Advertisement

Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 107–118 | Cite as

Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity

  • Mario TobosoEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the concept of disability in Amartya Sen’s capabilities and functionings approach in the context of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Following a critical review of the concept of disability—from its traditional interpretation as an essentially medical concept to its later interpretation as a socially constructed category—we will introduce the concept of functional diversity. The importance of human diversity in the capabilities and functionings approach calls for incorporating this concept into the analysis of well-being and quality of life in persons with disability—aspects in which ICT currently plays a major role. When one contemplates these technologies, it becomes clear that factors such as accessibility, design for all, and user participation in development and implementation processes are key strategies in promoting equal rights and equal opportunity for persons with disability in the different environments of the information society.

Keywords

Accessibility Amartya Sen Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities Design for all Disability Functional diversity ICT Medical model Social model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is a result of the research project “Filosofía de las tecnociencias sociales y humanas” (FFI2008-03599) of the Spanish R&D Plan 2009–2011, and the CSIC Intramural project “Discapacidad, envejecimiento y calidad de vida” (200810I218).

References

  1. Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of opression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap & Society, 2(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguado, A. (1995). Historia de las deficiencias. Madrid: Escuela Libre Editorial.Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez, J. F. (2001). Capacidades, libertades y desarrollo: Amartya Kumar Sen. In R. Maíz (Ed.), Teorías políticas contemporáneas. Valencia: Tirant lo blanch.Google Scholar
  4. Aslaksen, F., Bergh, S., Bringa, O., & Heggem, E. (1997). Universal design. Planning and design for all. The Norwegian State Council on Disability. Web available: http://home.online.no/~bringa/universal.htm.
  5. Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in britain and discrimination. London: C. Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (Eds.). (1996). Exploring the divide. Illnes and disability. Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barton, L. (Ed.). (1996). Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Brisenden, S. (1986). Independent living and the medical model of disability. Disability, Handicap & Society, 1(2), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabrera, L. (2009). Nanotechnology: Changing the disability paradigm. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation, 8(2). Web available: http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL08_02/articles/cabrera.shtml.
  10. Cadwallader, J. (2007). Suffering difference: Normalisation and power. Social Semiotics, 17(3), 375–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (1996). La era de la información: Economía, sociedad y cultura. Vol. I: La sociedad red. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
  12. Cejudo, R. (2007). Capacidad y libertad. Una aproximación a la teoría de Amartya Sen. Revista Internacional de Sociología, LXV(47), mayo-agosto. Web available: http://revintsociologia.revistas.csic.es/index.php/revintsociologia/article/view/50/50.
  13. Centre for Universal Design (CUD). (1997). Principlies of universal design. North Carolina State University. Web available: http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm.
  14. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S., & Lebbon, C. (Eds.). (2003). Inclusive design. Design for the whole population. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. De Asís, R., Bariffi, F., & Palacios, A. (2007). Principios éticos y fundamentos jurídicos. In R. de Lorenzo & L. C. P. Bueno (Eds.), Tratado sobre Discapacidad. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi.Google Scholar
  17. DeJong, G. (1979). The movement for independent living: Origins, ideology and implications for disability research. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 9(3), 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DPI-Europe. (2000b). The right to live and be different. Web available: http://www.johnnypops.demon.co.uk/bioethicsdeclaration/index.htm.
  20. DPI-Europe (Disabled People’s Internatinonal-Europe). (2000a). Disabled people speak on the new genetics. DPI Europe position statement on bioethics and human rights. Web available: http://freespace.virgin.net/dpi.europe/downloads/bioethics-english.pdf.
  21. Echeverría, J. (2002). Ciencia y valores. Barcelona: Destino.Google Scholar
  22. Echeverría, J. (2006). Ética e ingeniería. Isegoría, 34, 289–294. Web available: http://isegoria.revistas.csic.es/index.php/isegoria/article/view/16/16.
  23. Echeverría, J. (2008). Apropiación social de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 4(10), 171–182. Web available: http://oeibolivia.org/files/Volumen%204%20-%20N%C3%BAmero%2010/doss07.pdf.
  24. European Commission. (1994). Europe’s way to the information society. Brussels: European Commission. Web available: http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/281181.
  25. European Commission. (2001). Discrimination by design (Background Paper). In Conference, Brussels, 3rd December. Web available: http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/dfa_ia_en.pdf.
  26. European Institute for Design and Disability (EIDD). (2004). Stockholm declaration. Web available: http://www.designforalleurope.org/Design-for-All/EIDD-Documents/Stockholm-Declaration/.
  27. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people: Issues for discussion. Nueva York: World Rehabilitation Fund.Google Scholar
  30. G3ict. (2007). The accessibility imperative. Implications of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities for information and communication technologies. Web available: http://g3ict.org/resource_center/g3ict_book_-_the_accessibility_imperative.
  31. Googin, G., & Newell, Ch. (2003). Digital disability. United Kingdom: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. Hales, G. (Ed.). (1996). Beyond disability. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Hamelink, C. J. (2000). The ethics of cyberspace. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Hoyos, N. E. (2002). La apropiación social de la ciencia y la tecnología: una urgencia para nuestra región. Interciencia. Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología de América, 27(2). http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33906501.pdf.
  35. Hunt, P. (1966). A critical condition. In P. Hunt (Ed.), Stigma: The experience of disability. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Web available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Hunt/critical%20condition.pdf.
  36. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lopez Cerezo, J. A., Méndez Sanz, J. A., & Todt, O. (1998). Participación pública en política tecnológica. Problemas y Perspectivas. Arbor, 627, 279–308.Google Scholar
  38. Mace, R., Hardie, G., & Plaice, J. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In W. E. Preiser, J. C. Vischer, & E. T. White (Eds.), Design interventions: Toward a more human architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  39. Gordillo, M. (2005). Cultura científica y participación ciudadana: materiales para la educación CTS. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 2(6), 123–135. Web available: http://oeibolivia.org/files/Volumen%202%20-%20N%C3%BAmero%206/doss04.pdf.
  40. Mueller, J. L. (1998). Assistive technology and universal design in the workplace. Assistive Technology, 10(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Palacios, A. (2008). El modelo social de la discapacidad: orígenes, caracterización y plasmación en la Convención Internacional sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad. Madrid: Ediciones Cinca. Web available: http://www.convenciondiscapacidad.es/Publicaciones/El%20modelo%20social%20de%20discapacidad.pdf.
  43. Palacios, A., & Romañach, J. (2006). El modelo de la diversidad. La Bioética y los Derechos Humanos como herramientas para alcanzar la plena dignidad en la diversidad funcional. Madrid: Diversitas. Web available: http://www.diversocracia.org/docs/Modelo_diversidad.pdf.
  44. Palacios, A., Romañach, J., Ferreira, M. A. V., & Ferrante, C. (2009). Functional diversity, bioethics and sociological theory: A new approach to disability. Disability & Society (submitted).Google Scholar
  45. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Proctor, R. N. (1991). Value-free science?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the dichotomy fact/value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Quintanilla, M. A. (1989). Tecnología: Un enfoque filosófico. Madrid: Fundesco.Google Scholar
  49. Rescher, N. (1999). Razones y valores en la Era científico-tecnológica. Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
  50. Romañach, J., & Lobato, M. (2005). Functional diversity. A new term in the struggle for dignity in the diversity of the human being. Web available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/zavier/Functional%20Diversity%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20_fv%20Roma%F1ach.pdf.
  51. Schot, J. (2001). Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scotch, R. (1985). Disability as a basis for a social movement: Advocacy and the politics of definition. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seelman, K. D. (2001). Science and technology policy. Is disability a missing factor? In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 663–692). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? The tanner lectures on human values. Stanford University, May 22, 1979. Web available: http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/sen80.pdf.
  55. Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living. In G. Hawthorn (Ed.), The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  57. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sen, A. (1999). Nuevo examen de la desigualdad. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
  59. Shakespeare, T. (1994). Cultural representations of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowal? Disability & Society, 9(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (1996). The body line controversy: A new direction for disability studies? Hull Disability Studies Seminar. Web available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/Shakespeare/The%20body%20line%20controversy.pdf.
  61. Shapiro, J. (1994). No pity. People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books. Random House.Google Scholar
  62. Sheldon, A. (2001). Disabled people and communication systems in the twenty-first century. PhD thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds. Web available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Sheldon/thesis2viv2.pdf.
  63. Sheldon, A. (2004). Changing technology. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers–enabling enviroments (pp. 155–160). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Stiker, H.-J. (1999). A history of disability. The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  65. Stirling, A., Renn, O., Klinke, A., Rip, A., & Salo, A. (1999). On science and precaution in the management of technological risk. In Technological risk and management of uncertainty, Report ESTO/SPRU.Google Scholar
  66. Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C., & Thomas, C. (2004). Disabling barriers–enabling enviroments. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Tewey, B. (1997). Building participatory action research partnerships in disability and rehabilitation research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.Google Scholar
  68. Tiles, M., & Oberdiek, H. (1995). Living in a technological culture. Human tools and human values. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Toboso, M., & Arnau, M. S. (2008). La discapacidad dentro del enfoque de capacidades y funcionamientos de Amartya Sen. Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política y Humanidades, 20, 64–94. Web available: http://institucional.us.es/araucaria/nro20/ideas20_4.htm.
  70. Toboso, M., & Guzmán, F. (2010). Cuerpos, capacidades, exigencias funcionales... y otros lechos de Procusto. Política y Sociedad, 47(1), 67–83. Web available: http://revistas.ucm.es/cps/11308001/articulos/POSO1010130067A.PDF.
  71. UN. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Web available: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm.
  72. UN. (2008). Mainstreaming disability in the development agenda. Economic and Social Council Commission for Social Development, E/CN.5/2008/6. Web available: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=33.
  73. UNESCO. (1999). Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. Web available: http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm.
  74. UNESCO. (2001). COMEST Sub-Commission on “The Ethics of the Information Society”. Web available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001248/124896e.pdf.
  75. Üstün, T. B., et al. (2001). Disability and culture: Universalism and diversity. Seattle (WA): Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  76. Vacas, F. (2007). TVIC: Tecnologías para la vida cotidiana. Telos, (73). Web available: http://www.campusred.net/TELOS/editorial.asp?rev=73.
  77. Vanderheiden, G. C. (1998). Universal design and assistive technology in communication and information technologies: Alternatives or complements? Assistive Technology, 10(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. W3C. (2005). How people with disabilities use the web. http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/.
  81. Winner, L. (2007). Is there a right to shape technology? Argumentos de Razón Técnica, 10, 305–328.Google Scholar
  82. Winocur, R. (2007). Nuevas tecnologías y usuarios. La apropiación de las TIC en la vida cotidiana. Telos, (73). Web available: http://www.campusred.net/TELOS/articuloexperiencia.asp?idarticulo=1&rev=73.
  83. Wolbring, G. (2003). Disability rights approach toward bioethics? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(3), 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tenured Scientist at the Department of Science, Technology and Society, Institute of PhilosophySpanish National Research Council CSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations