Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 5, pp 1135–1149 | Cite as

Understanding disability civil rights non-categorically: The Minority Body and the Americans with disabilities act

Article
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Disability Civil rights Americans with disabilities act Justice Impairment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

References

  1. Barnes, E. (2016). The minority body. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boorse, C. (1975). On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 5(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
  3. Brighouse, H. (2001). Can justice as fairness accommodate the disabled? Social Theory and Practice, 27(4), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emens, E. F. (2012). Disabling attitudes: U.S. disability law and the ADA amendments act. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 60, 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Francis, L., & Silvers, A. (2017). Reading Alexander V. Choate rightly: Now is the time. Laws, 6, 17.  https://doi.org/10.3390/laws6040017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and mourning on the American right. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. McMahan, J. (1996). Cognitive disability, misfortune, and justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Minow, M. (1990). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. O’Fallon, E., & Hillson, S. (2005). Brief report: Physician discomfort and variability with disability assessments. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 487, 852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Phelps, M., & Cazeneuve, B. (2004). Michael Phelps: Beneath the surface. Champaign, Il: Sports Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Porter, N. B. (2014). The new ADA backlash. Tennessee Law Review, 82, 1–82.Google Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Silvers, A. (2016). Philosophy and disability: What should philosophy do? Res Philosophica, 93(4), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Travis, M. A. (2015). Disqualifying universality under the Americans with disabilities act amendments act. Michigan State Law Review, 2015, 1689–1760.Google Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. Wolff, J. (2009). Cognitive disability in a society of equals. Metaphilosophy, 40(3–4), 402–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Salt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations