‘invisible’’ has generally functioned as the subordinate term in analogical equations to this date.9

Thus a central premise of this essay is that it behooves us to refocus our endeavors from the visible signs of these identities to their invisible manifestations. The focus on specularity and visible difference that permeates much disability theory creates a dilemma not only for nonvisibly disabled people who wish to enter the conversation but for the overarching concepts of disabilityandnormalization themselves.10Passing, closeting, and coming out become vexed issues that strain at the limitations of the discourse meant to describe them.