On valuing impairment

Philosophical Studies 175 (5):1113-1133 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In The Minority Body, Elizabeth Barnes rejects prevailing social constructionist accounts of disability for two reasons. First, because they understand disability in terms of oppressive social responses to bodily impairment, they cannot make sense of disability pride. Second, they maintain a problematic distinction between impairment and disability. In response to these challenges, this paper defends a version of the social model of disability, which we call the Social Exclusion Model. On our account, to be disabled is to be in a bodily or psychological state that is represented as an impairment in the prevailing ideology of one’s society, and to be excluded from valuable activities on the basis of this representation. While this model refers to a distinction between disability and impairment, it makes no presuppositions about which bodies function ‘normally’ and which do not. It is the ideology of impairment rather than impairment itself that does any work to determine whether a person is disabled. We argue that this model answers some of the important objections that Barnes raises against prevailing social constructionist accounts of disability, and that it’s focus on the oppressive social positioning of disabled people gives it explanatory power that Barnes’s own account lacks.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,389

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Mothers and Models of Disability.Gail Landsman - 2005 - Journal of Medical Humanities 26 (2-3):121-139.
Disabled – Therefore, Unhealthy?Sean Aas - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (5):1259-1274.
Against Impairment: Replies to Aas, Howard, and Francis.Elizabeth Barnes - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (5):1151-1162.
Philosophical and Ethical Issues in Disability.Jeffrey Blustein - 2012 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4):573-587.
The Matter of Disability.David T. Mitchell & Sharon L. Snyder - 2016 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (4):487-492.
On the Government of Disability.Shelley Tremain - 2001 - Social Theory and Practice 27 (4):617-636.
Impairment, Disability and Handicap--Old Fashioned Concepts?R. B. Jones - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (6):377-379.
Disability: Getting It "Right".C. Thomas - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (1):15-17.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-03-15

Downloads
105 (#116,399)

6 months
12 (#69,937)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Sean Aas
Georgetown University
Dana Howard
Ohio State University

Citations of this work

Disability Studies, Conceptual Engineering, and Conceptual Activism.Elizabeth Amber Cantalamessa - 2021 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 64 (1-2):46-75.
Disability, Impairment, and Marginalised Functioning.Katharine Jenkins & Aness Kim Webster - 2021 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99 (4):730-747.
Disability: A Justice-Based Account.Jessica Begon - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178 (3):935-962.
Sexual Reorientation in Ideal and Non‐Ideal Theory.Candice Delmas & Sean Aas - 2018 - Journal of Political Philosophy 26 (4):463-485.
Disability as Inability.Alex Gregory - 2020 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 18 (1):23-48.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

What is It to Be Healthy?E. Kingma - 2007 - Analysis 67 (2):128-133.
Against Normal Function.Ron Amundson - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31 (1):33-53.
The Welfarist Account of Disability.Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu - 2009 - In Kimberley Brownlee & Adam Cureton (eds.), Disability and Disadvantage. Oxford University Press. pp. 14-53.

View all 7 references / Add more references