Progressive Temporality and Neoliberalism in Alison Kafer’s Feminist, Queer, Crip
Alison’s Kafer’s chapter “Time for Disability Studies and a Future for Crips”, from her larger work, Feminist, Queer, Crip, offers an in depth critique and reworking of normative temporality using disability as a framework. In her text, Kafer describes the normative understanding of time as “progressive” and “developmental”, something that relies on the promise of an improved futurity. It is precisely this notion of futurity that upholds unattainable normative ideals of ability and sexuality and silences the past and present pains of those who are marginalized by those normative ideals. Progressive temporality is, in other words, a function of neoliberalism.
To begin, in order for something to be “progressive”, there must be some kind of end “goal” towards which to move. “Progress” assumes finality. It is unclear, however, in this form of temporality, what we are moving toward. It is something “better” than the past and the present, a “best” reality that will inevitably occur. Furthermore, it is also undetermined of what exactly this future reality is composed and when it will occur. It is something that is supposedly known but has never existed. Historical “progression”, in this sense, is ahistorical. Additionally, it places the resolution of current pain on the future, thereby absolving responsibility of those with power in the present. In upholding contemporary power structures, “progressive” temporality can therefore be considered a tool of neoliberalism.
Even the way we discuss progressive time in daily life is in economic terms. One is always expected to do “one’s best”, to “give it 100%” and “your all”. “Cost/benefit analysis” is an acceptable and lauded way to make decisions. Another example is the pervasive notion of “productivity” in academic settings. One might say, after a day of relaxation, that one’s day was “unproductive”, i.e. you did not produce a tangible or intelligible object, or that you have not produced enough tangible or intelligible objects. “Productivity” of a person in this manner suggests that the body is a machine with a certain capacity and that the worth of that body is determined by their ability to meet a certain, externally imposed quota.
Disabled bodies, under a neoliberal framework, cannot meet these quotas. They are bodies that are not fully productive or unproductive in terms of the normative ideal, and therefore undesirable. “Curing” the body or mind then becomes the ultimate goal, since it moves the affected person more towards the productive norm. It is seen as positive development, as progress. As Kafer states:
In our disabled state, we are not part of the dominant narrative of progress, but once rehabilitated, normalized, and hopefully cured, we play a starring role the sign of progress, the proof of development, the triumph over the mind or body. Within this frame of curative time, then, the only appropriate disabled mind/body is one cured or moving towards cure (28).
Much like the queer body, which disrupts the reproductive norm, the disabled body, and its dissonance from progressive temporality, represents a break from a productive norm. Neither is “efficient” under a neoliberal framework so consequently both are treated as obstacles.
