Reimagining Disability Beyond Capitalist Constructs

By Charlie Moses

Introduction

The connotations of disability in the United States are those of systemic stigma, economic exclusion, and societal marginalization. Throughout my adulthood, I have struggled to identify with these labels, fearing that doing so might make me disposable, erased, infantilized, or othered. This fear is rooted in the societal narratives surrounding disability that reduce individuals to tropes of dependency. These narratives are deeply ingrained in the structures of capitalism, which measure human value in terms of productivity.

When I share with friends that others have described or labeled me as disabled, their reactions often reflect these tropes. Comments like, “No, you’re not—you don’t look like a disabled person,” reveal a narrow and problematic perception of disability. These exchanges have led me to question whether the term “disabled” should remain part of our rhetoric. Similar to how capitalism will continue to perpetuate its destructive systems despite reform, efforts to reclaim or reimagine disability within a capitalist framework may only reinforce or reshape the existing paradigm.

In Critical Thought in the Face of the Capitalist Hydra 1: Contributions by the Sixth Commission of the EZLN, the analogy of the Hydra, a creature whose heads regenerate each time one is chopped off, is helpful.¹ Capitalism regenerates: its exploitative mechanisms will continue to co-opt and leech efforts of resistance and reform unless the entire system is replaced. This requires a shift toward autonomy and the creation of alternative models.

The Limitations of Rhetoric

Efforts to redefine disability often fall short of addressing and dismantling the capitalist structures that perpetuate its marginalization. This is because they lack a deeper reimagining of those structures. As an economic system, capitalism rewards productivity, efficiency, and individual autonomy as markers of societal worth, working to erase those who do not conform to these standards. Within this framework, disability is viewed not as a natural form of the human experience, but as a deviation incompatible with the demand for labor optimization. The cultural narrative around disability frames it as an economic and social burden, positioning individuals with disabilities outside the boundaries of normative productivity. This framing reinforces disability as a personal deficit rather than a structural issue.

This commodification of human value translates into a societal expectation that individuals conceal or minimize aspects of their health to maintain employability. Navigating these pressures becomes an isolating experience, underscoring a broader societal tendency to devalue individuals labeled as “disabled.” The pressure to conform is felt during interactions that determine socioeconomic participation, such as job searches or workplace evaluations. A former boss once advised me to remain silent about my health conditions during interviews and well into the first year of employment—guidance that, while practical in navigating the system, upholds the narrative that individuals with disabilities are inherently less productive or valuable.

This systemic bias echoes the insights of Marta Russell, a disability rights activist, author, and scholar, who characterizes the socioeconomic exclusion of people with disabilities as structural and deliberate. In her analysis, she argues:

Disabled persons routinely get conceptualized as non-productive “dependent” freeloader members of society. Some disability policy makers, conceding that this is the prevailing view and that not much can be done to change it, have bought the line that, in order to be seen as having any value in this society, disabled people must be gotten off the benefits rolls.²

Russell’s critique highlights that the marginalization of people with disabilities stems not from their conditions but from a political economy that narrowly defines value through productivity. This framework not only limits opportunities for meaningful inclusion but also sustains a narrative that equates visible disabilities with inadequacy. As a result, individuals who can conceal their disabilities often feel pressured to do so to avoid discrimination, while those with visible disabilities are swiftly labeled as unproductive.

The broader implications of this concealment are profound. It denies individuals the ability to integrate their identities into society fully and perpetuates a culture of silence around the realities of living with a disability—disability becomes rare, uncommon, invisible, or other. Moreover, it encourages the narrative that disability is contrary to economic participation. Addressing these issues requires a necessary rethinking of societal values—a shift from individual autonomy to collective interdependence and from productivity-centric definitions of worth to a framework that recognizes the intrinsic value of all individuals.

The Cost of Living with Disability

My personal experiences with heart conditions, a neurological disorder, and lupus have demonstrated how little society is structured to accommodate those who do not conform to the idealized productive worker model. These conditions require hospital visits, surgeries, occasional mobility aids, regular testing, a team of medical specialists, regular sick leave, and an extensive pharmaceutical regimen. These needs come with a financial cost that compounds over time, creating a snowballing financial burden within a workforce that limits our earning capacity. A friend once remarked that living with a disability is like paying “rent to house your body and rent to keep your body alive,” a stark observation that encapsulates the financial precarity of disabled life. In this system, essential healthcare becomes an expense rather than a right, underscoring the capitalist prioritization of profit over human well-being. This structural inequity reflects an absolute disregard for the fundamental needs of individuals with disabilities, who are forced to navigate an economic framework that sees their existence as a liability and aims to exploit their livelihood to the point of erasure.

Beyond financial challenges, the pervasive stereotype of disabled people as dependent and burdensome perpetuates harmful assumptions about their capabilities. This is evident in personal interactions, such as when romantic partners express reluctance to be involved with someone with a disability, stating, “I don’t want to have to be a caretaker.” Such comments are not just personally hurtful but representative of a broader societal narrative that reduces disabled individuals to their perceived needs. These interactions reveal how society perceives disability—not as a part of the human experience but as a deviation from it.

This narrow perspective contributes to a culture where people who are disabled are seen primarily as recipients of care, rather than as contributors to society. Such views fail to acknowledge the diverse ways in which people who are disabled engage with and enrich their communities. For instance, while physical limitations may require accommodations, these do not prevent fulfilling relationships, professional achievements, or meaningful contributions to the cultural, social, and economic societal fabric. However, the persistent framing of disability as a state of dependency reinforces a system that sidelines disabled voices, undermining efforts toward inclusion. By fixating on perceived limitations rather than possibilities, society not only marginalizes disabled people but also misses out on the richness of their perspectives and contributions.

The interplay between economic burdens and social exclusion creates a compounding cycle of marginalization. The financial cost of living with a disability is not merely a monetary challenge; it reflects a structural failure to accommodate and support diverse human needs. Similarly, societal attitudes that devalue people with disabilities as “nonproductive” perpetuate harmful stereotypes, leading to further exclusion. Addressing these intertwined issues requires a fundamental shift in policy and perception: from a system that prioritizes profit and productivity to one that values inclusivity and interdependence. Only by dismantling these structural and cultural barriers can society create a world where all individuals, regardless of ability, are afforded the dignity and support necessary to thrive.

Rethinking Disability as a Social Construct

Historically, disability has been framed through a medicalized lens that isolates it as an individual problem to be fixed or cured. This approach stigmatizes people who are disabled while diverting attention away from structural and systemic barriers—like inaccessible environments, discriminatory practices, or lack of resources—that create and reinforce exclusion. Disability studies scholars, including Michael Oliver, argue for a paradigm shift focusing on societal structures rather than individual deficits. Oliver asserts that disability is not a natural outcome of impairment, but a social condition constructed by capitalist systems that marginalize those with impairments. Rather than stemming from individual functional limitations, disability arises from societal structures that separate the “work-worthy” from those deemed dependent—reinforced by ideologies like individualism, medicalization, and normality.³

While Oliver’s framing is valuable, it does not fully capture the complexity of disability as a shared human experience. Disability is not confined to any specific demographic; it transcends race, gender, class, and other identities, touching nearly everyone either directly or indirectly. Most people will experience some form of disability, whether temporary or permanent, at some point in their lives, and many are connected to someone who lives with a disability daily. Recognizing this shifts the narrative, reframing disability as an integral aspect of human diversity rather than a marginal or isolated issue.

Reimagining disability as a social construct rather than a personal deficit demands a cultural transformation. Current narratives often reduce disability to a limitation, feeding a culture of shame and exclusion. Instead, we must acknowledge the resilience and unique contributions of people with disabilities while addressing the systemic barriers that shape our experiences. This broader perspective encourages a collective responsibility to create a society that values interdependence, community, and care, allowing disability to be seen as an inherent and valuable part of the human experience.

Ethical Resistance and New Paradigms

Resistance against systemic oppression, whether based on disability or other marginalized identities, must be rooted in ethical practices that avoid recreating the hierarchies and exploitative structures they aim to dismantle. Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed offers a vital warning: “The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors.”⁴ This dynamic is insidious within movements that focus on representation without critically examining the systems they operate within.

The Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico provides a compelling example of ethical resistance. Their approach rejects neoliberalism’s prioritization of capital over life, expressed in their declaration: “Si el sistema es de muerte, entonces la lucha por la vida es la lucha contra el sistema” (“If the system is of death, then the struggle for life is the struggle against the system”).⁵ The Zapatistas’ commitment to communal, non-hierarchical organization ensures that their resistance does not replicate the oppressive structures they oppose.

Similarly, the Kurdish women’s movement emphasizes the importance of envisioning the world they want to create rather than merely reacting to existing injustices. Dilar Dirik, a Kurdish activist and scholar, frames liberation as an intersection of ecology, feminism, and democracy, arguing that genuine emancipation must be disentangled from the very systems that have historically enslaved women, nature, and all forms of life. She writes, “… it is not possible to appreciate the resistance of Kurdish women without reference to the violence of colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, authoritarianism, and militarism.”⁶ These movements remind us that ethical resistance must prioritize life, autonomy, and collective well-being over individualistic power and dominance.

