Over the last two decades the Paralympic Games have gained a high public profile. As a result there has been an ever increasing commercial marketplace for aerodynamic and feather light racing (wheel)chairs as well as biomechanically and ergonomically responsive prostheses that have helped create a legion of cyborg bodies that is manifest in the image of the sporting supercrip. Mobility devices that enhance performance have also created a divide between different impairment groups and also amongst ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations. This article highlights the development of a technocentric ideology within the Paralympic Movement that has led to the cyborgification of some Paralympic bodies. It questions whether the advances in technology are actually empowering disabled athletes.
BergerRJ (2008) Disability and the dedicated wheelchair athlete: Beyond the ‘supercrip’ critique. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography37(6): 647–78.
3.
BurkettB (2010) Technology in Paralympic sport: Performance enhancement or essential for performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine44: 215–20.
4.
ButrynTM (2002) Cyborg horizons: Sport and the ethics of self-technologization. In: MiahAEassonS (eds) Sport, Technology: History, Philosophy, and Policy. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 111–34.
5.
ButrynTM (2003) Posthuman podiums: Cyborg narratives of elite track and field athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal20: 17–39.
6.
ChalonerEJFloraHSHamRJ (2001) Amputations at the London Hospital, 1852–1857. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine94: 409–12.
7.
CharlesJM (1998) Technology and the body of knowledge. Quest50: 379–88.
8.
ColeCL (1993) Resisting the canon: Feminist cultural studies, sport, and technologies of the body. Journal of Sport and Social Issues17: 77–97.
9.
ColeCL (1998) Addiction, exercise, and cyborgs: Technologies and deviant bodies. In: RailG (ed.) Sport and Postmodern Times. Albany: State University of New York Press, 261–75.
10.
DavisRCooperR (1999) Technology for disabilities. British Medical Journal319: 1–4.
11.
DesGroseillersJ-PDesjardinsJPGermainJPKrolAL (1978) Dermatologic problems in amputees. Canadian Medical Association Journal118: 535–7.
12.
DupréJ (2006) Scientific classification. Theory, Culture and Society23(2–3): 30–2.
13.
FrossardLO’RiordanAGoodmanS (2006) Applied biomechanics for evidence-based training of Australian elite seated throwers. International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education Perspectives series. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2713/
14.
HallerB (2000) If they limp, they lead? News representations and the hierarchy of disability images. In: BraithwaiteDOThompsonTL (eds) Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 273–88.
15.
HarawayDJ (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Routledge.
16.
HobermanJ (1992) Mortal Engines: The Science of Human Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport. Oxford: Free Press.
17.
HowePD (2006) The role of injury in the organization of Paralympic sport. In: LolandSSkirstadBWaddingtonI (eds) Pain and Injury in Sport: Social and Ethical Analysis. London: Routledge, 211–25.
18.
HowePD (2007) Integration of Paralympic athletes into Athletics Canada. International Journal of Canadian Studies35: 134–50.
19.
HowePD (2008) The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through the Anthropological Lens. London: Routledge.
20.
HowePDJonesC (2006) Classification of disabled athletes: (Dis)empowering the Paralympic practice community. Sociology of Sport Journal23: 29–46.
21.
HughesB (2000) Medicine and the aesthetic invalidation of disabled people. Disability and Society15(4): 555–68.
JonesCHowePD (2005) Conceptual boundaries of sport for the disabled: Classification and athletic performance. Journal of Philosophy of Sport32: 133–46.
24.
KamaA (2004) Supercrips versus the pitiful handicapped: Reception of disabling images by disabled audience members. Communications29(4): 447–66.
25.
MacIntyreA (1999) Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Chicago: Open Court.
26.
MastroJVMBurtonAWRosendahlMSherrillC (1996) Attitudes of elite athletes with impairments toward one another: A hierarchy of preference. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly13(2): 197–210.
MottS (2000) Impaired logic keeps heroes off the stage. The Daily Telegraph, 11December.
29.
RossiLFA (1974) Rehabilitation following below-knee amputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine67: 37–8.
30.
SchellLARodriguezS (2001) Subverting bodies / ambivalent representations: Media analysis of Paralympian, Hope Lewellen. Sociology of Sport Journal18: 127–35.
31.
SeymourW (1998) Remaking the Body: Rehabilitation and Change. London: Routledge.
32.
SherrillC (1999) Disability sport and classification theory: A new era. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly16: 206–15.
33.
SherrillCWilliamsT (1996) Disability and sport: Psychosocial perspectives on inclusion, integration and participation. Sport Science Review5(1): 42–64.
34.
ShogunD (1998) The social construction of disability: The impact of statistics and technology. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly15: 269–77.
35.
SwartzLWatermayerB (2008) Cyborg anxiety: Oscar Pistorius and the boundaries of what it means to be human. Disability and Society23(2): 187–90.
36.
TweedySMVanlandewijickYC (2011) International Paralympic Committee position stand – Background and scientific rationale for classification in Paralympic sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine45: 259–269.
37.
WeblingDD’AFahrerM (1986) Early bent knee prostheses: Ancestors of K9. British Medical Journal293: 1636–7.
38.
YillaAB (2000) Enhancing wheelchair sport performance. In: WinnockJ (ed.) Adapted Physical Education and Sport, 3rd edn.Leeds: Human Kinetics, 419–31.
