160 Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies/Sodobna pedagogika Let./Vol. 70 (136)
 Št./No. 1/2019
 Str./pp. 160–173
ISSN 0038 0474 Julia Ganterer and Rahel More
Different bodies: Normality and 
embodiments of disability and gender
Abstract: This article is devoted to the challenge of human diversity being perceived as difference, 
eventually resulting in othering and social oppression. We introduce Luan, a young disabled woman, 
and her gendered disabling experience in terms of embodiment, which we argue is a form of socially 
situated knowledge. Our intention is to shed light on a society-critical approach to gender and disability 
in order to counter recent developments in educational studies towards individualisation and away from 
socialisation as a central pedagogical moment. Luan’s experience is presented in a phenomenological 
reading to gain an understanding of embodiments of normality and difference and to simultaneously 
question how far they emerge from external oppression and/or internalised desires of conforming to 
social norms. We conclude that for a critical and empowering pedagogy of gender and disability, both 
individual and societal factors have to be taken into consideration, and we accordingly introduce peda-
gogical perspectives of empowerment.
Keywords: embodiment, disability, gender, phenomenology, pedagogy
UDC: 37.015.4
Scientific paper 
Julia Ganterer, PhD., Post-Doc Research Scholar, Institute of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, Leuphana 
University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany; e-mail: julia.ganterer@leuphana.de
Rahel More, MA, research associate, Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Department of Educational 
Science, Universitätsstraße 65-67, 9020 Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria; e-mail: rahel.more@aau.at

 Ganterer, More    161
Introduction
To define and construct deviance of any kind (and for the purposes of this 
article, consequently , in terms of gender and disability), constructions of normality 
are constitutive. Without an understanding of what is normal, gender and dis-
ability cannot exist as categories of social oppression. The need for some sort of 
normality as a guideline for human action is socially , historically and normatively 
constructed (Coleman Brown 2010; Hohmeier 1975) and characteristic of a certain 
type of society . It was not until the 19
th
 century that people began to use norm and 
normality as specific terms in the English language. In contrast to antique ideas of 
an ideal body that individual human beings could never embody , normality became 
a desirable societal average. Unlike an ideal, normative concepts imply that most 
people should somehow conform to that norm; however, alongside the desired con-
formity come constructs of deviations or extremes (Davis 2010). Link (2009), on the 
other hand, defines normality as a discursive event by emphasising the distinction 
between normality and normativity (ibid., pp. 33–35), which according to him lies 
in normality as an operative, societal category that runs contrary to the juridical 
character of norms.
Applying a discursive approach to gender and disability, it becomes clear 
that discourse constitutes dichotomous categories of which the One seems prefer-
able to the Other. Siebers, for example, describes this for the dualism of able/
disabled: ‘the ideology of ability is at its simplest the preference for ablebodied-
ness
1
’ (Siebers 2010, p. 317). From a gender perspective, it was the infamous 
Simone de Beauvoir (originally in 1949) who referred to patriarchal discourse 
as ‘masculine ideologies that do not in any way express feminine claims’ and by 
identifying the construction of women as the Other (de Beauvoir 2011, p. 182).
2
 
Such ideologies expand to aspects such as societally desired corporal normality, 
which especially affects disabled women since in patriarchal culture, people judge 
women by their bodies to a greater extent than they do men, and the struggle 
1
 In a similar manner, Campbell (2012, pp. 217–218) defines ‘ableist normativity’ as ‘the view that 
assumes the preferability of abledness’.
2
 Others have made this point as well, e.g., Butler (1991), Kirby (1997), and Barad (2003).
 
‘All are different’
(Middendorf 2010, p. 221)

162 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Ganterer, More
against oppression is much harder for disabled women than for able-bodied women  
(Wendell 2010).
Nowadays, economic and social resources seem less dependent on gender than 
a few decades ago; thus, the body acts as a late reminder of gender difference and 
serves as a tool for self-representation (Mogge-Grotjahn 2015). Quite the opposite 
may be the case for the category of disability , especially in combination with gender . 
Women with disabilities still experience multidimensional discrimination in many 
areas of life, among them career opportunities and starting a family , which in turn 
raises questions about gender-specific societal expectations (Karačič and Waldschmidt 
2017). How do such expectations and gender roles constitute themselves? Dausien 
and Walgenbach (2015) document a paradigm shift away from gender socialisation 
towards individualisation in educational studies that offers a broad range of legit-
imate possibilities for subjects to form their personal biography . However , they view 
such developments as cautious pleading for a comeback of a more society-critical 
approach to gender in educational studies. 
Hereafter, we further introduce the underlying principles of this article and 
then move on to a phenomenological reading
3
 from one of the authors’ recent 
doctoral theses (Ganterer 2019), which describes Luan, a young disabled woman. 
The excerpt illustrates how the desire to be normal in terms of not having a dif-
ferent body is part of the dynamic constellation of embodied affect. When, where 
and how does Luan feel the need or wish to embody normality and to what extent 
does it emerge from external oppression and internalised desire to be normal and 
normal-being? We ask these questions concerning both gender and disability and, 
in the end, try to look beyond individualisation by connecting subjective experience 
to the constitution of societal normality.
4
Embodiments of disability and gender
Disability and gender are societal categories. The binary classification of 
gender, female or male, is normal to most people, whereas disability is some sort 
of deviance category of being a normal woman or man (Köbsell 2010). However, 
where does this leave the body itself? If we assume that gender and disability are 
social constructs, how do we view , in relation, sex and impairment? Both in feminist 
theory and disability studies, scholars initially distinguished between biological 
difference in terms of sex and impairment and the social constructs of gender and 
disability. More recent theories suggest that regulatory norms materialise sex 
(Butler 1993) and impairment (Goodley 2016; Shakespeare 2014), which means 
that they are constructs, too. Thus, sex and impairment are not a priori to gender 
3
 Specific to a phenomenological reading is the recognition of the ambiguity that constitutes human 
phenomena. To expose and to hide, to speak out or to remain silent – those belong together and are just 
as relevant for the reading. A phenomenological reading aims to discover descriptions and (multiple) 
understandings rather than evaluation and explanation. Constellations of ‘as well as’ and/or ‘neither/
nor’ become visible through such a reading.
4
 In the knowledge that there are many gender-identities, we use ‘woman’ and ‘man’ for cis-gen-
der, introduced by Volkmar Sigusch (1992). Cis refers to people whose gender identity matches their 
biological sex. 

     163
 
Different bodies: Normality and embodiments of disability and gender
and disability; they emerge and gain meaning through discourse. The social and 
the biological are not two separate things but exist in constant interdependency. 
It is at this point that a theory of complex embodiment (Siebers 2010) offers new 
insight into the social meaning of the body.
 A theory of complex embodiment stresses that all knowledge is socially 
situated and ‘situated knowledge adheres in embodiment’ (ibid., p. 326), meaning 
that on the one hand, our bodies determine the perspective of our experience, while 
on the other hand, our bodies already consist of lifeworld experience that we use 
to interpret new situations. What does this mean for the double Other: female and 
disabled? According to Köbsell (2010), girls with disabilities learn early on that they 
will not become ‘real’, beautiful and desirable women and that typical female roles 
are ‘out of question’ (ibid., p. 21) for them. Disabled women embody knowledge about 
gender-specific societal expectations, but they also might embody knowledge about 
disability as deviance from being a normal woman or man. Campbell (2009, p. 160) 
refers to similar phenomenological ideas, stating: ‘People with impairments have 
impairment – mediated proprioceptive ways of experiencing being in the world.’ She 
then concludes that the development of self of disabled people might be ‘radically 
different from people who have an ableist orientation’ (ibid.). Campbell (2001, p. 44) 
defines ableism as a ‘[...] network of beliefs, processes and practices that produce 
a particular kind of self and body (the corporal standard) that is projected as the 
perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human. Disability, then, 
is cast as a diminished state of being human.’
Becoming a woman from a pedagogic angle – Establishing subjectivity
Today, most parents or professionals do not explicitly mean to raise girls to 
femininity and boys to masculinity; they unconsciously act upon generalised con-
cepts of feminine and masculine (Rendtroff, 2006). In other words, they embody 
gendered knowledge and pass it on to children who then again embody their lifeworld 
experience. Liebwein (2008), for example, found in her research that parents in 
all kinds of social milieus, employing diverse parenting styles, raise their children 
gender-specifically. What precisely people define as female or male depends on, in 
addition to general, comprehensive tendencies, aspects such as culture and milieu 
(Demmer 2013). Combining stereotypical gender and disability characteristics re-
veals that disability itself is a gendered phenomenon in many ways. This leads to 
the assumption that many traits people conventionally perceive as female are also 
characteristic of disability , such as, amongst others, being weak, passive, dependent 
and childlike (Köbsell 2010, p. 23). However , in practice, many professionals or even 
family members still deprive girls and women with disabilities, especially those with 
learning difficulties, of gender and ascribe asexuality to them (Hollomotz 2008; 
Priestley 2003). Additionally, girls and women with disabilities frequently exper-
ience overprotection on behalf of others (Nosek et al. 2003; Retznik et al. 2017). 
Nosek et al. (ibid.) link overprotection, amongst other factors, to lower self-esteem 
and lower self-cognition (the perception of how others see them) in women with 
physical disabilities. Interestingly, some authors have found that self-perceptions 

