Advertisement

Disability Justice in Legal and Political Philosophy: Is the Concept of Community a Missing Ideal?

  • Oche OnaziEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 78)

Abstract

Despite isolated and unrelated antecedents, disability now features in the literature on justice in the leading tradition of legal and political philosophy. This chapter focuses on Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, which is arguably the most important contribution to disability justice today. In discussing Nussbaum’s approach, the chapter focuses on whether it pays sufficient attention to the concept of community in the light of its centrality to the argument of this book. Although Nussbaum’s emphasis on the Aristotelian conception of person and the capability of affiliation implies an appreciation of the relational nature of human beings and the value of community, these features stand in tension with the political liberal and individualistic underpinnings of the capabilities approach. In contrast to scholars who have sought to expand the capabilities approach along robust group-based, collective or relational inclinations, the chapter argues that the reasons that have made it necessary to modify the approach point to the absence of and the need for a compelling and coherent alternative framework that systematically explains the advantages, as well as the law and policy implications of considering disability justice from a distinctly relational community ideal.

Keywords

Justice Disability justice Capabilities Martha Nussbaum Community 

References

  1. Achebe C (2006) [1958] Things fall apart. Penguin Classics, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson E (1999) What is the point of equality? Ethics 109:287–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle (2000) The politics (trans: Sinclair T). Penguin Classics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arneson R (1988) Equality and equality opportunity for welfare. Philosophies Stud 56(1):77–93Google Scholar
  5. Bagenstos S (2009) Law and the contradictions of the disability rights movement. Yale University Press, New Haven, ConnecticutCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball C (2000) Autonomy, justice and disability. Univ Calif Los Angeles Law Rev 47:599–651Google Scholar
  7. Ball C (2005) Looking for theory in all the right places: feminist and communitarian elements of disability discrimination law. Ohio State Law J 66(1):105–175Google Scholar
  8. Ballet J et al (2007) Responsibility for each other’s freedom: agency as the source of collective capability. J Hum Dev 8(2):185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes C (1991) Disabled people in Britain and discrimination: A case for anti-discrimination legislation. Hurst and Co in Association with the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Berube M (2009) Equality, freedom, and/or justice for all: a response to Martha Nussbaum. Metaphilosophy 40(3–4):352–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolla A Jr (1983) Distributive justice and physically disabled myth and reality. Missouri Law Rev 983–990Google Scholar
  12. Carlson L, Kittay E (2009) Introduction: Rethinking philosophical presumptions in light of cognitive disability. Metaphilosophy 40(3–4):307–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charusheela S (2009) Social analysis and the capabilities approach: a limit to Martha Nussbaum’s universalist ethics. Camb J Econ 33:1135–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornell D (2014) Law and revolution in South Africa: uBuntu, dignity, and the struggle for constitutional transformation. Fordham University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniels N (1987) Justice and health care. In: Van DeVeer D, Regan T (eds) Health care ethics: an introduction. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Denuelin S (2002) Perfectionism, paternalism and liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Rev Polit Econ 14(4):497–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denuelin S (2008) Beyond individual freedom and agency: structures of living together in Sen’s capabilities approach. In: Alkire S et al (eds) The capabilities approach: concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denuelin S (2011) Advancing human development: values, groups, power and conflict. In: Fitzgerald V et al (eds) Overcoming the persistence of inequality and poverty. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denuelin S (2013) Recovering Nussbaum’s Aristotelian roots. Int J Soc Econ 40(7):624–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denuelin S, De Herdt T (2007) Individual freedoms as relational experiences: guest editor’s introduction. J Hum Dev Capabilities 8(2):179–1984Google Scholar
  21. Denuelin S, McGregor A (2010) The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of wellbeing. Econ J Soc Theor 13(4):501–519Google Scholar
  22. Doyal L, Gough I (1991) A theory of human need. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dworkin R (1981) What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philos Public Aff 10:296–299Google Scholar
  24. Flanagan O (2016) The geography of morals: varieties of moral possibility. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flikschuh K (2014) The idea of philosophical fieldwork: global justice, moral ignorance, and intellectual attitudes. J Polit Philos 22(2):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frazer E (1999) The problems of communitarian politics: unity and conflict. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman M (1993) What are friends for?: feminist perspectives on personal relationships and moral theory. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman M (1997) Autonomy and social relationships. In: Meyers D (ed) Feminists rethink the self. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp 40–61Google Scholar
  29. Fukuda-Parr S (2003) The human development paradigm: operationalising Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Econ 9(2–3):301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fukuda-Parr S (2007) Has the human development approach influenced policy? The case of the World Bank flagship reports. Indian J Hum Dev 1(1):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gasper D (2004) The ethics of development. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  33. Gough I (2003) Lists and thresholds: comparing our theory of human need with Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. The Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Group, WeD Working Paper 01. University of Bath, BathGoogle Scholar
  34. Gray R (1992) The essential-functions limitations on the civil rights of people with disabilities and John Rawls’s concept of social justice. New Mexico Law Rev 22:295–352Google Scholar
  35. Harding S (1987) The curious coincidence of Feminine and African moralities: challenges for Feminist theory. In: Kittay F, Meyers D (eds) Women and Moral Theory. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, pp 296–315Google Scholar
  36. Held V (1993) Feminist morality: transforming culture, society and politics. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  37. Held V (2006) Ethics of care. In: Copp D (ed) The Oxford handbook of ethical theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 537–566Google Scholar
  38. Hirai T (2017) The creation of the human development approach. Palgrave Macmillan Press, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoffman N, Metz T (2017) We can the capabilities approach learn from an Ubuntu ethic? A relational approach to development theory. World Dev 97:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ibrahim S (2006) From individual to collective capabilities: the capability approach as a conceptual framework for self-help. J Hum Dev 7(3):397–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ikuenobe P (2006) Philosophical perspectives on communalism and morality in African traditions. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  42. Kallhoff A, Schilick J (2001) Liberal communities: why political liberalism needs a principle of unification. In: Kallhouf A (ed) Martha C. Nussbaum: Ethics and political philosophy: Lecture and colloquium in Munster 2000. Verlag Munster, Hamberg/London, pp 77–83Google Scholar
  43. Kittay E (1999) Love’s labor: essays in women, equality and dependency. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Kittay E (2001) When care is just and justice is caring: the case of the care for the mentally retarded. Public Culture 13(3):557–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kittay E (2005a) Equality, dignity and disability. In: Waldron MA, Lyons F (eds) Perspectives on equality: the second Seamus Heaney lectures. Liffey, Dublin, pp 95–122Google Scholar
  46. Kittay E (2005b) At the margins of moral personhood. Ethics 116:100–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kittay E (2006) The idea of care ethics in biomedicine: the case of disability. In: Rehman-Sutter C (ed) Biomedicine and human limits. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 319–339Google Scholar
  48. Kittay E (2011) The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris 24(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kurisawa F (2007) The work of global justice: human rights as practices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacKinnon C (1991) Difference and dominance: on sex discrimination. In: Barlett K, Kennedy R (eds) Feminist legal theory: readings in law and gender. Westview Press, Boulder ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  51. Malinga J (2003) The African view of independent living, Independent Living Institute, Sweden. https://www.independentliving.org/docs6/malinga2003.html#2. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
  52. Mangena F (2009) The search for an African feminist ethic: a Zimbabwean perspective. J Int Women’s Stud 11(2):18–30Google Scholar
  53. Marx K, Engels F (2011) Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844 (trans: Milligan M). Wilder Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. McCormick N (1984) Legal right and social democracy: essays in legal and social philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McIntyre A (1999) Dependent rational animals: why human beings need virtues. Open Court Publishing Company, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  56. Meekosha H (2011) Decolonising disability studies: thinking and acting globally. Disabil Soc 26(6):667–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Metz T (2013) The western ethic of care or an Afro-communitarian ethic? specifying the relational morality. J Glob Ethics 9(1):77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Metz T (2016) Recent philosophical approaches to social protection: from capability to ubuntu. Glob Soc Policy 16(2):132–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morris J (1992) Personal and political: a feminist perspective on researching physical disability. Disabil Handicap Soc 7(2):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morris J (2001) Impairment and disability: Constructing an ethics of care that promotes human rights. Hypatia 16(4):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Murphy R (1990) The body silent. W.W. Norton and Company Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Nussbaum M (1990) Aristotelian social democracy. In: Douglass R, Mara G, Richardson H (eds) Liberalism and the good. Routledge, New York, pp 203–252Google Scholar
  63. Nussbaum M (1992) Human functioning and social justice: in defense of aristotelian essentialism. Polit Theor 20(2):202–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nussbaum M (1995) Human capabilities, female human beings. In: Nussbaum M, Glover J (eds) Women, culture and development: a study of human capabilities. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 61–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nussbaum M (1997) The feminist critique of liberalism. University of Kansas, KansasGoogle Scholar
  66. Nussbaum M (1999) Sex and justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Nussbaum M (2001) Women and development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Nussbaum M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Econ 9(2–3):33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nussbaum M (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality and species membership. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  70. Nussbaum M (2011) Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nzegwu N (1995) Recovering Igbo traditions: a case for indigenous women’s organizations in development. In: Nussbaum M, Glover J (eds) Women, culture and development: a study of human capabilities. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 444–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Oliver M (1989) Disability and dependency: a creation of industrial societies. In: Barton L (ed) Disability and dependency. The Falmer Press, London, pp 6–22Google Scholar
  73. Pulcini E (2013) Care of the world: Fear, responsibility and justice in the global age, studies in global justice. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  75. Rawls J (1985) Justice as fairness: political, not metaphysical. Philos Public Aff 14:223–251Google Scholar
  76. Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  77. Robeyns I (2006) The capability approach in practice. J Polit Philos 14(3):351–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schuman M (1995) The wheelchair ramp to serfdom: the Americans with disabilities act, liberty and markets. J Civ Rights Econ Dev 10(3):495–510Google Scholar
  79. Sen A (1985) Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures. J Philos 82(4):169–221Google Scholar
  80. Sen A (1987) The standard of living: the tanner lectures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sen A (1990) Development as capability expansion. In: Griffin K, Knight J (eds) Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s. Macmillan, London, pp 41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sen A (1992) Inequality re-examined. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  83. Sen A (1993) Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen AK (eds) The quality of life. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 30–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sen A (1994) Well-being, capability and public policy. Giornale Delgi Economist e Annali di Economia 53:333–347Google Scholar
  85. Sen A (1997) Human capital and human capability. World Dev 25(12):1959–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sen A (2001) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  87. Sen A (2004) Capabilities, lists and public reason: continuing the conversation. Feminist Econ 10(3):77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sen A (2005) Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Silvers A (1995) Reconciling equality to difference: caring (for) justice for people with disabilities. Hypatia 10(1):30–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Silvers A (2004) Book review: rights are still right—the case for disability rights. Hastings Cent Rep 34(6):39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Silvers A et al (1999) Disability, difference, discrimination: perspectives on justice in bioethics and public policy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  92. Smith S (2001) The ‘problem of dependency’ and the mythology of independent living. Soc Theor Pract 27(4):579–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Stein M (1998) Rawls on redistribution to the disabled. George Mason Law Rev 6:997–1012Google Scholar
  94. Stein M (2001) Ronald Dworkin redistribution to the disabled. Syracuse Law Rev 51:996–1013Google Scholar
  95. Stein M (2006) Distributive justice and disability: utilitarianism against egalitarianism. Yale University Press, New Haven and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stewart F (2005) Groups and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tronto J (1987) Beyond gender difference to a theory of care. Signs 12(4):644–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Uyan-Semerci P (2007) A relational account of Nussbuam’s list of capabilities. J Hum Dev 8(2):203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Van Marle K (2003) The capabilities approach, the imaginary domain, and asymmetrical reciprocity: feminist perspectives on equality and justice. Feminist Legal Stud 11:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Van Zyl M, Gouws A (2015) Towards a feminist ethic of ubuntu: bring rights and ubuntu. In: Engster D, Hamington M (eds) Care ethics and political theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  101. Veatch R (1986) The foundations of justice: why the retarded and the rest of us have claims to equality. Oxford University Press, New York and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  102. Vorhaus J (2015) Dignity, capability and profound disability. Metaphilosophy 46(3):462–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wasserman D (1998) Distributive justice. In: Silvers A et al (eds) Disability, difference, discrimination: perspectives on justice in bioethics and public policy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, pp 147–207Google Scholar
  104. Wendell S (1996) The rejected body: feminist philosophical reflections on disability. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  105. West R (1997) Caring for justice. New York University Press, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  106. Wolf N (1989) Fairness, respect and the egalitarian ethos. Philos Public Aff 27(2):97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wolf N (1995) Martha C. Nussbaum: human capabilities, female human beings: commentary. In: Nussbaum M, Glover J (eds) Women, culture and development: a study of human capabilities. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wolf N (2008) Give me liberty: a handbook for American revolutionaries. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  109. Wong S (2009) Duties of justice to citizens with cognitive disabilities. Metaphilosophy 40(3–4):382–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wood D (2010) Constitutions and capabilities: a (necessarily) pragmatic approach. Chicago J Int Law 10:415–430Google Scholar
  111. Young I (1989) Polity and group difference: a critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics 99(2):250–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations