The Disability Drive

This dissertation argues that the psychic force that Freud named “the death drive” would more precisely be termed “the disability drive.” Freud’s concept of the death drive emerged from his efforts to account for feelings, desires, and actions that seemed not to accord with rational self-interest or the desire for pleasure. Positing that human subjectivity was intrinsically divided against itself, Freud suggested that the ego’s instincts for pleasure and survival were undermined by a competing component of mental life, which he called the death drive. But the death drive does not primarily refer to biological death, and the term has consequently provoked confusion. By distancing Freud’s theory from physical death and highlighting its imbrication with disability, I revise this important psychoanalytic concept and reveal its utility to disability studies. While Freud envisaged a human subject that is drawn, despite itself, toward something like death, I propose that this “something” can productively be understood as disability. In addition, I contend that our culture’s repression of the disability drive, and its resultant projection of the drive onto stigmatized minorities, is a root cause of multiple forms of oppression.“The Disability Drive” opens with a question: “What makes disability so sexy?” This is a counterintuitive query; after all, the dominant culture usually depicts disability as decidedly unsexy. But by performing a critical disability studies analysis of Freud’s writings about sexuality and the death drive, I theorize sex as an intrinsically disabling experience and suggest that fantasies of disability may have an unrecognized sexual appeal. These possibilities lead me to introduce a new interpretive framework, “the sexual model of disability,” which I posit as an alternative to disability studies’ prevailing analytic paradigm, the social model of disability. While the social model defines disability as a system of oppression that isolates and excludes disabled people, the sexual model of disability goes deeper than this, locating the impetus for these exclusions in our culture’s repression of the disability drive. Because disability may provoke an erotic excitement that the ego cannot bear to acknowledge, ableist culture is often torn between an urge to witness disability (e.g., by staring at disabled people) and an impulse to hide disability from view (e.g., by confining disabled people to institutions). The sexual model of disability has the potential to make interventions not only in disability studies but also in a range of other disciplines. In Chapter 1, I bring my account of the disability drive to bear on signal texts in queer theory. In doing so, I proffer an answer to a question that has long troubled disability scholars: given the many similarities between ableism and homophobia, why have queer theorists often been reluctant to engage with disability studies? Observing that founding texts in queer theory repudiate “feminist identity politics” and liken this discourse to madness and to figurative states of blindness and paralysis, I argue that these texts project the disability drive onto feminism, thus allowing queer theory to portray its own erotics as mobile, playful, and physically and mentally able. In Chapter 2, I show that the sexual model of disability can subvert a foundational concept in psychoanalysis: the disease category “hysteria.” Analyzing Freud’s case history Dora, which was published in 1905, in conjunction with Beyond the Pleasure Principle, which was published in 1920, I argue that Freud’s notion of hysteria adumbrates his later theorization of the drive. The diagnostic category of hysteria, I contend, constitutes a projection of the disability drive onto people with what I call “undocumented disabilities,” that is, nonapparent impairments for which mainstream western medicine cannot identify biological causes. One effect of this projection is that people with undocumented disabilities are figured as epistemologically disabled; that is, we are seen as distinctively lacking in the capacity to know ourselves.The social position of people with undocumented disabilities differs from that of the paradigmatic subject of disability studies: while people with undocumented impairments are often denied recognition of the disabling suffering that shapes our lives, people with disabilities that are visible and/or documented are frequently subjected to unwanted displays of pity. For this reason, “no pity” has long been a rallying cry of the disability rights movement. But is it possible to proscribe pity? In Chapter 3, I argue that instead of seeking to banish the affect of pity, disability scholars might do better to attend to the complex ways in which this affect can be incited and expressed. Toward this end, I propose a distinction between what I call “primary pity” and “secondary pity.” The term “secondary pity” accords with the everyday understanding of pity, in which a p