164 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Ganterer, More
of women who experienced disability later in life began to change towards more 
‘unfeminine’ and self-determined perceptions (cf. Karačič and Waldschmidt 2017). 
Still, in many ways, people continue to stage gender in conventional, dicho-
tomous manners, meaning male-being refers to hardship, strength and courage 
while female-being correlates with dependency and vulnerability (Mogge-Grotjahn 
2015). Contesting stereotypical gender staging, queer studies provide new perspect-
ives on gender and body , partly overlapping with disability studies. The interest in 
bodies as both gendered and disabled merges in the field of queer disability studies 
(McRuer 2004). Gallop (2015, p. 323) describes the emphases of this, noting that 
‘[...] within queer theory , disability studies is not a special-interest application, but 
an advance in theorizing queer.’ According to Karačič and Waldschmidt (2017), 
the field of queer disability studies questions binary perspectives of gender as well 
as heteronormativity, but scholars have yet to undertake empirical studies in this 
area. The intersectionality of other manifold manifestations of discrimination has 
been a growing field of study, and over the last few years, intersections have been 
of greater concern to educational studies’ scholars (Budde 2013; Walgenbach 2017). 
Yet, Goodley (2016, p. 45) stresses that disability is often sidelined in diversity 
approaches, citing Davis (2006), who refers to persons with disabilities as ‘the 
ultimate intersectional subject’ for understanding both exclusion and resistance. 
For the purpose of our empirical argument which follows, we will mainly focus on 
the intersections of gender and disability, leaving other important intersectional 
aspects such as social class, poverty, origin, religious and sexual orientation for 
another time. In the following chapter, will we first introduce Luan (cf. Ganterer 
2018) and then continue to engage with the phenomenon of normal-being in her 
account as well as initially asked questions on normality and embodiments of gender 
and disability . We especially focus on the development of links between normality , 
disability and gender in the example of Luan.
Methodology
The doctoral thesis we draw from for this article focused on body modification, 
the experience of embodiment and processes of inter-subjectivation of adolescents. 
The primary research question was this: Which experiences and strategies of action 
inform adolescent body shaping with regard to their inter-subjectivation? The meth-
odological and conceptual framework was strongly influenced by (amongst others) 
Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodiment as well as feminist perspectives. 
To engage with (as yet) verbally unarticulated experience expressed through ad-
olescent body modification, a qualitative design was chosen for the empirical study . 
The thesis is based on a hermeneutical approach, following Oevermann (1979) 
and Flick (1995), to episodic interviews. Ganterer (2019) interviewed 14 adolescents 
chosen through theoretical sampling (cf. Glaser and Strauss 1967) and, during the 
interviews, focused on stimulating verbal and non-verbal statements of self-percep-
tion and embodied experience in the interviewees. The focus of the hermeneutic 
analysis was language as written documentation of reality, but to engage deeper 

     165
 
Different bodies: Normality and embodiments of disability and gender
with unspoken embodied experience, the methodology was extended by drawing 
from theories of embodiment by Merleau-Ponty (1966), Waldenfels (1999, 2000) 
and Meyer-Drawe (2000, 2001). 
In this case, we draw from the phenomenological theory of subject, which refers 
to the experience of the corporal human body
5
 as being-at-world (Merleau-Ponty 
1966). Thus, it is the corporal human body that acts as medium for the experience 
and negotiation of disability and gender . People adopt gender and disability through 
embodied experience and embodied knowledge; therefore, the active shaping of the 
body and constructs of gendered disability/disabled gender do affect the corporal 
human body . The self constitutes itself through conscious being-at-world; in other 
words, everything any person knows and perceives is based on embodied experience 
of the world. (Merleau-Ponty 1966, p. 462). 
luan: ‘You’ll notice, when people are staring you’
6
Luan, a 19-year-old from a town of moderate size, has lived with her grand-
father and step-grandmother (she frequently emphasises the step-part) ever since 
her parents died. Luan both works and studies; she has a physical impairment, 
uses a wheelchair and receives personal assistance with daily life. Luan has mod-
ified and continues to modify her body: she has three tattoos, a few ear piercings 
and artificial eyelashes; additionally , make-up and appropriate, stylish clothes are 
important to her. However, she considers herself a sleepyhead, and so she does not 
have time for something in the morning (meaning to get ready); therefore, Luan 
thought of permanent makeup as quite practical. Luan’s appearance is important 
to her; she only feels comfortable when her look is carefully put together. When 
she is not feeling so well, she does not put on makeup and dress the same way , but 
she would never consider attending university or work without what she feels is 
proper makeup and clothing. Her grandparents reinforce her looking appropriately 
attired and made up all times: So, my grandpa always wants me to look good and 
nice [smiles]. Always a little bit of makeup and such… he always likes that. And 
my step-grandmother is always dressed very well. These expectations of her family 
are likely to be products of gendered ideals that are also connected to Luan’s early 
childhood experience of her mother putting herself together carefully . My mum was 
always well styled, back then. She was always in the bathroom for hours […]. And 
then because she always did that, of course, I would want that too (laughs). Whilst 
it can be a powerful source of resistance to ableism and sexism for disabled women 
to act on traditional gender roles (Haraldsdóttir 2018), Luan does not seem to resist 
an ableist deprivation of gender but rather to fulfil her family’s expectations and 
embody gendered knowledge from watching her mother as a child.
5
 In the German language, we would refer to this phenomenon as Leibkörper, which is not properly 
translated into English by corporal human body. Nevertheless, we decided to use the term corporal 
human body due to a lack of alternative translations.
6
 This excerpt from Luan is an empirical example from Julia Ganterer’s doctoral dissertation 
(published 2019 by Budrich Verlag), which introduces the creativity of body modification as a response 
to normativity. 

166 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Ganterer, More
Luan has had a number of experiences of people staring at her and even 
commenting on her when out with friends. The gazes of others awaken a feeling 
of shame in Luan. She experiences shame on a regular basis: Always, actually 
[smiles]. It is less in her workplace; however, when she goes out, she feels that 
people are looking down on her. It is only through these external reactions that 
Luan experiences her physical impairment as difference instead of normality. It is 
because of these strangers’ gazes that disability becomes tangible for Luan, that it 
becomes embodied experience. In Butler’s words, the body becomes a phenomenon 
of the Other; in Luan’s own words, she notices: That you’re being gazed at. You’ll 
notice that a lot of people are just staring. Luan understands her body in terms of 
embodied ideals and social norms, but then again defines her own ideals against 
those norms: I would like to be thinner. Of course, the way I am standing now, in 
my case, it looks ridiculous anyway. […] If I could just walk normally, for example, 
even that would be ideal for me. Most certainly. Doesn’t have to be something special. 
Luan considers her appearance abnormal in a way , which she describes in terms of 
not being able to walk normally.
Experiencing strangers’ gazes entails an emotional burden for Luan; the gazes 
constitute her body . In the following, Luan’s own experience of gazing at herself in 
the mirror shows the significance of visual power dynamics.
luan’s own gaze in the mirror 
Asked about experiencing shame about her own body or appearance, Luan 
stated the following: That is certainly true with the wheelchair … because it is just 
not the ideal […] I always find myself too fat [laughs]. Really, every time I look at 
the mirror. So, I don’t really like myself.
7
 Luan responds to the interview question 
promptly and without hesitation rather than avoiding the question. Luan provides 
a direct, clear and precise answer, which she seems to be sure of. Through the act 
of laughing, her insecurity still shows. The words from her quote I always find 
myself too fat are expressive, concise and pregnant with meaning. Luan speaks of 
not ideal and too fat, comparing her own body to others. It establishes a relation 
between social desirability, collective normativity and her personal perception and 
potential desire to fit in or be normal. Interestingly, the phenomenon of difference 
only appears, and thus objectifies her body, when Luan looks in the mirror and 
has access to the embodied gazes of others. Before or after, Luan does not perceive 
herself as abnormal or too fat. When Luan is not looking in the mirror, not seeing 
her reflection, she experiences what is, to her, a normal corporal state of being. The 
mirror acts to represent the gazes of others, reflecting embodied knowledge for 
Luan. She sees herself through the eyes of others and problematises certain body 
parts that are otherwise normal and unproblematic to Luan.
The mirror functions not only to expand her perspective but additionally 
widens and opens up her physical perception to an alternative horizon of meaning. 
7
 This interview quote is a translation from Austrian-German and has been slightly adapted in 
language to retain its meaning.

     167
 
Different bodies: Normality and embodiments of disability and gender
Meanwhile, her eyes lose focus and she becomes estranged from her usual state 
of normal-being. Through the mirror, she sees and perceives herself as abnormal, 
different and too fat. It is interesting that Luan uses the phrase I find myself too 
fat instead of feeling fat and laughs afterwards. This shows how Luan does not only 
express internal emotions or feelings arising from her own concerns; rather, she 
also internalises the external: the judgement or opinions of her society. As men-
tioned before, educational studies have taken a turn towards individualisation (cf. 
Dausien and Walgenbach 2015) to explain gender in terms of personal biographies 
rather than socialisation. In a society-critical manner, however, Luan’s narrative is 
a great example of socialising gender and disability through embodied knowledge. 
Through the embodied experience of strangers staring at her in reaction to a per-
ceived difference, Luan herself enters a stage of differentness and therefore transfers 
the disabling experience she had on behalf of other persons in front of the mirror. 
This aesthetic scheme of (re)experience contains a language elusive to physically 
objective cognition; yet, it shows a phenomenon appearing in a deep and complex 
form of expression.
Butler understands identity as a discursive product emerging from existing 
systems of knowledge and power . Those systems limit potential alternative identities 
and gendered bodies; the body is always an embodiment of historically conditioned 
and restricted possibilities (Butler 2002, p. 40). Subject and action therefore stand 
and emerge side by side as well as within one another. Subjects are bound to power 
and the powerful, and this bond both opens and closes individuals’ perception and 
empowered action. Butler (2001) uses the term subjectivation to explain the power 
of subjectivation and materialisation in actions produced by relations of power.
Luan’s reflection in the mirror visualises abnormality, making difference the 
conflicted subject of the situation. Simultaneously, normality becomes the desired 
object and thus a socially and discursively constructed matter. In a process of sub-
jectivation,
8
 on the one hand, Luan herself is a subject that is a discursive product; 
on the other hand, she potentially gains empowerment through self-reflectivity. 
From the perspective of Butler , the body provides discourse with power , but the body 
can never completely conform to the norm. However, the norm must be constantly 
repeated and created in performance or collectively mirrored in order to retain its 
discursive power (cf. Butler 1993, p. 3f). Although Butler refers to doing gender rather 
than embodying disability , it is central for the constitution of both phenomena that 
each ‘not only functions as a norm, but is part of a regulatory practice that produces 
the bodies it governs, that is, whose regulatory force is made clear as a kind of pro-
ductive power , the power to produce – demarcate, circulate, differentiate – the bodies 
it controls (Butler 1993, p. 2). Like an assumed biological sex, the whole body is a 
regulating (and regulated) ideal and takes part in constructing (visual) normality. 
Constant performance of the enforced norm materialises the body in a socially 
coercive way (cf. Butler 1993, p. 3f). The body is therefore not only something that 
someone has or what someone is; rather, it forms the wholeness of a subject within 
her or his social environment. Luan’s embodied knowledge of being not ideal, and 
too fat evolves into inner ambivalence.
8
 Initially, it was mainly Foucault who used the term subjectification in his work, followed by, 
amongst others, Butler (2001).

168 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Ganterer, More
Constructions of disability and normality
Images and reflections are not the same thing. Reflections ‘act as strange 
doubles who are tied to a shadow of a role model of which there is no archetype. 
Reflections have their own reality’ (Meyer-Drawe 2011, p. 160). What a person 
sees in and through the mirror, the actual reflection, always coincides with the 
present, never the past or future (unlike images, which can serve as reminder or 
desire). Their own reflection teaches people that they will never see themselves in 
the same way they perceive others. Therein lies both ambivalence and contradic-
tion, which provide the opportunity to be not only the One but also ‘neither-nor’ 
and ‘as-well’ (Meyer-Drawe 2000, p. 11). Through a process of subjectification, 
Luan can potentially gain power and experience empowerment to be neither ideal 
nor abnormal, a woman as well as disabled. Previous embodied experience can be 
re-experienced through corporal images because images are tied to the body as a 
place, a carrier and a producer. Luan’s experience exemplarily shows the impact of 
embodied knowledge on young adolescents. Her gaze into the mirror shapes images 
of perceived and embodied gazes of others. Through the mirror, the experienced 
gazes constantly project onto her lived body; embodiments of disability , gender and 
normality let Luan recognise something different that she otherwise might have seen 
as normal. In this situation, Luan experiences non-conformity to current societal 
corporal and body norms as well as normalised ideals of beauty; yet, she does not 
perceive herself as abnormal when not looking in the mirror. Instead of providing 
a clearer picture, the mirror creates uncertainty and confusion. Luan is unsure 
and insecure about herself; she does not identify with the embodied knowledge her 
reflection recalls, which results in an ambivalent relationship between her sense 
of self and external reactions.
This phenomenological engagement with gender, disability and normality 
draws attention to pre-reflexive positions that mainly function uncritically . It may 
be striking that impairment (or an assistive device like a wheelchair) is mainly 
perceived in terms of difference rather than a diversity continuum; nevertheless, 
constructions of normality create constructions of dis/ability potentially resulting 
in pejorative treatment like staring. Goffman (1963) tried to explain this by means 
of stigma, arguing that a discreditable attribute automatically calls for negative 
reaction amongst Normals, which his work has increasingly been criticised for (cf. 
Waldschmidt 2007, 2008). Stigma theory is outdated in many ways and disability 
has, contrary to stigma, also served as a source of empowerment and pride (Taylor 
S. J. 2008; Watson 2002), but still, ‘stigma is a response to the dilemma of difference’ 
(Coleman-Brown 2010, p. 179). Embodied experience of stigmatisation might just 
have led to Luan seeing a different version of herself in the mirror.
A pedagogy of gender and disability?
In Lena Middendorf’s (2010) social work projects, disabled girls describe the 
sameness and difference of girls with and without impairment in terms of differ-

     169
 
Different bodies: Normality and embodiments of disability and gender
ence being a part of sameness.
9
 She appeals for acknowledgement of the expertise 
of disabled girls concerning experience of gendered disabling (ibid.), therefore 
taking into account embodied knowledge (socially situated knowledge) as defined 
in Sieber’s (2010) theory of complex embodiment. The body is central to every 
person being in the world yet is often overlooked or at least underrepresented in 
society-critical approaches to gender and disability. It is a well-known fact that 
disabled women and girls, in particular, are at greater risk for intersectional dis-
advantage, discrimination and violence all around the globe (WHO 2011), and in 
more and more countries, actions have been taken to support disabled girls’ and 
women’s empowerment, education, safety and resistance. For example, in Iceland, 
Freyja Haraldsdóttir (2018) and colleagues have established a feminist disability 
movement to provide ‘safe spaces’ for empowerment on both a personal and a polit-
ical level. Their movement is based on peer support, meaning that the movement is 
run by disabled women for disabled women and has been an important platform for 
an increasing number of disabled women in Iceland to share their stories, demand 
social change and take action. Here, individual and societal aspects are linked by 
‘speaking out’ and seeking ‘the political in the personal’ (ibid, p. 79).
Middendorf’s (2010) projects, too, focus on empowerment as well as public 
work, raising awareness and increasing (political) participation of disabled girls. 
Amongst other issues, body images are a main topic of the projects, which involve 
creating spaces for disabled girls (and, in some of the projects, also for non-disabled 
peers) to discuss sexuality, puberty and their bodies in general. In relation to the 
empowerment projects, she concludes that in order to equalise disadvantage, we 
have to put a name on it, always also including a comparison to the norm: ‘But it 
has to be about uncovering all forms of disabled-being and being-disabled’ (ibid., 
p. 221). The goal is, according to her, to explore commonalities where differences 
have already been assumed. Mogge-Grotjahn (2015) sees the body as potential re-
source for social work; she claims critical reflectiveness of body and gender, ‘queer 
practices’ and awareness of social work professionals. 
As a conclusion from Luan’s experience, we argue that for a critical and em-
powering pedagogy of gender and disability, both individual and societal factors 
have to be taken into consideration. Luan sees her body through the eyes of others, 
evaluates herself and forms her physicality from it. She experiences discomfort and 
shame resulting in embodied disabling experience. Luan’s narrative exemplarily 
shows how young adolescents in particular perceive themselves as different when 
deviating from contemporary social beauty criteria and body normativity . Luan has, 
through the constituting gaze of others, learned that her appearance is perceived 
as different whilst, at the same time, she maintains certain body modifications that 
require a lot of attention, effort and power in order to conform to gendered norms. 
In the end, Luan tries to fulfil certain societal expectations of her body in terms of 
gender (such as her artificial eyelashes), but she too has embodied ableist gazes at 
her body using a wheelchair.
9
 In the German language article the exact quote was: „Gleich ist, dass alle anders sind“.

170 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Ganterer, More
Conclusion 
In post-phenomenological reading, we have to reflect upon our own perspectives 
as an indispensable starting point of our analysis. To understand the constitution 
of gendered disabling experience, however, it is more useful to begin by reading 
anthropological and sociological investigations, for example, medical reports on 
intersex children or psychological studies of children’s perceptions of gender , rather 
than to analyse one’s own, normatively limited, experience (Oksala 2006, p. 238). 
Although Luan’s account, of course, does not remain untouched by the normative 
limitations of the interview situation, we have approached her narrative in a sim-
ilar way but from a pedagogical angle. The pedagogics of gender and disability are 
tightly tied to socialisation and so, therefore, is education, in its broadest sense. 
The constitution of disabled people, especially disabled women, as the different 
Other emerges from separation and exclusion from normal society . Social exclusion, 
although an important and ever-current issue, is not limited to the educational 
system but rather relates to every aspect and area of daily life. Historically (and in 
large parts of the world even today
10
), children, women and men with impairment 
have been hidden away or, more recently, been object to materialisation through, 
for example, charity advertising (cf. Taylor, M. 2008). 
People are socialised to conform to certain societal norms, to a contemporary 
normality , and as we can see with Luan, disabled people are no exception in longing 
to be part of the mainstream. Socialisation provides each and every one of us with 
embodied knowledge; however, irritation can be caused by an encounter in which 
a (possibly non-disabled) person lacks experience of understanding impairment in 
terms of a diversity range and therefore tries to fall back on normality as scheme 
of interpretation. When a situation counters embodied knowledge, people start to 
doubt, or as Meyer-Drawe (1999, p. 35) puts it: ‘Because we are used to a sense 
of self as creature of reason, we act helpless when our patterns of rationality hit 
into the blank’.
From a pedagogical-phenomenological perspective, disability can be seen as 
an extended and alternative answer to a person’s being in the world. To whatever 
perceivable difference, may it be in terms of gender , disability , origin, religion, sexual 
orientation or other, human diversity and equality could be a more appropriate 
answer than discrimination and stigmatisation. Returning to the initially cited 
quote, ‘All are different’, we conclude that still today, pedagogy lacks sensibility 
for raising, educating and supporting diverse children and adolescents on equal 
terms. Additionally , we see an urgent need for more awareness regarding the body 
as a medium of subjectivation, always interacting with its immediate environment. 
Luan has illustrated the formation of internal and external perceptions through 
her embodied experience of gender and disability . We therefore appeal for a diverse 
and alternative being together in the world, reflecting normative thinking and 
uncritical labelling of human beings.
10
  For an impressive collection of perspectives from the Global South, see Grech and Soldatic (2016).

     171
 
Different bodies: Normality and embodiments of disability and gender
References
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter 
Comes to Matter . Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2003, 28, issue 3, pp. 801–831.
Budde, J. (2013). Intersektionalität als Herausforderung für eine erziehungswissenschaft-
liche soziale Ungleichheitsforschung. In: S. Siebholz, E. Schneider, A. Schippling, S. 
Busse, and S. Sandring (eds.). Prozesse sozialer Ungleichheit: Studien zur Schul- und 
Bildungsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 245–257.
Butler, J. (1991). Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Butler , J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New Y ork: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2001). Psyche der Macht: Das Subjekt der Unterwerfung. Frankfurt am Main: 
Suhrkamp.
Butler, J. (2002). Performative Akte und Geschlechterkonstitution. Phänomenologie und 
feministische Theorie. In: U. Wirth (ed.). Performanz. Zwischen Sprachwissenschaften 
und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Coleman Brown, L. M. (2010). Stigma: An enigma demystified. In: L. J. Davis (ed.). The 
disability studies reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 179−192.
Campbell, F . K. (2001). Inciting legal fictions: Disability’s date with ontology and the ableist 
body of the law. Griffith law review, 10, pp. 42-62.
Campbell, F . K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. 
Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
Dausien, B., and Walgenbach, K. (2015). Sozialisation von Geschlecht: Skizzen zu einem 
wissenschaftlichen Diskurs und Plädoyer für die Revitalisierung einer gesellschafts-
analytischen Perspektive. JB Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der Erziehungs-
wissenschaft, 1, issue 1, pp. 17-50.
Davis, L. (2010). Constructing Normalcy . In: L. J. Davis (ed.). The disability studies reader. 
New York: Routledge, pp. 3–19.
De Beauvoir, S. (2011). The second sex. New York: Vintage books.
Demmer, C. (2013). Biografien bilden: Lern- und Bildungsprozesse von Frauen mit Behin-
derung im Spannungsfeld von Teilhabe und Ausschluss. Bochum: Projekt Verlag.
Flick, U. (1995). Qualitative Forschung – Theorie, Methoden, Anwendungen in der Psycho-
logie und den Sozialwissenschaften. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Ganterer , J. (2019). Körpermodifikationen und leibliche Erfahrungen in der Adoleszenz. Eine 
feministisch-phänomenologisch orientierte Studie zu Inter-Subjektivierungsprozessen. 
Opladen: Barbara Budrich. 
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon 
& Schuster.
Goodley, D. (2016). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.
Grech, S., and Soldatic, K. (2016). Disability in the Global South: The critical handbook. 
Cham: Springer.
Haraldsdóttir , F . (2018). Creating safer spaces for the empowerment of self-identified disabled 
women. In: S. Shah and C. Bardbury-Jones (eds.). Disability, gender and violence over 
the life course: Global perspectives and human rights approaches. London: Routledge, 
pp. 67-82.
Hohmeier, J. (1975). Stigmatisierung als sozialer Definitionsprozeß. In: M. Brusten and J. 
Hohmeier (eds.). Stigmatisierung 1: Zur Produktion gesellschaftlicher Randgruppen. 
Darmstadt: Luchterhand, pp. 5−24.

172 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Ganterer, More
Karačič, A., and Waldschmidt, A. (2017). Biographie und Behinderung. In: H. Lutz, M. 
Schiebel, and E. Tuider (eds.). Handbuch Biographieforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer, 
pp. 415-425.
Kirby, V . (1997). Telling Flesh: The Substance of the Corporeal. New York: Routledge.
Köbsell, S. (2010). Gendering disability: Behinderung, Geschlecht und Körper. In: J. Jacob, 
S. Köbsell, and E. Wollrad (eds.). Gendering Disability: Intersektionale Aspekte von 
Behinderung und Geschlecht. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 17−33.
Liebenwein, S. (2008). Erziehung und soziale Milieus. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Link, J. (2009). Versuch über den Normalismus: Wie Normalität produziert wird. Göttingen: 
Vandehoeck & Ruprecht.
McRuer, R. (2004). Composing bodies; or, de-composition: Queer theory, disability studies, 
and alternative corporealities. JAC Online – A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture and Poli-
tics, 24, issue 1, pp. 47-78.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1966). Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung. Berlin: De Guyter.
Meyer-Drawe, K. (1999). Der lachende und der weinende Leib. Verständigung diesseits der 
Vernunft. In: Behinderte in Familie, Schule und Gesellschaft, 3/99, pp. 32−36.
Meyer-Drawe, K. (2000): Illusionen von Autonomie. Diesseits von Ohnmacht und Allmacht 
des Ich.  München: P . Kirchheim.
Meyer-Drawe, K. (2001). Leiblichkeit und Sozialität. Phänomenologische Beiträge zu einer 
pädagogischen Theorie der Intersubjektivität. München: Fink.
Middendorf, L. (2010). Körperbilder von Mädchen, Behinderung und Geschlecht. In: J. 
Jacob, S. Köbsell, and E. Wollrad (eds.). Gendering disability: Intersektionale Aspekte 
von Behinderung und Geschlecht. Bielefend: Transkript, pp. 207–222.
Mogge-Grotjahn, H. (2015). Körper, Sexualität und Gender. In: M. Wendler and E. Huster 
(eds.). Der Körper als Ressource in der Sozialen Arbeit: Grundlegungen zur Selbstwirk-
samkeitserfahrung und Persönlichkeitsbildung. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 141–154.
Nosek, M. A., Hughes, R. B., Swedland, N., Taylor, H. B., and Swank, P . (2003). Self-esteem 
and women with disabilities. Social science and medicine, 56, pp. 1737–1747.
Oevermann, U. et al. (1979). Die Methodologie einer „objektiven Hermeneutik“ und ihre 
allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften. In: H.-G. Soeff-
ner (ed.). Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart: 
Metzler, pp. 352–434.
Oksala, J. (2006). A phenomenology of gender . Continental philosophy review, 39, pp. 229–244.
Rendtorff, B. (2006). Erziehung und Geschlecht: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer .
Retznik, L., Wienholz, S., Seidel, A., Pantenburg, B., Conrad, I., Michel, M., and Riedel-
Heller, S. G. (2017). Relationship Status: Single? Young adults with visual, hearing or 
physical disability and their experience with partnership and sexuality . Sexuality and 
disability, 35, issue 4, pp. 415–432.
Siebers, T . (2010). Disability and the theory of complex embodiment: For identity politics in 
a new register. In L. J. Davis (ed.). The disability studies reader. New Y ork: Routledge, 
pp. 316–335.
Sigusch, V . (1992). Geschlechtswechsel. Hamburg: Kleine.
Shakespeare, T . (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. London: Routledge.
Taylor, M. (2008). Disabled in images and language. In: J. Swain and S. French (eds.). Dis-
ability on equal terms. London: Sage, pp. 31–41.

     173
 
Different bodies: Normality and embodiments of disability and gender
Taylor, S. J. (2008). Before it had a name: Exploring the historical roots of disability studies 
in education. In: S. Danforth and S. L. Gabel (eds.). Vital questions facing disability 
studies in education. New York: Peter Lang, pp. xxii-xxiii.
Waldenfels, B. (1999). Sinnesschwellen. Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden. Frank-
furt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Waldenfels, B. (2000). Das leibliche Selbst. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Waldschmidt, A. (2007). Behinderte Körper: Stigmatheorie, Diskurstheorie und Disability 
Studies im Vergleich. In: T . Junge and I. Schmincke (eds.). Marginalisierte Körper: Bei-
träge zur Soziologie und Geschichte des anderen Körpers. Münster: Unrast, pp. 27–43.
Waldschmidt, A. (2008). “Wir Normalen” – “die Behinderten”?: Erving Goffman meets 
Michel Foucault. In: K. Rehberg (ed.). Die Natur der Gesellschaft: Verhandlungen des 
33. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Kassel 2006. Frankfurt 
am Main: Campus, pp. 5799-5809.
Walgenbach, K. (2017). Heterogenität – Intersektionalität – Diversity in der Erziehungswis-
senschaft. Opladen: Budrich.
Watson, N. (2002). Well, I know this is going to sound very strange to you, but I don’t see 
myself as a disabled person: Identity and disability. Disability & society, 17, issue 5, 
pp. 509–527.
Wendell, S. (2010). Towards a feminist theory of disability . In: L. J. Davis (ed.). The disability 
studies reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 336–352.
WHO. (2011). World health report on disability. Geneva: WHO.
Julia GANTERER (Inštitut za socialno delo in socialno pedagogiko,  Lüneburg, Nemčija) 
Rahel MORE (Univerza Alpe – Jadran, Celovec, Avstrija) 
DRUGAČNA TELESA: NORMALNOST IN UTELEŠENJA NEZMOŽNOSTI IN SPOLA 
Povzetek: Članek je namenjen obravnavi izzivov, ki izvirajo iz dejstva, da smo si ljudje različni, a je ta 
različnost pogosto razumljena kot drugačnost, kar nazadnje vodi v drugačenje in družbeno zatiranje. 
Predstavljamo Luan, mlado žensko, ki se sooča s telesno nezmožnostjo, in njeno izkušnjo, za katero 
trdimo, da je ena od oblik družbeno pogojenega znanja. Naš namen je osvetliti socialno-kritični pristop 
k spolu in nezmožnosti (angl. gender and disability) in se zoperstaviti sodobnim težnjam na področju 
pedagogike, ki vse bolj vodijo k individualizaciji in se distancirajo od socializacije kot osrednjega pe-
dagoškega  momenta. Luanino izkušnjo predstavljamo skozi fenomenološki kategorialni aparat, ki 
omogoča razumevanje utelešanj normalnosti in drugačnosti, in si zastavljamo vprašanje, koliko so ti 
procesi oddaljeni od zunanjega zatiranja in/ali ponotranjene želje po podrejanju družbenim normam. 
V sklepu poudarimo, da je za kritično ter k opolnomočenju zavezano pedagogiko spola in nezmožnosti 
treba upoštevati tako individualne kot družbene dejavnike, zato ustrezno temu tudi predstavljamo 
nekatere pedagoške vidike opolnomočenja. 
Ključne besede: utelešenje, nezmožnost, spol, fenomenologija, pedagogika
E-naslov: julia.ganterer@leuphana.de