Advertisement

Surplusisity: Neoliberalism and Disability and Precarity

  • Karen Soldatic
Chapter

Abstract

Neoliberalism has become a term of multiple meanings, multiple effects alongside multiple understandings. Often, it is said that neoliberalism is an economic project that aims to reorder the social relations between the rich and the poor, normalising the structure of severe inequality, deprivation and poverty. This chapter examines neoliberalism from the realm of disability and the implications for persons with disabilities in realising citizenship rights within the political arena. The chapter traverses the democratic sphere of the nation state and the ways in which neoliberalism restructures the liberal social compact that underpinned historical notions of state-citizen relations. Moreover, it examines the implications of increased precarity for disabled people and the increasing retraction of state redistributive measures within the private sphere that have been shown to be critical for the emergence of disabled people’s citizenship rights and their political participation. The chapter draws to a close through arguing that the neoliberalisation of the nation state has resulted in the re-positionality of a particular class of disabled people as being surplus to the reordering of the national economic sphere, denying many disabled people the right to freedom, collective organisation and human flourishing.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported on in this chapter has been funded by an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellowship (DE160100478). Thank you to Kelly Somers for copy-editing the chapter.

References

  1. Aguilar, C. (2016). UK special rapporteur for disability report. Geneva: United Nations High Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, T. (2017). Revisiting the rabble: Poverty management and the spectre of surplus life, Thinking space seminar series. Sydney: Sydney University.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Moshe, L., Chapman, L., & Carey, A. (Eds.). (2014). Disability incarcerated: Imprisonment and disability in the USA and Canada. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. (2011). Dignity in adversity: Human rights in troubled times. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bessant, J. (2000). Civil conscription or reciprocal obligation: The ethics of “work-for-the-dole”. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35(1), 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biyanwila, S. J., & Soldatic, K. (2016). Global financialisation and disability: Can disability budgeting be an effective response in the south? In S. Grech & K. Soldatic (Eds.), Disability in the Global South: The critical handbook (pp. 407–421). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, D. (2009, October 9). The Tory leader’s conference address in full. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/06/david-cameron-speech-tory-conference. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  8. Clear, M., & Gleeson, B. (2001). Disability and materialist embodiment. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 49(1), 34–55.Google Scholar
  9. Fraser, N. (2007). Feminist politics in the age of recognition: A two-dimensional approach to gender justice. Studies in Social Justice, 1(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. French, S., & Swain, J. (2008). Service user involvement. In R. Jones & F. Jenkin (Eds.), Management, leadership and development in the allied health professionals: An introduction. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Goodin, R. (2002). Structures of mutual obligation. Journal of Social Policy, 31(4), 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grover, C., & Piggott, L. (2010). Disgusting! Understanding financial support for disabled people in the UK. Presented at the disability studies 5th bi-annual conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, 7–9 September.Google Scholar
  13. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Helleiner, E., & Cameron, G. (2006). Another world order? The Bush administration and HIPC debt cancellation. The New Political Economy, 11(1), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maddison, S., & Martin, G. (2010). Surviving neoliberalism: The persistence of social movements. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malhotra, R. (2006). Justice as fairness in accommodating workers with disabilities and critical theory: The limitations of a Rawlsian framework for empowering people with disabilities in Canada. In D. Pothier & R. Devlin (Eds.), Critical disability theory. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  17. McRuer, R. (2012). Cripping queer politics, or the dangers of neoliberalism. The Scholar & Feminist Online, 10(1–2). Retrieved from http://sfonline.barnard.edu/a-new-queer-agenda/cripping-queer-politics-or-the-dangers-of-neoliberalism/. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  18. Morris, A., Wilson, S., & Soldatic, K. M. (2015). Doing the “hard yakka”: Implications of Australia’s workfare policies for disabled people. In C. Grover & L. Piggott (Eds.), Disabled people, work and welfare: Is employment really the answer? (pp. 43–68). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ong, A. (2007). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Sickness, disability and work: Keeping on track in the economic downturn. London: OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  21. Peck, J. (2001). Workfare states. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Puar, J. (2009). Prognosis time: Towards a geopolitics of affect, debility and capacity. Women & Performance, 19(2), 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roulstone, A., & Barnes, C. (2005). Working futures? Disabled people, policy and social inclusion. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Roulstone, A., & Morgan, H. (2009). Neo-liberal individualism or self-directed support: Are we all speaking the same language on modernising adult social care? Social Policy and Society, 8(3), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schram, S., Fording, R., & Soss, J. (2008). Neo-liberal poverty governance: Race, place and the punitive turn in US welfare policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(1), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Soldatic, K., & Meekosha, H. (2011). Disability and neoliberal state formations. In N. Watson, C. Thomas, & A. Roulstone (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Soldatic, K., & Pini, B. (2012). The three Ds of welfare reform: Disability, disgust and deservingness. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 76–94.Google Scholar
  30. Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting subjects: Social abjection and resistance in neoliberal Britain. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York: UN.Google Scholar
  32. van Toorn, G., & Soldatic, K. M. (2015). Disability, rights realisation, and welfare provisioning: What is it about Sweden? Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2(2), 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weidemaier, W., Mark, C., & Gelpern, A. (2014). Injunctions in sovereign debt litigation. Yale Journal on Regulation, 31(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol31/iss1/5. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
  34. Zames Fleischer, D., & Zames, F. (2001). The disability rights movement: From charity to confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Culture and SocietyWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations