INTRODUCTION W H AT ’S G O O D ?

I be to dicer ith m silver-tonued compnion, hose lips re red to red m shinin
loss.  verstile prtner, conversnt nd ell-versed in the verbl rt, the dictionr is not
verse to the solitr hbits o the curiousl ide-e reder. In the dr niht’s insom-
ni, the boo is  stimultin sedtive, enin m tired imintion to the hpnoic
trnce o lnue. — Hay M, “leepin ith the Dictionr,” Sleeping
with the Dictionary

Let’s strt ith  comprtive nlsis tht does not or.

In Leonrd rieel’s utoethnorphicl ess “Uncle om nd in im:
ome eections on the Cripple s ero” (), he declres, “Uncle om
nd in im re brothers under the sin.”1 Usin ht he terms  “unc-
tionl nlo” to lcness, rieel trces his eperiences in e Yor
Cit s  so-clled cripple, buildin  cse or equl tretment sociocultur-
ll s ell s under the l. e lins the mndte tht disbled people
request police escorts to their destintions (suested b ormer e Yor
Cit mor John Linds) to cllin  lc mn “bo” in  hite crod.
rieel uses rntz non s n epirph nd s n interlocutor throuh-
out to critique the inustices he eperiences, ssertin tht lcness is both
“nlo nd method” even i the to re, ccordin to him, not somethin
lc meric “cn et ive itsel.” In ddition to these nloies, rieel
oers eplntor losses o his lie tht spe to livin ithin nd internl-
izin bleism: e eels s thouh his eistence cuses his mother pin. e
clls his condition  public embrrssment. ithin rehbilittion cilities,
he strives to be ed. t no point does rieel discuss  communit o simi-
lrl (disbled) embodied people, even thouh he lives in the rehbilittion
cilit. he messe is plin: bein  cripple is bd, nd it is ust lie, i not
orse thn, bein  ero.
uite rnl, rieel’s ess is pinul to red. he outdted lnue, the
ult nlo, the internlized bleism, the proound lc o communit —
ll o these depict eperiences o disbilit nd lcness detched rom
socil nd/or politicl contet. In rieel’s ess, lcness nd lc socil
movements provide  loose socil moorin. o rite t the til end o the
s in e Yor requires n enement ith lcness s  mtter o
ccurc nd rior. o, rieel’s ess considers — s it should— the import
o socil positionin vis-à-vis lcness. hinin o the ess s n rtict,
it clries ho the lc poer movements nd civil rihts ins o the s
nd s pved the  or disbilit ctivism round the ehbilittion
ct (), nd, b etension, the mericns ith Disbilities ct (),
mon others. rntz non provides the ess’s centrl theoreticl inter-
locutor, hich could potentill position the “lie rce” ide less s nlo,
shiin the discursive terrin such tht the ess centrlizes the proected
eperiences o lcness. It doesn’t. non’s theories do prove useul, ho-
ever, in thinin bout the socil situtions tht dierence cretes nd bets.
ven thouh the ess reerences the orld, it is not rounded in it. s 
result, the nlsis ils on  e reisters. he “lie rce” nloies or dis-
bilit unction s missed opportunities or nunce. here re onl certin
ell-orn pths tht loic cn ollo. irst, the comprtive element leves
rieel little choice but to thin throuh the reltionship in hierrchicl
terms here one identit is more or less disenrnchised thn the other. In-
deed, this vcilltes or rieel dependin on the sitution (i.e., the disbled
hve less socil options, but lcs hve been victimized more), hich dem-
onstrtes  ind o sophistiction in understndin tht ech identit ct-
eor opertes dierentl dependin on socil contet. Yet, the nlo still
cilittes rcist ersure: despite the ct tht rieel’s rehbilittion cilit
is in rlem, he does not thin throuh the lie o the lc disbled per-
son, nor does he speculte bout the interiorit o those round him. he
re merel sullen. he “s” o the simile nd, b etension, the “lie” o the
lrer nlo elide the dierences beteen these identities becuse rhetori-
cll one replces the other. rsure then llos or  collpse o importnt
distinctions in eperience (i.e., dierence beteen rieel’s uropen im-
mirnt mother nd the lcs in rlem), nd the depiction o lcness

2 
s n bect monolith incpble o providin its on nlo nd method.
lcin non in this contet onl llos him to epose nd eplin lc-
ness s  ptholo o the est, rther thn llo non to unction s 
theoreticin tht diloues ith nd bout lcness nd disbilit (lbeit
one ho mes certin problemtic “lie rce” nloies himsel). In its
ilure, rieel’s ess orerounds h the “lie rce” nloies re missed
opportunities: he potentill promise  useul enement ith lc-
ness nd disbilit becuse the rnt tht the to shre socil similrities.
oever, ithout ddressin collective histories, theoreticl impulses, nd
subectivities ith nunce, the nlo reinscribes the ersure it oriinll
promises to recti.
lthouh rieel’s ess s published in , the theoreticl nd meth-
odoloicl residues o his proect remin. o thin throuh the reltion-
ship beteen rce nd disbilit requires nserin severl questions: o
miht e red rce nd disbilit outside the connes o the scripts hereto-
ore provided In ht s do e need to shi or chllene eistin n-
lticl prdims o ht esthetic prctices nd thiners do e need to
turn to epnd our imintions vis-à-vis these to discourses nd mteril
relities ht scred cos or shibboleths do e need to leve behind meth-
odoloicll, theoreticll, estheticll
his proect, Black Madness :: Mad Blackness, turns to mdness nd
lcness to nser these questions bout rce nd disbilit more brodl.
Criticl discourses bout mdness nd lcness tend to implicte but not
include ech other. s  consequence, the criticism recpitultes severl per-
vsive but incomplete ides. One o those is the loose renderin o lcness
nd mdness s nloous to ech other. ore oen, the to discourses
re emined s etensions o one nother, too slipper to prse, et so in-
seprble tht one cn elide or replce the other. In contrst, I theorize tht
mdness (brodl dened) nd lcness hve  comple constelltion o
reltionships. hese reltionships beteen lcness nd mdness (nd rce
nd disbilit more enerll) re constituted ithin the ssures, bres,
nd ps in criticl nd literr tets. lc mdness nd md lcness
then re not interchneble or reciprocl. ther, the oreround the mul-
tiple nd, t times, conictin epistemoloicl nd ontoloicl positions t
ste hen redin the to lonside ech other. In eplorin these criticl
possibilities, I eplicte ho this set o reltionships hs, mes, nd cquires
menin in the vrious spces the occup ithout necessril urnteein
emnciption or rdiclit. I turn to ht m be n unliel site to eplore:

ht’s Good 3
lc specultive ction. hese rtists-theorists disrupt estern epistemol-
o such tht their or becomes  locus or thinin throuh puttivel
strne lc minds.5

hort nd imple: hese hree ords

llo me to eplin the title s n inrod to describin our current criticl
moment.6 Black Madness :: Mad Blackness rests on the ide tht bilit nd
rce re intertined, s ichelle Jrmn notes, “to dnmic discursive
processes tht inorm one nother.”7 uturin mdness nd lcness to-
ether, I debun the perception tht the title is redundnt, omoronic, or
ecessive. In n ideoloicl construct o hite supremc, lcness is con-
sidered snonmous ith mdness or the prerequisite or cretin mdness.
o push them toether sntcticll runs the ris o pperin repetitive,
but it lso prompts the possibilit tht the to must be prsed.
Despite m cdemic nd personl proclivit or politesse nd riorous
specicit, I choose to rest in the vueness nd insult md brins.8 I mobi-
lize this ord s prt o m criticl rmture becuse this discussion requires
 direct enement ith slipper nd insultin lnue.9 d crries 
leicl rne tht includes (in)snit, conitive disbilit, ner, nd, or
none ho remembers the sln o the s, ecess (usull snonmous
ith too or rell). In common prlnce, it is used peortivel nd remins
rther vue. oever, md studies tes up mdness to “represent  criticl
lterntive to ‘mentl illness’ or ‘disorder’ s   o nmin nd respond-
in to emotionl, spiritul, nd neuro-diversit.”10 d studies perspectives
mobilize ctivist nd scholstic impulses in their reusl o the historicl
denitions o mdness s “irrtionlit,  condition involvin decline or
even disppernce o the role o rtionl ctor in the orniztion o hu-
mn conduct nd eperience” nd the eqution o mdness ith lc or in-
bilit.11 In this eld, the biopschitric denitions o mdness tht proceed
rom this historicl denition — edded to inbilit nd irrtionlit— no
loner hold since the disenrnchise the perspectives o those hrmed b
ps-disciplines. In this stud, I te seriousl the criticl impulses o md
studies: I eep  tension beteen pschosocil denitions o mdness (ith-
out ttributin cuslit) nd biomedicl denitions (ithout ttributin
uthorit), hile resistin n uncriticl celebrtion o mdness s eperi-
ence or s metphor. ven thouh this proect ocuses on those ho ould
be lbeled md or embrce bein md, I lso do not veer too r  rom

4 
the criticl possibilities o mdness s  “slipper nd unrul obect.”1 hen
mdness does not solel reer to the eperience o  md person but rther
pns outrd s  lrer discourse, it chllenes ho “the pschic, conitive,
nd ective dimensions o eperience re prceled out into cteories . . . ll
under the supposedl ‘empiricl’ uthorit o medicl science nd pschit-
ric epertise s much s throuh the eercise o lel nd uridicl poer.”1
In other ords, it is everhere nd ects everthin. ddeninl so.
In Black Madness :: Mad Blackness, lc unctions s  rcil cteor,
culturl lition, nd socil position. I use lc or its leicl nd socio-
culturl rne. It includes  ide vriet o people nd eperiences ithin
the dispor nd does not limit the discussion to  specic eopoliticl im-
intive spce. Unortuntel, m discussion is limited in scope to the prts
o the dispor tht shre n intellectul inheritnce ith orth meric
nd urope. s Julie Livinston’s Debility and the Moral Imagination in
Botswana () nd irml revelles’s Disability and Dierence in Global
Contexts () me cler, denitions o lcness nd disbilit cnnot
nd should not be moved crelessl cross trnsntionl borders.1 Yet, iven
the vstness o colonil nd imperil proects here rce determines lie nd
deth, the stud o lcness emeres s  ecund spce to thin throuh
ho mteril consequences mniest. s I hve climed elsehere,  turn
to lcness “uthorizes  reconceptuliztion o histor, culture, nd poli-
tics” i the eld is understood s “ set o trditions, redin prctices, nd
vlution sstems opertin lonside, intertined ith, but lso indepen-
dent rom those o hiteness.”15 Lie mdness, lcness is lso everhere
nd ects everthin. It is m hope tht despite the necessr eopoliti-
cl limittions o m proect, it lter proves useul or those studin other
lcnesses.
I choose to nominlize lc nd md b ddin the su “ness” to t-
tend to the to ords s both description nd cteor. I brin them to-
ether rmmticll to theorize bout the constelltion o reltionships
tht comprise the to. irml revelles, in ritin bout the iddle
sse, rereds ortense pillers’s or to point out tht the simplied
cusl reltionship— slver produces disbilit— does not ull encompss
the  disbilit nd lcness unction. ther, “disbilit/impirment
nd rce re neither merel bioloicl nor holl discursive, but rther re
historicl mteril constructs imbricted ithin the eploittive conditions
o trnsntionl cpitlism.”16  sted rmmticl intervention in the
title clls ttention to ho  revision o this sort ors. It is t once  re-

ht’s Good 5
erence to the mteril conditions nd consequences s ell s  discursive
ttendin to the cteories’ imbriction. ominlizin the to lso stves
o ht chel Gormn rues is “the md subect . . . constituted s the
hite subect t the horizon o hiteness”17: tht is, the md hite subect
ho cn be embrced b hiteness throuh  discourse o universlit. In
this ormultion, lcness modies (nd I use the rmmticl term de-
libertel) ho nd ht is md. dness s noun clls ttention to ht
mi chl insists is  useul slippe beteen mterilit nd metphor
in lc studies. he rues tht ithin lc literture, disbilit tes on
“concrete nd metphoricl menins” such tht disbilit cn “smbolize
somethin other thn disbilit hile still bein bout disbilit.” In so do-
in, “disbilit metphors thereore llo us to eplore the historicl nd
mteril connections beteen disbilit nd other socil sstems o privilee
nd oppression.”18 s ith revelles’s ormultion, the to cteories do not
eist in  simple cusl or nloic reltionship; the inorm ech other such
tht mdness modies ho e understnd lcness.19
he third puttive ord o the title, the double colon, teses nd dis-
rupts. he title sinls tht there re dierences beteen lc mdness
nd md lcness but one is not n nlo or the other, nor does one
eplin the other, nor does one cuse the other. lthouh the double colon
tends to stnd or nlo, the use o it here does not rm tht the to re
such, but rther questions the rmmrs nd ssumptions tht lie dormnt
in thinin o them s nloous ( quer I hihliht b cllin the double
colon  ord bove). I to ith the double colon s  convention o the c-
demic proect specicll becuse ht tpicll ollos the colon is sup-
posed to eplicte or clri. In this cse, the so-clled clriction is ment
to unsettle. he double colon lso nods to the trdition o lc specultive
ction on hich this proect ocuses. In the introduction to Ao-Future
Females: Black Writers Chart Science Fiction’s Newest New-Wave Trajectory
(), rleen rr clims, “ period printed on  pe resembles  plnet
bcrounded b hite spce vstness.”0 heres rr useull thins o
the period s  mniesttion o lc/hite encounter in science ction
uthorship, I nd the period-s-plnet evoctive or ho it orces  more
epnsive understndin o tht hich e once thouht o s nite. in,
the cusl, nloic, nd eplictive reltionships do not ull cpture ho
lc nd md unction toether. Insted, the our period/plnets o the
double colon invite us to thin o them s more vst in scope thn hereto-
ore imined.1

6 
 s m epliction o the title suests, this proect brins the convers-
tions ithin disbilit studies nd criticl rce studies toether someht
unesil ithout positionin either s emnciptor vis-à-vis the other.
ince disbilit studies, s  eld, borros hevil rom the ins o criticl
rce studies nd omen’s studies, rce is ls lred embedded in scho-
lstic discussions o disbilit. oever, the principles o criticl rce studies
tend to hve  penumbrl presence becuse disbilit studies rrel enes
hiteness s  socil position nd oen thins o lcness s  contribution
rther thn prt o its construction. s lon s hiteness remins the nor-
mtive rcil cteor, investitions o disbilit tht do not ddress hite-
ness directl leve open crucil lcune. In Disability Theory (), obin
iebers brins to ber the dvnces o criticl rce theor to disbilit the-
or s   to ormulte  comple understndin o ho identit theories
or, continent s the ll re on ht he terms “the ideolo o bilit.”
I ree tht  commitment to nd desire or bilit underirds common
pris, but iebers misses n opportunit to emine ho the presumption
o bilit ccompnies hiteness nd ho much such  presumption un-
derirds disbilit theor nd scholrship (I te this up in reter detil in
the third converstion). Lieise, Lennrd Dvis’s End of Normal ()
specultes tht no diversit does the semntic nd culturl hev liin
tht norml used to perorm s he rethins the ccepted isdom on topics s
vried s reud nd end-o-lie decisions. Yet, s compellin s Dvis’s or
is on these subects, it tes s its premise tht e hve moved beond iden-
tit. Lurin ithin this loic is the sme rhetoricl movement perormed
b ietzsche: s soon s decoloniztion opened up the spce or those ho
hd been obects o histor to ssert themselves s subects, subects ced
their theoreticl deth. e hve not moved beond identit becuse e hve
not moved beond hiteness s  stndrd, invisibilized thouh it m be.
ere, lison er’s questions bout the uture o disbilit studies, meth-
odoloicl inclusion, nd theoreticl impulse become prticulrl instruc-
tive: “In hich theories nd in hich movements do e reconize ourselves,
or reconize disbilit, nd hich theories nd movements do e continue
to see s seprte rom or tnentil to disbilit studies”5
One such opportunit or the uture o disbilit studies lies in its inclu-
sion o mdness. In ht some scholrs term  tist o iron, disbilit stud-
ies “ored s it hs been ith phsicl impirment s its primr terrin,
hs inherited dmin bleist ssumptions o ‘mind.’ ”6 I concur tht in
the eld o disbilit studies, “phsicl disbilit stnds in or disbilit in

ht’s Good 7
toto” nd tht, in enerl, “intellectul disbilit is more redil nd idel
deploed s  device o dehumniztion thn is phsicl disbilit.”7 or
tht reson, the uture o disbilit studies must include scholrs o rhetoric
ho re t the oreront o or on intellectul disbilit ith their eplor-
tions o utism, neurotpiclit, nd mentl illness.8 Black Madness :: Mad
Blackness opens up the opportunit to emine ho the chres o conitive
disbilit nd mentl illness (i.e., drapetomania s  mentl illness cusin
lc slves to run ) or conenitl, rce-bsed neurotpiclit (i.e.,
ll lcs re mentll decient) ber repercussions or iminin, nlz-
in, nd theorizin lcness nd mdness.9 s mentioned beore, mdness
remins slipper, s both rel nd imined, climed nd reused. ht
remins stble is tht mdness is understood s  unction o lnue, one
ith hich disbilit studies must ene s tet. olloin the loic o
n itchos in Reading and Writing Disability Dierently (), e
must bein to red mdness s  tet in our studies, since “climin to no
disbilit, hile not eperiencin  need to reect upon the ssumptions, or-
niztion nd consequences o this nolede is  common et potentill
oppressive socil prctice.”0 I ould dd tht it is denitel n oppressive
scholstic prctice i e choose not to reect on ho our intellectul enter-
prise is upheld b snist notions o mind.
hus r, criticl or, includin m on, bout lcness nd disbil-
it hs, lie disbilit studies enerll, ocused on phsicl disbilit nd
chronic illness. or those scholrs situted in or climed b disbilit stud-
ies, the discussions o lcness nd disbilit hve been illeible becuse
the chllene certin cdemic conventions. or instnce, Christopher .
ell’s edited collection Blackness and Disability: Critical Examinations and
Cultural Interventions () unctions s one o the inuurl moments
o lc disbilit studies (more in the rst converstion), since it souht
to shi the converstion in ricn mericn studies rom bein bleist
nd the converstion in disbilit studies rom bein “concerned ith hite
bodies.”1 he collection includes scholrs hose cittionl pris does not
ls me use o ell-non disbilit studies scholrs or hose or
does not necessril include the ord disbilit. o m mind, ht ppers
to be  set o mistes ctull revels tht hen lcness nd disbilit
cohere, the chllene ech other institutionll nd llo or the possibilit
tht disbilit or rce m be clled b other nmes. s ith the lnue
o mdness, no lnue rerdin disbilit is neutrl, hich mens tht
the euphemisms in common prlnce (i.e., the sur or dibetes, or touched

8 
or conitivel disbled) me their  into criticl literture dierentl
s ell (i.e., helth cre discrepncies nd dierentils in tretment or di-
betes, or discussions bout outsiders ithin  mil/communit). ht
ppers to be  p in this discussion o rce nd disbilit ctull requires
 reredin o the criticl literture, since in lc culturl nd criticl con-
tets, disbilit is oen opertin in other reisters. s mentioned in the
prece, one hs to thin lcl or mdl. mi L. Cre, in Rhetorical
Healing: The Reeducation of Contemporary Black Womanhood (), lins
the discourse o helin nd ellness to lc omen’s literc o their en-
vironment. Disbilit— s  set o socil nd culturl prctices — subtends
Cre’s discussion hen she elbortes on lc omen’s ritin s  set o
“tlin nd redin cures” tht llo them to detil the compleities o rc-
ism nd seism. r rom considerin disbilit uilir or merel prt o
n overcomin nrrtive, Cre’s rticultion o ellness llos disbilit to
be the vector throuh hich some o the lc omen riters in her stud
rticulte their encounters ith misonoir. One o the other reisters t
ste is ersure: ebecc nzo’s The Suering Will Not Be Televised ()
eplores ho lc omen’s suerin, becuse o n mericn obsession
ith sentimentlit in nrrtive, remins illeible to  lrer public. ere,
disbilit unctions s  socil structure tht b virtue o bleist relince on
pit nd smpth determines ho ets to belon to the cteor disbled
nd hose eperience o illness cn be vlidted in the public sphere. ecent
proects, includin the ieth nniversr specil issue o Aican American
Review on lcness nd disbilit (ust to nme one), hve ttempted to
recti these lcune, push inst the invisibilit o rce b proposin ne
methodoloies (e.., Christopher . ell’s representtionl detective or,
mi chl’s emphsis on mterilit in metphor, Leon ilton’s theoriz-
tion o nderin, nn ollo’s schem o t lc disbilit studies),
minin historiorphicl ps (e.., Douls nton’s eplortion o civil
rihts discourse, De oster’s nlsis o slver, ichel Gill nd irml
revelles’s reredin o enriett nd lsie Lcs), perormin hermeneu-
ticl redins o vrious tets (e.., Jere rune’s rchivl or on John
ord Grin, imoth . Lle’s interrotion o plesure in erl Clee,
Dennis ler Jr.’s sted converstion beteen Jmes eldon Johnson’s c-
tion nd utobiorph, rh Orem’s redins o lc disster in Grey’s
Anatomy), or pushin inst ntionl boundries (e.., Julie Livinston’s e-
plortion o otsn, Clire rer’s emphsis on postcolonil literture).
I choose to nme these scholrs eplicitl s prt o  scholrl politic

ht’s Good 9
tht ls bre ht or hs lred been done nd b hom so tht e cn
no loner remr tht the to elds do not spe to ech other. oreover,
unerthin here disbilit ppers in lc studies nd here lcness
ppers in disbilit studies scholrship bolsters one o the min contentions
o Black Madness :: Mad Blackness. here eists  ide constelltion o criti-
cl reltionships beteen lcness nd disbilit rit lre, nd lcness
nd mdness in prticulr. inin lndmr scholrship in lc studies
bers this out. or emple, Vlerie mith’s discussion o the rret spce
in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, in ddition to bein  crucil stud
or lc eminist thouht, positions the rchitecture o connement nd
thereore tht hich cretes disbilit s preerble to the conditions o slv-
er nd enblin reedom. either mith’s or nor the tet under scru-
tin eplicitl herlds disbilit s rdicl, but ech mes tht potentil
cler. enr Louis Gtes Jr.’s concept o the “tlin boo” ssumes  ide
vriet o possibilities or communiction tht includes double voicin, in-
tertetulit, nd silence. o trouble notions o ho  tet spes is to l-
lo or the possibilit tht conition, communiction, nd bilit upend
or cocrete sid tet. Gtes’s nd mith’s or remins underirded b the
presence o disbilit even i it is not eplicitl cnoleded nd clled s
such. Disbilit does pper eplicitl in some tets, such s lice ler’s
medittions on her blindness in “eut: hen the Other Dncer Is the
el ” () nd udre Lorde’s esss in Burst of Light () nd Cancer
Journals (). In the or o the politicl scientist Cth J. Cohen, dis-
bilit surces in  discussion o /a. Cohen’s The Boundaries of
Blackness:  and the Breakdown of Black Politics () indicts the se-
ments o lc communities tht reused to cre or the ill nd the din
bsed on nrro denitions o rcil identit. O lte, criticl rce scholrs
L rr Jurelle ruce nd icole leetood emined the prevlence o
disbilit in discourses surroundin lc celebrities Lurn ill nd i-
hnn, respectivel, in  specil issue o Aican American Review, edited b
oic Colbert, on lc perormnce. he ech rue tht or these lc
omen entertiners disbilit — prticulrl mdness — chnes public per-
ception o their voice. or Lurn ill, the use o crz-s-insult mes it
permissible to inore her critiques o the music industr nd its eploit-
tion o her. or ihnn, mobilizin crziness llos her some ltitude in
her cretive nd erotic proects. ruce nd leetood’s or— limited onl
becuse o the enre o the rticle — ocuses on ho lcness medites the
understndin o presumed disbilit nd in some cses cilittes ersure.

10 
 Unliel ites:  ord on ethodolo
Black Madness :: Mad Blackness urthers the converstions bove b ore-
roundin the spces here lcness nd mdness become useull en-
tnled.  ol, hoever, is not to unrvel them but rther to pinpoint
the cets o their intertinin so tht e miht rest ith the nots histor
nd culture hve creted. his proect ttempts n intellectul crtorph.
Invoin orrison, “I nt to dr  mp . . . o  criticl eorph nd use
tht mp to open . . . spce or discover, intellectul dventure, nd close
eplortion,”5 since the s e’ve drn connections nd borders beteen
lcness nd mdness hve heretoore closed o possibilities or rendered
them in simplistic terms. In oerin   to red nd conceive o lcness
nd mdness conoined, this proect ssumes ht most intellectul crto-
rphies hve borne out: rcism nd bleism re quotidin prctices in hich
the eperience o bein rced nd bein disbled re mundne. or tht re-
son, one cnnot hve rce ithout disbilit, nor disbilit ithout rce. e
used to remr oen tht disbilit studies hs been slo to discuss issues o
rce nd vice vers. s m discussion bove hs mde cler, e should revise
tht to point out tht despite the incresed converstions bout rce nd
disbilit enerll nd mdness nd lcness in prticulr, scholrship
tends to tenuousl connect the to, nd tht connection, hoever criticll
useul, cn be nd hs been esil severed or resons o politicl epedienc.
his is ht hppens hen lcness is considered  problem or disbilit
revolution. his is ht hppens hen disbilit is considered  problem
or lc revolution. In ht ollos, I theorize bout the plces here nd
resons h the reltionship beteen the to reuses to so esil ll prt.
I turn to n unliel site to discuss lcness nd mdness: lc specu-
ltive ction. s so mn others hve lred proven, rce nd bilit re
historicll nd mterill constructed. o, m recourse to  enre tht de-
libertel unmoors itsel rom time nd spce m seem strne. his un-
liel site, ht science ction critic Dro uvin termed the “literture o
conitive estrnement,”6 distinuishes itsel in its ttendin to the ct
in the ction.7 his ormultion useull clries ho specultive ction
comments on the snit o the orld it inhbits nd ho tht enre ttempts
to dene snit. oever, the ide o “conitive estrnement” needs some
clriction vis-à-vis mdness. ht is, ht does specultive ction do in its
discussion o mdness irst, “conitive estrnement” implies dissonnce
nd distress, but does not impl mdness per se. he term cnnot stretch

ht’s Good 11
to ccommodte eperiences o mdness lie those tht md studies tes
seriousl: those tht re ptient-centered nd septicl o ps-disciplines,
prticulrl those tht llo or or court  nrrtive resolution. o be cler,
this stries me s  limittion o “conitive estrnement” s  term, not
md studies s n interdisciplinr enterprise or lc specultive ction s
 literr endevor. he term mdness, m sted rmmticl intervention
in this proect’s title nd method, helpull intervenes s   to prompt 
discussion o the ct in the ction, the strne in the conitive, the disso-
nnce in the distress, but it does not te or rnted tht mdness ill be
resolved b the nrrtive’s end.
econd, the understndin o “conitive estrnement” in specultive
ction hs to be situted ithin  converstion bout ho rce unctions
in tht enre. I concur ith Isih Lvender III’s description o the “lc-
round” o specultive ction, the spce here the rce menins in the
enre become discernible nd ndré crrinton’s ide tht the cretion o
specultive ction ushers in the cretions o rercted lcnesses.8 or
both Lvender nd crrinton, redin rce requires redin inst some
o the conition tht uides the cretive or ithin this enre. o, i e re
to consider tht specultive ction ttempts to unsettle ho reders thin,
but tpicll ils to do so in the re o rce, then e must consider ho
 discussion bout rce lso requires tht e shi redin prctices. d-
ness then opens up “conitive estrnement” to question ust ectl ho
strne conition bout lcness nd mdness cn be. In other ords,
Dro uvin did not no ho riht he s: e must ttend to the cts o
lcness nd mdness in the (specultive) ction.
edin mdness nd lcness conoined in lc specultive ction
indees the proound possibilities ithin tht enre. lippes ithin the
enre te or rnted multiple orms o conition, mentl enement, nd
rcil dierence such tht lc specultive ction becomes  elcomin
plce or those ho re seein   out o their minds.  less tonue-
in-chee, thouh no less slipper nser lies in one o the premier lc
specultive ction rtist-theorist’s rumintions on the utilit o the enre
ith rerd to theorizin bout the orld. In Octvi . utler’s ess “osi-
tive Obsession,” she rote or Essence reders  rebuttl to (or  rebue o)
the question “ht ood is ll this [science ction] or lc people”9
he counters the ssumption embedded ithin the question tht literture
must do somethin or mteril conditions. he points out not onl tht
she resents the question but lso tht the enre “stimultes imintion nd

12 
cretivit,” “ets reder nd riter o the beten trc,” nd, in its “emin-
tion o the possible eects o science nd technolo or socil orniztion
nd politicl direction,” prompts “lterntive s o thinin nd doin.”0
ore importntl or this discussion, her enumerted nsers s ell s her
rhetoricl questions (nsers b prleipsis) suest tht the unmoorin o
time, spce, nd culture in science ction prompts the necessr tumult re-
quired to reimine the orld.
utler (lie the rest o the riters tht ollo— lo opinson, -
nnrive Due, nd t Johnson) opertes s  theorist in line ith rbr
Christin’s ormultion o theor nd nrrtive, s outlined in “he ce
or heor”: nmel, their nrrtives, riddles, proverbs, stories, nd ction
re ho the theorize in dnmic rther thn sttic orms.1 heir convers-
tions bout time, socil loction, spce, nd plce invite reders to reemine
ho to red lcness nd mdness lonside ech other. he ech scru-
tinize the monstrous intimc o the novel, hihlihtin ho it unctions
s  pedoic enterprise desined to inculcte nd discipline lc bodies
ith their on ersure. In much o this proect, I ocus on the  their
theorizin mniests in the content o their ction. It is onl t the end o
this proect tht I delibertel turn to  discussion o enre (the novel) itsel.
hese riters prticipte in  rich trdition o lc specultive ction tht
upends the ersure o lcness in ction rit lre nd the dismissl o
mdness s mere metphor. t the interstices o  rced nd endered md-
ness, e nd the sems o the nlihtenment proect. hen specultive
ction riters suspend time, spce, nd culture, the orce urther prt
the disuncture beteen ht is nturl nd ht is culturl inheritnce.
ven thouh the content o the ction under scrutin sees to disentnle
itsel rom time s  prticulr concept, the ction remins steeped in dis-
courses tht hve lon histories, includin rcist ntebellum pseudoscience,
disbilit s the rtionle inst civil rihts ins, nd rhetoric tht binds
hite rcism to  series o unspeble nd unintelliible cts. Yet, their
ritin does not obscure the tension beteen sstemic rcism nd bleism,
on the one hnd, nd seeminl individul nd sinulr intimte cts, on
the other. ht these riters oreround is tht it ould be illull nïve
to ssume hite mdness s the onl rtionle or rcism or to dismiss ho
much rcism is mundne nd so is mdness, but the ltter is not n ecuse
or  reson or the ormer.
o be cler, I do not believe tht this proect hs implictions solel or
lc specultive ction (s I discuss in the nl converstion). Given the

ht’s Good 13
histor o literc nd rce in the United ttes, ll lc riters re  sci-
ence ction come to lie. Includin me. Given the histor o disbilit nd
science, mn disbled people live in the interstices o science nd ction.
Includin me. ithin the lon histor o lc literture, mdness surces
not solel s ptholo or s prt o  hol ool trdition, but lso s  vi-
ble lterntive to enements ith hite rcism even i it does not result
in incresed enc. dness becomes the plce to ene becuse rcism
dheres to  peculir ind o rtionlit, predicted on the lon histor o
the nlihtenment nd its mteril eects. Criticl md studies, hen com-
bined ith criticl rce studies, becomes benecill disruptive s   to
cll ttention to lc mdness s  vible socil loction rom hich peo-
ple hve been ened. rom uline opins’s novel Of One Blood, Or
the Hidden Self (), hich miht be termed lc specultive ction, to
nelin eld Grimé’s pl Rachel () to Geore ole’s pl The Col-
ored Museum () nd others, lc md chrcters re everhere. heir
mdnesses nd their lcnesses re epnsive. urthermore, the emples
o lcness nd mdness do not merel eist in ction. he nd their 
toether into the public sphere nd lobl hedlines s emples o ht
occurs hen the ull orce o deleitimizin poer ets mrshled inst
to socil loctions hose construction tends to hine on their reltionship
to nonnormtivit: medi discussions o lc re, the ermth o stte-
snctioned nd etrudicil illins o lc people, nd the slihtin o
non-lc llies.
In m methodolo, I te or rnted tht the redin cts tht privilee
mdness nd lcness re prticiptor. hoshn elmn nd oni or-
rison ree tht redin mdness nd rce respectivel requires prticiption
in the orm o decision-min on the prt o the reder.5 heir understnd-
in o the orld must be ened— in order to be conrmed or disrupted.
ccordin to elmn nd orrison, reders must decide hich portions o
the content the ill privilee in their interprettion. elmn’s “scndl”
tht no reder is innocent resontes ith orrison’s “plin in the dr,”
since no reder cn be divorced rom discussions o rce in mericn let-
ters. o red lcness nd mdness then, to prticipte in such redins,
requires tht reders ber the responsibilit o interprettion: understnd
tht multiple interprettions re vilble nd tht their choices indicte 
stnce on lcness nd mdness itsel. ince elmn nd orrison’s ides
oe reder response to socil, politicl, nd culturl contet, the become
incredibl useul or thinin throuh the  md lcness nd lc

14 
mdness eceed the boundries o the tet. Indeed, the sinicnt mteril
consequences o ech suest tht tets ere never ment to hold mdness
or lcness. ederl prticiption lso pplies to criticl understndins
o the to discourses s ell. or this reson, ech o the converstions in
Black Madness :: Mad Blackness beins ith  discussion o ho the criticl
discourse shpes our enement. I strt there becuse critics, s reders, re
implicted in the scholrl ritin bout lcness nd mdness. r-
ret rice’s Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life
() points this out beutiull b indictin tht e re ll implicted s
scholrs in discussions o mdness.6 he proessorite hines on our bil-
it to pss s sne, or rther the riht tpe o sne.7 It is the sme critique
scholrs o rce hve been min or ers: to ddress lcness/mdness
imperils the tin pillrs o hiteness nd snit tht uphold estern no-
tions o intellectul enterprise.
o tht end, I dr on those ho red ithin the olds nd bres, 
concept nd methodolo tht ttends to connections beteen discourse
nd mterilit s innite nd inetricbl bound. he comple eb o re-
ltionships beteen lcness nd mdness (nd rce nd disbilit) is con-
stituted ithin the ssures, bres, nd ps in criticl nd literr tets.
ortense pillers’s or in “Interstices:  Drm o mll ords” (),
nd “ ‘m’s b, p’s be’: n mericn Grmmr oo” (),
opens up this criticl spce nd methodolo in her discussion o the esh.
he depicts the esh s  tet tht hs, mes, nd cquires menin. he
esh o lc omen in prticulr, since it hs been ersed rom histor, in
its broted sttus eists ithin ht Deleuze lter terms the old:  spce
not solel o possibilit, but one tht continuousl ets ersed. ince Deleuze
develops the old vis-à-vis Leibniz’s understndin o the roque esthetic
(red: ithin  trdition o estern nd nlihtenment thouht), I nd
it useul to thin throuh ho the old shos up in the esthetic pris o
the rtists-theorists under scrutin. he old eists ithin the sel, beteen
the sel nd other, nd beteen roups o others, s  spce rom hich to
interpret nd understnd the vrious criticl nd cretive possibilities vil-
ble. In ddition, development does not occur on  liner plne: it constntl
olds, unolds, nd reolds. ost importnt or m redins, the old unc-
tions s  spce tht cretes nd sustins possibilit. pillers’s or not onl
nticiptes Deleuze but lso epnds its rech b min eplicit hich sub-
ects consistentl live ithin the old, n ide disbilit studies scholr Len-
nrd Dvis echoes hen he rites bout the  ides nd subects ithin

ht’s Good 15
the old et ersed.8 Yet, the old s understood b Deleuze is not merel
the plce here histor nd esthetics rest. It is mercuril nd oppositionl,
since, s ortense pillers theorized prior to Deleuze, it is emblzoned on
lc esh. red oten’s In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radi-
cal Tradition () conceptulizes the “bre,”  methodoloicl issin
cousin to the old, s  rcilized spce tht pinpoints ho histor, music,
nd rce— s discursive concepts nd mteril consequences— unction s
oppositionl even s the re coetensive. oten’s “bre” sinls the ind
o rupture tht cretes nd ctstrophizes lcness nd mdness, hich
he punctutes b usin other ords to describe the bre lie the cut, or
the process o brein, lie invintion, or intussuscepted (ll o hich
I borro).
In theorizin bout the constelltion o reltionships beteen lcness
nd mdness, I nd tht the hve, me, nd cquire menin dierentl
in ction nd criticl converstions. or this reson, ech discussion mes
room or n investition o the ps nd ssures in criticl literture s ell
s here ction intervenes. he rtists-theorists in this stud ll chllene
the current criticl converstions in their dnmic theorizin.  redins
o both the criticl literture nd the ctive tet emine the old (the bre,
the cut) nd the processes tht me the old leible (invintion, intussus-
ception). hese ruptures require redin tets countermnemonicll ith
n ee tord ps nd mistes.9 I s pointedl bout the  criticl con-
verstions re constructed, rehersed, nd urthered. I lso s bout here
the ction opens up the possibilities criticl converstions hve oreclosed.
I red ithin the rupture, the bre, the old, ndin the potentils, pit-
lls, nd the processes o lc mdness nd md lcness. I delibertel
str  rom conceptions o lcness nd mdness, such s tht o nne
Chen’s “rcil melncholi,” hich understnds rcil identit s beholden
to rie, or ul Gilro’s “postcolonil melncholi,” hich vies histor
onl throuh the lenses o nostli nd melncholi.50 Despite their util-
it in thinin throuh the eects o internlized colonilism nd rcism,
melncholi conceptull cnniblizes ll other ective enement nd
tends to prioritize itsel over rce, even hen the to re supposedl sutured
toether. o red ithin these olds points out ho lcness nd mdness
eceed nd shi the boundries nd denitions o humn, specicll ho
the ssumed subect positions o unnoble ecess (tht is, lc mdness
nd md lcness) eoprdize the netness ith hich e dr the line
beteen sel nd other. e cler. his is not ment to be n emnciptor

16 
theor o enc or lc md or md lc subects. Insted, this proect
m delinete the costs o hope nd the ermth o derdtion.
ith ood reson, this proect pulls rom the intellectul ctivist im-
pulses o both ricn mericn studies nd disbilit studies. ricn
mericn studies s n interdisciplinr eld chllenes the illul ps
nd ersures in other elds, privilein lcness s  criticl nlticl ct-
eor. It is rom this impulse o redress nd ddress tht I pproch disbil-
it studies’ insistence on the vribilit o humn embodiment nd mentl
bilit. I nd tht the to elds chllene one nother to emine points
o ersure both inside nd outside their on interdisciplinr spces. he
lso rn inst the commodiction o movements b institutions s 
pro or in the mteril conditions o disenrnchised rcil minorities
nd people ith disbilities. houh I suture them toether, I lso see to
prse lcness rom disbilit, disbilit rom lcness, since ech eld
hs used the discourse o the other to metphorize its on conditions, even
s I te seriousl the  both methodoloies trouble their reltionship to
normtivit. In this , m proect is indebted to queer studies or its cri-
tique o norml s  cteor, nd epnsive denitions o milil nd erotic
ttchment. s prt o m enement ith these elds, I prticipte in
ht ric drds terms “ politics o curiosit” or in lison er’s “un-
nsered questions nd contrdictions” tht see to open up ne, i ruht,
intellectul terroir.51
ecuse o m emphsis on the processes nd potentils o lcness nd
mdness toether, I choose to red the to throuh the lens o intersection-
lit. his prticulr theoreticl pproch— described s such b imberlé
Crensh nd theorized ell beore her5 — relies on the interrelted nture
o identit s ormtion nd lived eperience. I hrness the motilit sso-
cited ith Crensh’s ide o the intersection. In “Demrinlizin the
Intersection o ce nd e:  lc eminist Critique o ntidiscrimin-
tion Doctrine, eminist heor nd ntircist olitics” (), Crensh
mobilizes the lel emple o dirmin n ccident to point out the ml-
lebilit o the intersection theor. cholrs hve troubled intersectionlit
or bein “ridloced” or not ccountin or the control o bodies throuh
“ective cpcities nd tendencies,” so I nd it useul to return to Cren-
sh’s oriinl emple or ht it oers this inquir in terms o mlle-
bilit nd ective control.5 Crensh notes tht “it is not ls es to
reconstruct n ccident: ometimes the sid mrs nd the inuries simpl
indicte tht the occurred simultneousl, rustrtin eorts to determine

ht’s Good 17
hich driver cused the hrm.”5 In this metphor, the ccident’s cuses m
be multiple — both noble nd unnoble. tendin the metphor or
 moment: the ccident could be cused b the drivers, the rod, the pedes-
trins, or poor sine, n o hich includes the possibilit o ective
control b  lrer structurl entit. oreover, the ccident metphor relies
on  sense o motilit, since identities re not sttic, nor re the understood
in this rmeor s ctin equll t the sme time. Indeed, the ide o
the intersection requires tht one encounter it, pproch it, or delibertel
trverse it — ein out the spce or intersectionlit to thin throuh iden-
tities s in u nd in processes o becomin s ell s bein sptill nd
temporll continent.
houh I me use o the old nd I mention the processes o becom-
in, I m cler tht I do not ish to te up nother Deleuzin rmeor
tht hs been proposed to ccompn intersectionlit: the ssemble. Js-
bir ur proposed tht intersectionlit be complemented b Deleuze nd
Guttri’s ssemble.55 er rtionle is tht the “eopolitics o reception”
does not deplo intersectionlit to its oriinl end.56 I shre ur’s concern
tht intersectionlit hs been misused to recenter hiteness nd does not
move smoothl cross trnsntionl borders,  concern voiced b irml
revelles, Juli Livinstone, nd Clre rer, s noted bove. Yet, it is trou-
blin tht  theor cred b nd or lc omen ould be used to erse
them in.57 Intersectionlit is n epistemoloicl intervention: it reori-
ents ho nd rom hom e understnd the nlihtenment proect. edi-
rectin tht orienttion bc to Deleuze nd Guttri (especill iven tht
ortense pillers’s or nticiptes nd epnds Deleuze’s ides bout the
old) resserts the import o hite uropen epistemoloies over nd inst
those o lc omen nd vlidtes continentl uropen intellectul tr-
ditions s stndrd. in  cue rom rittne Cooper’s proect in Beyond
Respectability: The Intellectual Thought of Race Women (), I understnd
lc omen’s intellectul proects s schools o thouht tht rom the nine-
teenth centur onrd souht to prioritize the specicit o lc omen’s
embodied theorizin.58 ince intersectionlit rises out o tht intellectul
spce, evcutin lc omen rom it prioritizes n ideolo tht bets
their ersure. o oist ssemble onto intersectionlit lso reduces lc
omen’s embodied theorizin nd becomes merel nother vehicle or the
enctment o privilee since it shis the converstion  rom them nd
their ides bout orld-min.59 It is in the nture o privilee to nd ever
more plces to hide. ccountin or this, I nd tht despite the ct tht the

18 
ssemble nd the old shre  similr emphsis on process, the ssemble
(s  concept or discussin identit) brins ith it  set o ides tht does
not suit m inquir.
ht I m lso unillin to te ith the theor o ssemble is the
reihted territor o the cbor: the eminist mterilist theor o becom-
in developed b Donn r tht combines humn, niml, nd m-
chine s  rdicl politicl enterprise tht ushers in the uture both theo-
reticll nd prcticll. I hve ound it useul s  thouht eercise tht
complictes the reltionship o the bod to itsel nd to others nd dels
ith our ver rel relince on mchines nd inship ith nimls. ince
the cbor opens up the converstion bout uturit — hich usull elides
mdness nd lcness— it lso becomes  useul spce to consider ho e
re becomin.60 Certinl, to thin throuh our inship ith mchines is
propos or discussions o disbilit iven the medicliztion o certin bod-
ies, nd remins so iven m emphsis on specultive ction. ut the cbor
is n incomplete, politicll ruht, nd ethicll suspicious nser to 
series o questions bout rced nd disbled uturit. teril relit must
recon ith ht others hve pointed out re the lived eperiences o the
lc nd disbled bod, ht mount to (in this proect, t lest) the ps
nd olds ithin lc specultive ction. ed in linment ith obin
iebers’s theor o comple embodiment nd lison er’s questionin o
sptil, culturl, nd temporl loics, the emphsis on the cbor nd the
desire to supersede the bod hs n ntonistic reltionship ith concerns
t the hert o disbilit studies: pin, scl ccess, nd the vlidit o em-
bodied eperience, to nme  e.61 ht hppens hen one does not desire
cborin intervention s cure ht o those or hom mteril cborin
relities re more pinul thn useul or plesurble s much s cborin
utures promise  rdicl set o possibilities or considerin disbilit, e
ouht to be r o them becuse the re lso relint on  set o middle-
clss (or rich) relities.
I hve elsehere pointed out the  the cbor’s promise o rdicl po-
tentil hines on n oriinl hite estern subect.6 Lenin on Donn
r’s oriinl denition, João Cost Vrs nd Jo . Jmes under-
stnd the lc cbor s  postbellum construction tht requires lc
derdtion: “ lc cbor:  modied, improved humn hose incresed
ethicl, spiritul, nd phsicl cpbilities enerte unusul strenth, om-
niscience, nd boundless love.”6 he invoe r’s understndin o
the cbor s both rel nd ctive to pinpoint ho the lc cbor re-

ht’s Good 19
lies on  set o interrcil dnmics tht etend rom  histor steeped in
nti-lcness. he lc cbor is required to prticipte in its on sel-
bnetion since it is built on top o the oundtions o mericn demo-
crtic nd imperil proects relint on phobic understndins o lcness.
he lc cbor, then, in Vrs nd Jmes’s ormultion, echoes tht o
the disbled cbor: neither cn escpe the desire or normlc tht erses
lcness nd mdness both. lison er reds in the ps o r’s
or nd its intellectul enelo to reinsert the o-overlooed contri-
butions o omen o color— mon them Octvi . utler nd Chel
ndovl— to the denition o the cbor. he pinpoints tht the cbor
s trnsressive ure hs limited potentil precisel becuse o ho it hs
been developed nd mobilized in s tht erse omen o color nd rei
the virule beteen disbled nd ble-bodied. houh the cbor ss or
blsphemous interprettion —  promise nd proposition er, Vrs, nd
Jmes redil chmpion — s prt o its politicl trnsression, I question
ho much the cbor cn mp  uture o n ind hen it relies on  pst
nd pth o ersure. ht the cbor ushers in— tht I’d preer to leve
side or this discussion— is n ssemble oed to nti-lcness nd ble-
ism,  method o becomin tht requires theoreticl overcomin since the
theories rel on but reuse disbled nd lc embodiment.
he sections tht ollo unction s  converstion bout mdness nd
lcness, ech one questionin nd returnin to the ones beore to uncover,
recover, discover the reltionships beteen these to concepts. he re
not, s mentioned in the prece, ment to orm  nrrtive rc.  inten-
tion in brinin mdness nd lcness toether theoreticll is not to cre-
te  liner nrrtive bout the constelltion o reltionships tht comprise
the to. Insted, I ish to open up severl interrelted converstions tht
intertine, ree, nd, perhps, rebue ech other. ch section beins ith
 discussion o the criticl literture s n inrod to risin questions tht
scholrs hve overlooed or elided. I seue into the ctive tets, not s il-
lustrtive emples o the criticl converstions but rther s interventions.
he rtists-theorists in this stud press us to puse in the bres o the criti-
cl literture nd undero nother process o intussusception. heir or
revmps ho e miht thin bout the questions e rise rerdin lc-
ness nd mdness nd the reltionships beteen the to.
he rst converstion, “in lc dness,” emines the some-
ht cnonicl ide tht rce nd disbilit mutull constitute ech other.
rcin this ide throuh its enesis in disbilit studies, I nd tht this ide

20 
onl leves room or recupertive historicl or emnciptor proects. Oct-
vi . utler’s Fledgling () intervenes in its depiction o lc mdness,
theorizin bout the  intimte reltionships disrupt the impulses tht
underird mutul constitution. Ultimtel, utler interrotes hether the
concept o mutul constitution is  useul redin strte. he second dis-
cussion, “ d lc hn,” prses mentl illness nd conitive bilit to
thin bout ht hppens hen mdness eists in the contet o lcness.
I rue or the concept o md lcness, since it invlidtes estern de-
pendence on oculrit nd liner proression b shiin conceptions bout
or mpliin the reches o lcness nd mdness. s  sonic novel, lo
opinson’s Midnight Robber () medittes on the potentils o silence
nd puttive md speech. opinson’s or llos or md lcness to
trnsorm ho e conceptulize mdness ithin intrrcil spces.
olloin  politics o curiosit, in the third converstion, “bndonin
the umn,” I s ht it miht men to unme lc mdness. ht is,
ho miht e disene ith the ides tht underird these concepts -
nnrive Due’s conception o the nonhumn in her Aican Immortals series
(– ) shis the discursive terrin b questionin ht it mens to de-
sire lcness, ho nd h (conitive) bilit continues to hve ideoloicl
eiht, nd ht interpretive strteies eist tht privilee md lc epis-
temoloies. er series unctions s  heuristic tht llos us to test ho nd
h lcness nd mdness cquire criticl purchse in  orld desined or
their ersure. Due’s or lso presses critics to rticulte hen nd h e
miht bndon the concept o the humn — residues o the nlihtenment
proect — in vor o lcness nd mdness. In the nl section, “ot -
in enin, ot in ince (he nd o ime),” I question the ideo-
loicl conceit t the hert o both disbilit studies nd lc studies, hen
vieed rom the stndpoint o  liner proressive nrrtive — tht lc-
ness nd mdness must men somethin. ere I commit n ct o literr
theorist blsphem b trin to sort throuh hich conditions ould me
it possible or lc mdness to lose menin but not vlue. Understndin
t Johnson’s irreverent lc md chrcters s  strtin point or such
musins, I conecture bout ht hppens to the lc md nd the md
lc t the end o time. s mentioned erlier, I turn to the  Johnson
describes nd enes the novel specicll becuse the enre presumes the
vlidit o liner proressive nrrtives. Johnson’s or not onl questions
the possibilities ithin the novel but lso permits Black Madness :: Mad
Blackness to pn outrd beond lc specultive ction to thin bout

ht’s Good 21
ht lc novels do rit lre. Cvet: this boo does not hve  conclu-
sion. s I eplin in more detil in the prece nd in the nl section, red-
in nd theorizin md lcness nd lc mdness demnds n ellipticl
openness tht reuses linerit nd proression tord trditionl conclu-
sions. ther thn rticill oist one upon this discussion, I’ve chosen to
leve it someht open. his is  md lc boo, er ll.
I mobilize the mllebilit o intersectionlit nd the de cto vlidit
o embodied, lived eperience or the purposes o this converstion. ther
thn recenter the converstion on hiteness s  uidin prdim, I choose
to emine the plces here normtivit bres: the ccident in the middle
o the intersection, s it ere.  redins ocus on the ps, mistes, olds,
nd bres. I ssess the dme, nd provide  lens or redin lcness
nd mdness toether. o m mind, the md lc/lc md subect is
not simpl stndin t n intersection but lso ctivel chnin it. In ht
ollos, I see to ure out ho.

22 