Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T06:52:40.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Situating Disability in the Anthropology of the Middle East

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2019

Christine Sargent*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colo.; e-mail: christine.sargent@ucdenver.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Roundtable
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

“If society doesn't provide affordable options for our children,” explained Umm Fadi,Footnote 1 the mother of a teenage boy with Down Syndrome named Fadi, “then they stay at home.” “And in the end,” she added, “the whole family becomes disabled” (muʿāq). Umm Fadi's statement reinforces a central tenet of the prevailing social model of disability, a cornerstone of rights and policy development around the world. This model situates disability as the consequence of systemic exclusion and discrimination rather than individual bodily impairment. The anthropology of disability is an emerging field based on the premise that divergent bodies and minds are fundamental aspects of human difference and social life.Footnote 2 Inevitably, difference is lived and made meaningful through the regimes of embodied knowledge and power that operate in a given historical moment.

Historians and scholars of religion have led the charge to integrate disability into Middle East studies. Archival sources reveal diverse experiences and conceptualizations of embodied difference, attesting to the historical specificity of disability. In my research on cognitive disability in contemporary Amman, accounting for specificity raised different challenges. Ammanis have embraced the social model, which relies on universalizing tenets of liberal humanism to naturalize its own assumptions about bodies, relations, and politics. As an anthropologist, however, I remain attentive to the contingent assemblages of materials, qualities, and relations that produce the body and the social as seemingly stable categories.Footnote 3 To fully grasp what Umm Fadi's words reveal about disability in Jordan, I consider how local models of personhood and relationality shape understandings of self and society. These configurations weave together sedimented practices of kinship, religion, law, and economy with newer mediating forces of transnational NGOs, social media platforms, and biomedical or therapeutic regimes.

Umm Fadi's statement distributes disability across kin, and her schema informs my contributions to this roundtable. First, I argue that disability emerges through the social institutions and historical memories that shape everyday realities of care.Footnote 4 Recognizing care as an ethnographic practice and a theoretical framework, my data suggests that for many Ammanis, disability rights and justice remain closely wedded to normative structures and values of kinship. In turn, this allows me to theorize how kinship adapts and endures as a mode of politics and a means for crafting subjectivity in Jordan today. Second, and reciprocally, an ethnographic focus on disability, as negotiated through networks of care, calls attention to processes of creating and undoing personhood. An anthropology of disability sheds light on the ways that care, love, risk, and harm comingle with the uneven structures of neoliberal development and economic insecurity that pervade everyday life in the contemporary Middle East.

Fadi's mother, father, and older siblings worked together to understand and meet his needs. Despite their high levels of education, income, and social capital, unpredictable frustrations often left them scrambling for resources. Webs of institutional bureaucracy, prohibitive private sector prices, and YouTube information overload represent only some aspects of Amman's shifting disability landscape, which can overwhelm even the most privileged of families. New laws align with the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, early intervention services are available, and biomedical procedures can ameliorate the secondary complications that contribute to mortality rates among disabled infants. Many families, however, described the law as “ink on paper.” Services remain concentrated in the country's urban core, and parents must possess both financial and cultural capital to harness these potentially life-changing developments.

Given the lack of reliable, accessible infrastructures for supporting disabled children and adults in Jordan, especially those with cognitive disabilities, the protection of rights and provision of services remain deeply embedded in family networks and energies. The parents, siblings, professionals, and activists I met during my research articulated developmentalist narratives of culture and progressFootnote 5 that reinforced, even as they sought to criticize, the persistence of disability stigma across Jordan. They described the past as a time of ignorance and neglect, when families hid disabled children at home to prevent the threat of social contamination. The present, in turn, offered unparalleled opportunities for promoting awareness and actualizing change. Yet these boundaries remained porous, and I found that the image of a disabled child, hidden at home and restrained against their will, continues to symbolize the stakes of disability in Jordan today.

In this moral framework, disability and the failure or success of care become diagnostic of familial, educational, and religious commitment. These domains play critical roles in the contested visions of development and modernity that dominate public discourse and personal identities in Jordan and across the region.Footnote 6 Disability-as-human-rights movements provide energy and connections for enterprising organizations and individuals fighting to address the isolation and marginalization of disabled people. Yet I often found myself, along with the parents who were my primary interlocutors,Footnote 7 provincializing the epistemology and political economy of dominant disability theory and politics. These remain tied to their conditions of production in secular, democratic polities. The very conceptual architecture of disability changes as it becomes locally embedded, raising questions about the relationships between disability, liberalism, cultural relativism, and global inequalities.

My ethnographic focus on disability opened new windows for tracing enactments of kinship, embodiment, and personhood in a context where marriage plays a pivotal role in defining the boundaries of legitimacy for families and persons. As economic and social factors affect marriage patterns and rituals across the region, proliferating discourses of societal and gender crises attest to these deeply intimate and intimately political dimensions.Footnote 8 Uncertainties of cognitive disability become especially salient in this context. Across ethnic and class boundaries, participants in my project agreed that given the high stakes of marriage—a system for generating social security and standing—the stigma of disability was inextricably linked to fears about the marital prospects of siblings and cousins. In fact, they argued, any health condition capable of generating etiological uncertainties could potentially endanger a family's marital status.

The uptake of diagnostic and assisted reproductive technologies across the region shows that historical models for tracing family identity and origins can accommodate biogenetic concepts and materials with considerable ease.Footnote 9 These models have not diminished with the rise of biogenetics; fears surrounding the transmission of disability persist. On the one hand, some parents pointed to the open-endedness of scientific knowledge, reasoning that certain conditions may indeed pass from parent to child in ways that science has yet to discover. Others, however, spoke to more deeply held convictions that the qualities and histories flowing through family lineages and from mother to child cannot be reduced to biogenetics alone.

Applying the lens of disability to family life also illuminates how particular aspects of bodily and cognitive capacity are central to achieving adult personhood. Adult status, in turn, remains intimately tied to the realization of certain roles and obligations within kinship networks. Increasingly, it also cannot be separated from capitalist hierarchies of labor that effectively parse different kinds of persons. Most young people in Jordan envision—or begrudgingly accept—marriage as a key, transitional life moment. And from a material standpoint, young people today cannot afford to get married without family contributions. In reality, of course, marriage is neither inevitable nor permanent. Its importance to achieving adult status, however, presents challenges for disabled individuals. Umm Firas, for example, explained that she could not imagine practically or financially supporting her adult son with Down Syndrome and his spouse, were he to marry. For Firas, the inability to work and inability to marry intertwined. Less at issue was the nature of his cognitive difference than the costs of marriage and structural barriers that prevented him from achieving a degree of financial self-sufficiency. Deeply invested in her son, Umm Firas continued to reject his desire to marry and create his own form of adult personhood.

Ultimately, a disability-centered anthropology of the Middle East asks how normative and non-normative bodymindsFootnote 10 come to matter through competing regimes of value and risk.Footnote 11 Disability in contemporary Jordan scales up to debates about national identity and progress and scales down into the most intimate aspects of human embodiment and interdependence. The phenomenological and political dimensions of embodied difference continue to generate provocative conversations across Jordan's public domains and within families about identities, tradition, and the means and meanings of social change.

References

NOTES

Author's note: Many thanks to the families and individuals who made my project possible, and to the generous colleagues—Geoffrey Hughes, Nama Khalil, Susan MacDougall, Ana Vinea, Rayya El Zein, and Tyler Zoanni—who helped me think through this piece.

1 These pseudonyms employ the kunyeh formula commonly used by my interlocutors.

2 Ginsburg, Faye and Rapp, Rayna, “Disability Worlds,” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (2013): 5368CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kasnitz, Devva and Shuttlesworth, Russell, “Introduction: Anthropology in Disability Studies,” Disability Studies Quarterly 21 (2001): 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 This point builds on Elizabeth Roberts’ critical approach to biosociality in Ecuador. See Roberts, , “Biology, Sociality and Reproductive Modernity in Ecuadorian In-Vitro Fertilization: The Particulars of Place,” in Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences: <aking Biologies and Identities, ed. Gibbon, Sahra and Novas, Carlos (New York: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar.

4 I draw here from critical, feminist, and anthropological perspectives on care. For an overview, see Buch, Alana, “Anthropology of Aging and Care,” Annual Review of Anthropology 44 (2015): 7793CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Mayssoun Sukarieh analyzes these dynamics in The Hope Crusades: Culturalism and Reform in the Arab World,” Political and Legal Anthropology Review 35 (2012): 115–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Adely, Fida, Gendered Paradoxes: Educating Jordanian Women in Nation, Faith, and Progress (Chicago: University of Chiago Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hasso, Frances H., “Empowering Governmentalities Rather than Women: The Arab Human Development Report 2005 and Western Development Logics,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 41 (2009): 6382CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Jordan's disability activists partake in transnational human rights campaigns and development projects. They are conversant in international and domestic disability law and work to close the gaps between law and practice. Many activists have bodily impairments and are employed by the government, Disabled Persons Organizations (DPOs), or NGOs. Most of my interlocutors, however, did not belong to these networks, identifying as concerned parents and caregivers.

8 Hasso, Frances H., Consuming Desires: Family Crisis and the State in the Middle East (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Hughes, Geoffrey, “Infrastructures of Legitimacy: The Political Lives of Marriage Contracts in Jordan,” American Ethnologist 42 (2015): 279–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Two recent examples are Inhorn, Marcia C. and Tremayne, Soraya, “Islam, Assisted Reproduction, and the Bioethical Aftermath,” Journal of Religion and Health 55 (2016): 422–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Samin, Nadav, Of Sand or Soil: Genealogy and Tribal Belonging in Saudi Arabia (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

10 Hall., Kim Q.New Conversations in Feminist Disability Studies: Feminism, Philosophy, and Borders,” Hypatia 30 (2015): 112CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Friedner, Michele, Valuing Deaf Worlds in Urban India (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2015)Google Scholar on deafness in urban India, Nakamura, Karen, A Disability of the Soul: An Ethnography of Schizophrenia and Mental Illness in Contemporary Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2013)Google Scholar on mental illness in Japan, and McKearney, Patrick and Zoanni, Tyler, “Introduction: For an Anthropology of Cognitive Disability,” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 36 (2018): 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.