Understanding disability civil rights non-categorically: The Minority Body and the Americans with disabilities act
- 80 Downloads
A persistent paradox apparently infects disability civil rights claims. On the one hand, these rights claims are often understood to apply only to those who are sufficiently impaired in body or in mind to qualify for them because of the disadvantage they endure. On the other hand, asserting significant impairments threatens to undermine the plausibility of these claims as civil rights rather than as welfare for those who are dependent and in need of extra help. Behind this paradox lies a type of categorical understanding of disability civil rights: that disability civil rights are only for those who fall into a category of disability and that this category should be defined in a particular way, in terms of disadvantaging disablement. In this article, I dispel this paradox by deploying a critical analysis of Elizabeth Barnes’s account of physical disability in her recent book, The Minority Body (2016). In her book, Barnes makes the important critical point that disability is not “bad” difference. Instead, she argues that physical disability is a physical condition that the disability rights community is working to promote justice for. I argue that this account fails as a project of ameliorative social metaphysics because it fails to understand the role of impairment in the construction of disability antidiscrimination law. I also argue that her account risks privileging physical disability and is thus problematic as a starting place for examining disability justice.
KeywordsDisability Civil rights Americans with disabilities act Justice Impairment
- Boorse, C. (1975). On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 5(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
- Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and mourning on the American right. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
- Kaminer, D. N. (2016). Mentally ill employees in the workplace: Does the ADA amendments act provide adequate protection? Health Matrix, 26, 205–253.Google Scholar
- Minow, M. (1990). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Murphy, D. (2015). Concepts of disease and health. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 edn). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/health-disease/. Accessed 26 Feb 2018.
- Phelps, M., & Cazeneuve, B. (2004). Michael Phelps: Beneath the surface. Champaign, Il: Sports Publishing.Google Scholar
- Porter, N. B. (2014). The new ADA backlash. Tennessee Law Review, 82, 1–82.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Shakespeare, T. (2017). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 185–203). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Silvers, A. (2003). People with Disabilities. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of practical ethics (pp. 300–327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Silvers, A., & Francis, L. (2018). An Americans with disabilities act for everyone, and for the ages as well. Xx Cardozo Law Review xxx–xxx (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Stein, M. A., Silvers, A., Areheart, B. A., & Francis, L. (2014). Accommodating every body. University of Chicago Law Review, 81(2), 689–757.Google Scholar
- Travis, M. A. (2015). Disqualifying universality under the Americans with disabilities act amendments act. Michigan State Law Review, 2015, 1689–1760.Google Scholar
- Wasserman, D., Asch, A., Blustein, J., & Putnam, D. (2016). Disability: Definitions, models, experience. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 edn). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/disability/. Accessed 26 Feb 2018.