In the context of disability advocacy, this means moving beyond tokenistic representation or diversity initiatives within capitalist structures. Instead, we must focus on building autonomous systems that provide genuine support and empowerment for individuals with disabilities. At the very surface, this might include creating mutual aid networks, organizing community-driven healthcare initiatives, and fostering environments where everyone’s contributions are valued.

The challenge lies in resisting the urge to replicate the systems we seek to leave. For example, within disability advocacy, there is a risk of weaponizing identities for social capital, control, or power. This phenomenon, often rooted in trauma and imperialist conditioning, highlights the delicate balance between asserting one’s needs and perpetuating harm. Ethical resistance requires continuous reflection and a commitment to minimizing harm, not only to ourselves but also to others within our communities.

Ecological Perspectives on Disability

Disability cannot be fully understood without considering the broader ecological systems in which it exists. Individual and collective health is inextricably linked to the planet’s health, yet modern capitalist structures have severed this connection by prioritizing profit over life. The Mesopotamian Ecology Movement, part of the broader Kurdish liberation struggle, demonstrates how ecological awareness can be integrated into social justice efforts. Despite facing significant violence and oppression, the movement emphasizes ecological education and sustainable practices as essential to liberation.

Dirik underscores the stakes of this disconnection, warning that a dominant system of knowledge:

   … naturalizes power and violence in the minds, restricts the possibility for a fuller view of the human experience and suffocates other visions and paths… [making it] impossible to fully grasp and account for people’s grief over irreversible losses that devastated ecologies and communities.⁷

Her critique reminds us that the centralization of power not only erases alternative lifeways but also conceals the human and environmental toll of such erasures.

For people with disabilities, this disconnection is compounded by the biomedical model, which often isolates individuals from holistic care and community-based solutions. Imagining a future that addresses disability through an ecological lens requires us to rethink healthcare systems, resource allocation, and environmental sustainability. Community medicine clinics and mutual aid networks are examples of how this approach can be implemented on a small scale. However, addressing the systemic aspects of disability and chronic illness—such as access to life-saving medications, like insulin—requires collaboration across disciplines, including environmental science, medicinal chemistry, public health, and social justice.

This perspective aligns with the Kurdish women’s movement’s holistic understanding of liberation, which sees environmental justice, gender equality, and democracy as inseparable. A similar framework could transform how society approaches disability and chronic illness—emphasizing collective care, interconnectedness, and ecological sustainability over individual productivity.

Reimagining disability through this lens requires a radical departure from capitalist frameworks that reinforce marginalization by valuing only specific forms of labor. Under capitalism, individuals with disabilities are often dehumanized and reduced to their perceived inability to meet narrow productivity standards. We need a systemic shift that centers human dignity over economic output, drawing on insights from the Zapatista and Kurdish women’s movements. These movements teach us the importance of autonomy, mutual aid, and ecological awareness in building systems that uplift marginalized communities. While no exact blueprint exists for such a transformation, these models offer guiding principles to inspire a collective reimagining of societal structures.

Rather than seeking reform within oppressive systems, reimagining disability demands the creation of alternative structures where diverse abilities are valued as integral to community life. This means moving beyond symbolic inclusion and building spaces where disabled voices shape decisions and practices. By centering interdependence and collective care, we can cultivate systems that foster genuine belonging and shared flourishing.

Ultimately, the goal of reimagining disability extends beyond addressing individual needs; it involves creating a society rooted in inclusion. This requires intentional actions to build connections and challenge societal narratives that devalue people who are disabled. A world that values every person, regardless of their abilities or health conditions, is not just a utopian ideal but a necessary aspiration for achieving true liberation.

Meet the contributor:

Charlie Moses is a critical medical anthropology PhD student and a public health and legislative policy practitioner. Their work examines how political economy and place shape chronic illness and disability — working to advance health equity through organizing, research, and policy.

Endnotes

1. Subcomandante Marcos, Subcomandante Moisés, and Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, Critical Thought in the Face of the Capitalist Hydra I (Paperboat Press, 2016), 18.
2. Marta Russell, in Capitalism & Disability: Selected Writings by Marta Russell, ed. Keith Rosenthal (Haymarket Books, 2019), 67.
3. Joan E. Cummings, “Review of The Politics of Disablement, by Michael Oliver,” Canadian Review of Social Policy, no. 31 (1993): 113–115.
4. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Bloomsbury Academic, 1968), 49.
5. Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, The Fourth World War (Paliacate Press, 2024), 452.
6. Dilar Dirik, The Kurdish Women’s Movement: History, Theory, Practice (Pluto Press, 2021), 21.
7. Dirik, The Kurdish Women’s Movement, 24-25.