oa The incapacity to work as moving target. Exploring the possibilities of praxiography for analysing realities of disability in history

References

1. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2005). Disability, work, and welfare: Challenging the social exclusion of disabled people. Work, employment and society, 19(3), 527–545.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Braidotti, R. (2011). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Brust, J.F. (1916). De taak van de geneeskundigen in verband met de uitvoering van artikel 61 der Ongevallenwet. Tijdschrift der ongevallen-geneeskunde, 1, 8–13.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Clare, E. (2017). Brilliant imperfection: Grappling with cure. Durham: Duke University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Clever, I., & Ruberg, W.G. (2014). Beyond cultural history? The material turn, praxiography and body history. Humanities, 3(4), 546–566.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Corker, M., & Shakespeare, T. (2002). Mapping the terrain. In M.Corker & T.Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity. Embodying disability theory (pp. 1–17). London: Bloomsburry.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Davis, L. (1997). Constructing normalcy: The Bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. In L.Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 9–29). New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dolphijn, R., & Van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. Michigan: Open University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. De Swaan, A. (1988). In care of state. Health care, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Eghigian, G. (2000). Making security social: Disability, insurance, and the birth of the social entitlement state in Germany. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Feely, M. (2016). Disability studies after the ontological turn: A return to the material world and material bodies without a return to essentialism. Disability & society, 31(7), 863–883.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Garland-Thomson, R. (2013). Disability studies: A field emerged. American quarterly, 65(4), 915–926.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Goodly, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–644.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Horstman, K. (1999). Om het beheer van de arbeidsongeschiktheid: het politieke debat over de Ongevallenwet en het wel en wee van een medische markt. Tijdschrift voor sociale geschiedenis, 25(4), 383–406.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Joustra, H. (1903). De ingeschreven deskundigen van de ongevallenwet. Nederlandsch tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, 47, 268–271.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Mak, G. (2012). Doubting sex. Inscriptions, bodies and selves in nineteenth-century hermaphrodite case histories. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. M’Charek, A. (2010). Fragile differences, relational effects: Stories about the materiality of race and sex. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 17(4), 307–322.
    [Google Scholar]
21. M’Charek, A. (2013). Beyond fact or fiction: On the materiality of race in practice. Cultural anthropology, 28(3), 420–442.
    [Google Scholar]
22. McGuire, C. (2020). Measuring difference, numbering normal: Setting the standards for disability in the interwar period. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Mol, A. (1985). Wie weet wat een vrouw is…: over verschillen en de verhouding tussen de wetenschappen. Tijdschrift voor Vrouwenstudies, 6(21), 10–22.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Mol, A. (2015). Who knows what a woman is…: on the differences and the relations between the sciences. Medicine Anthropology Theory, 2(1), 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Nederlandsche maatschappij ter bevordering der geneeskunst. (1906). Rapporten van verschillende afdeelingen der Nederlandsche maatschappij ter bevordering der geneeskunst over de praktijk der Ongevallenwet 1901, voor zooverre deze op de geneesheren betrekking heeft. Nederlandsch tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, 50, 1772–1814.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Palgrave McMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to inclusion. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Rembis, M. (2019). Challenging the impairment/disability divide. Disability history and the social model of disability. In N.Watson & S.Vehmas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 377–390). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Rose, S.F. (2017). No right to be idle. The invention of disability, 1840s–1930s. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Schalk, S. (2018). Bodyminds reimagined: (Dis)Ability, race, and gender in black women’s speculative fiction. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Tremain, S. (2005). Foucault, government and critical disability studies. In S.Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 1–24). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Turner, D., & Blackie, D. (2018). Disability in the industrial revolution. Physical impairment in the British coalmining, 1780–1880. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Van Eeden, P.H. (1916). Het vraagstuk der kleine renten. Tijdschrift voor ongevallen-geneeskunde, 1, 58–69.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Van Genabeek, J. (2006). Opbouw: de periode 1901–1920. In W.E.L.de Boer & E.S.Houwaart (Eds.), Geschiktheid gewogen. Claimbeoordeling en arbeidsongeschiktheid in Nederland 1901–2005 (pp. 53–118). Hoofddorp: TNO.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Van der Klein, M. (2005). Ziek, zwak of zwanger. Vrouwen en arbeidsongeschiktheid in Nederlandse sociale verzekeringen 1890–1940. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. VanW. (1906). Ongevallenwet. Namen op aangifteformulieren gebruikt voor lumbago. Nederlandsch tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, 50, 1121–1123.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Virdi, J. (2020). Hearing happiness. Deafness cures in history. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]