View the H-Disability Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Disability's September 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Disability's September 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Disability home page.
As president of the Disability History Association, it is my pleasure to share the results of committee deliberations around the DHA Outstanding Article award for 2013. The committee was agreed that, in addition to the winning article, several other submissions should be announced as "honorable mention" articles, "to demonstrate the depth of the field and the difficulty we had choosing a single winner." So, without further ado.... Honorable Mention: Baynton, Douglas C., "'These Pushful Days': Time and Disability in the Age of Eugenics," _Health and History_ 13(2)(2011): 43-64. Serlin, David. "Carney Landis and the Psychosexual Landscape of Touch in Mid-20th-Century America," _History of Psychology_ 15(3)(August 2012). Dolmage, Jay. "Disabled Upon Arrival: The Rhetorical Construction of Race and Disability at Ellis Island," _Cultural Critique_ 77(Winter 2011): 24-69. Winner: Jennings, Audra. "'An Emblem of Distinction': The Politics of Disability Entitlement, 1940-1950," in _Veterans’ Policies, Veterans' Politics: New Perspectives on Veterans in the Modern United States_ ed. Stephen R. Ortiz, (University Press of Florida 2012). Here's what the committee said about the winning essay: "The review committee had an especially hard time ranking the essays submitted in this year’s competition. All of the essays were indeed quite strong. Several, however, rose to the top of the ranking system. And although it was difficult, the committee ultimately chose Audra Jennings’ essay "An Emblem of Distinction…" as the recipient of the DHA Outstanding Article Award, 2013. In many ways, Jennings essay is both exemplary and exceptional disability history. Beautifully written and powerfully argued, Jennings' work situates the voices and experiences of disabled people at the center of her analysis. She explains why rehabilitation and employment programs for people with physical disabilities grew exponentially in the United States after World War II, but were made available largely only to disabled veterans. Civilian disability activists and liberal policy makers had hoped to use the post-war interest in disability to "create a broader social safety net for all Americans." This, however, was not to be. Veterans and their allies claimed that they deserved rehabilitation and employment assistance because of their sacrifice and service for the nation. While a powerful political and organizing strategy, this argument excluded large numbers of disabled Americans from disability policy. Much can be learned from this analysis of unfortunate but consequential divisions -- ideological as well as organizational -- in the early U.S. disability rights movement." --