Estetiche del corpo invalidato. Il feticismo della disabilità nella società hi-tech e postspettacolare

Journal title SALUTE E SOCIETÀ
Author/s Nello Barile
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/2 Language Italian
Pages 19 P. 11-29 File size 394 KB
DOI 10.3280/SES2020-002002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The essay proposes to examine the process of fetishization of disability from the era of massproduction and society, based on a certain idea of entertainment, to the post-Fordist and postpolarconcept. If in the Fordist view the human body in general and that of the disabled inparticular are gears that fit perfectly into the productive machine, the very evolution of societyhas incorporated the figure of the disabled into the staging, transforming it from a hiddenminority to a mainstream phenomenon . The accusation of reification, of commodificationrefers to an obsolete conception of goods and entertainment that the present system has partlyovercome. The new subsumption of the disabled in the post-polar and neotot system occursthrough the technicalization of the body (in a post-human key), combined with the totalacceptance of neoliberal values that structure a communicative system dominated by globalbrands. The passage from the posthuman to the parahuman, discussed in the literature of theDisability Studies, is only a peaceful attempt at critical reflection and tactical resistancetowards a probably irreversible macrotrend.

Keywords: Disability; spectacle; posthuman; parahuman; brand; neotot.

  1. Abruzzese A. (2010). Un mondo senza racconti e senza miti. In: Caronia A., Tursi A., a cura di, Filosofie di Avatar. Immagini, soggettività, politiche. Milano: Mimesis.
  2. Ahmed N. (2013). Paralympics 2012 legacy: accessible housing and disability equality or inequality?. Disability & Society, 28(1): 129-133. DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2012.73936
  3. Backstein R., Hinek A. (2005). War and Medicine: The origins of plastic surgery. University of Toronto Medical Journal, 82(3): 217-219.
  4. Barile N. (2005). Manuale di sociologia, cultura, comunicazione della moda: Moda e stili. Roma: Meltemi.
  5. Barile N. (2008). La mentalità netototalitaria. Milano: Apogeo.
  6. Barile N. (2017). Branding, Selfbranding, Making: The Neototalitarian Relation Between Spectacle and Prosumers in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism. In: Briziarelli M., Armano E., The Spectacle 2.0. London: University of Westminster Press.
  7. Barile N. (2019). Politica a bassa fedeltà. Populismi, tradimenti dell’elettorato e comunicazione digitale dei leader. Milano: Mondadori università.
  8. Barnes C., Mercer G. (2003). Disability. Cambridge: Polity.
  9. Beck U. (2000). La società del rischio. Roma: Carocci.
  10. Berger R.J. (2013). Introducing disability Studies. Boulder (USA): Lyenne Rienner Publisher.
  11. Codeluppi V. (2007). La vetrinizzazione sociale. Il processo di spettacolarizzazione degli individui e della società. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Davis L.J. (2005). Why Disability Studies Matters. Inside higher ed, 21 febbraio 2005. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/02/21/why-disability-studiesmatters (23/01/2020).
  12. Debord G. (1970). The Society of the Spectacle, traduzione di Fredy Perlman e Jon Supak. Detroit: Black & Red.
  13. Ford H., Crowther S. (1922). My Life and Work. Boston: Harvard University.
  14. Gehlen A. (2003). L’uomo nell’era della tecnica. Problemi socio-psicologici della civiltà industriale. Roma: Armando.
  15. Harasser K. (2017). Superhumans-Parahumans: Disability and Hightech in Competitive Sports. In: Waldschmidt A., Berressem H., Ingwersen M., a cura di, Culture - Theory - Disability: Encounters between Disability Studies and Cultural Studies. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
  16. Hughes B., Paterson K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12(3): 325-340. DOI: 10.1080/0968759972720
  17. Klein N. (2000). No Logo. Milano: Baldini&Castoldi.
  18. Lacan J. (1972). Scritti. Torino: Einaudi.
  19. Mason P. (2016). Postcapitalismo. Una guida al nostro futuro. Milano: Il Saggiatore.
  20. McLuhan M. (1964). Gli strumenti del comunicare. Milano: Il Saggiatore.
  21. Murphy R. (1987). The body silent. NY: Henry Holt.
  22. Negri T., Hardt M. (2001). Impero. Milano: Rizzoli.
  23. Perniola M. (1994). Il Sex Appeal dell’inorganico. Torino: Einaudi.
  24. Popitz H. (1996). Verso una società artificiale. Roma: Editori riuniti.
  25. Rivas M. (2018). Tommy Hilfiger Releases Their Spring 2018 Adaptive Collection Campaign. The ad features Paralympian gold medalist Jeremy Campbell. TeenVogue, 4 aprile 2018. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/tommy-hilfiger-spring-2018-adaptivecollection (23/01/2020).
  26. Steele V. (1997). Fetish: Fashion, Sex and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.
  27. Thompson M. (2017). La fine del dibattito pubblico. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  28. Virno P. (2003). Grammatica della moltitudine. Roma: Derive Approdi.

Nello Barile, Estetiche del corpo invalidato. Il feticismo della disabilità nella società hi-tech e postspettacolare in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 2/2020, pp 11-29, DOI: 10.3280/SES2020-002002