Puar's intervention is uncomfortable for disability studies insofar as she challenges the ways wherein the sector of inquiry reproduces disability as an oppressed identification and an aggrieved subject enacted via "wounded attachments" (Puar 2012, 157). Puar's venture of rethinking disability is to move from disability to debility, not with the intention to "disavow the essential political positive factors enabled by incapacity activists globally, however to ask a deconstruction of what means and capacity imply, affective and in any other case, and to push for a broader politics of debility that destabilizes the seamless production of abled-bodies in relation to incapacity" (166). In doing so, Puar asks: "How would our political landscape rework if it actively decentered the sustained reproduction and proliferation of the grieving topic, opening as a substitute toward an affective politics, attentive to ecologies of sensation and switchpoints of bodily capacities, to habituations and unhabituations, to tendencies, a number of temporalities, and becomings?" (157). Puar thus requires a non-anthropocentric affective politics that strikes us away from exceptional aggrieved human subjects whose harm will be converted into cultural capital. In one thing akin to creating constellations, Puar moves us away from pondering via binaries of abled/disabled and reframes this relationship in terms of debility and capability to attend to changes inside capitalism.
Also visit my website; chapmanbrogaard20.wordpress.com