Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:51:24.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Mere Difference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2017

DAVID DeVIDI  and
CATHERINE KLAUSEN
DAVID DeVIDI*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
CATHERINE KLAUSEN
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the ‘mere-difference’ view of disability, a popular strategy amongst disability theorists and advocates. This view is nicely summarized by Elizabeth Barnes, who claims that disability is “a natural part of human diversity [and] something that should be celebrated” instead of something to be pitied or cured (2014). We find Barnes’s defence of the view problematic, argue that there are significant philosophical problems with the mere-difference view if it is intended as an accurate account of disability, and suggest that there are worrisome consequences if it is used as a politically strategic overstatement.

L’objectif de cet article est d’interroger la conception de l’invalidité comme «simple différence», une stratégie populaire parmi les théoriciens de l’invalidité et les porte-paroles des personnes handicapées. Elizabeth Barnes résume bien cette conception de l’invalidité : elle prétend que celle-ci constitue «une part naturelle de la diversité humaine [et] quelque chose qui doit être célébré», et non pas pris en pitié ou encore guéri (2014). La défense de Barnes est problématique; nous montrerons que cette position pose d’importants problèmes philosophiques si l’on entend la considérer comme une description juste de l’invalidité. De plus, les effets de cette conception sont inquiétants si on l’exagère de façon stratégique pour des raisons politiques.

Keywords

mere-differencedisabilityadvocacydiversityjustice
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 357 - 379
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amundson, Ron 2000 “Against Normal Function,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31 (1): 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autism Empowerment 2016 “Coexisting Conditions.” Accessed January 6, 2016. www.autismempowerment.org/understanding-autism/co-existing-conditions/.Google Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth 2014 “Valuing Disability, Causing Disability,” Ethics 125 (1): 88–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth 2016 The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability , Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickenbach, Jerome E. 2001 “Disability, Human Rights, Law, and Policy,” in Albrecht, Gary L., Seelman, Katherine D., and Bury, Michal, eds., Handbook of Disability Studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 565–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorse, Christopher 1975 “On the Distinction between Disease and Illness,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 5 (1): 49–68.Google Scholar
Boorse, Christopher 2014 “A Second Rebuttal on Health,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (6): 683–724.Google Scholar
DeVidi, David 2013 “Advocacy, Autism and Autonomy,” in Anderson, Jami L., and Cushing, Simon, eds., The Philosophy of Autism, Lanham: Romwan and Littlefield, pp.187–200.Google Scholar
Down Syndrome Education International 2015 “Health and medical issues.” Accessed December 10, 2016. www.dseinternational.org/en-us/about-down-syndrome/health/.Google Scholar
Erb, Hans-Peter, and Bohner, Gerd 2007 “Social Influence and Persuasion,” in Fiedler, Klaus, ed., Social Communication, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 191–221.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc 2009 “Defining ‘health’ and ‘disease,’” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (3): 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie 2011 “A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept,” Hypatia 26 (3): 591–609.Google Scholar
Goering, Sarah 2015 “Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease,” Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 8 (2): 134–138.Google Scholar
Imrie, Rob 1997 “Rethinking the relationships between disability, rehabilitation, and society,” Disability and Rehabilitation 19 (7): 263–271.Google Scholar
Kafer, Alison 2013 Feminist, Queer, Crip, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, Paddy 2005 “Deafhood: A concept stressing possibilities, not deficits,” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 32 (66): 12–17.Google Scholar
Lord, John, Leavitt, Barbara, and Dingwall, Charlotte 2012 Facilitating an Everyday Life, Toronto: Inclusion Press.Google Scholar
Mayo Clinic 2016 “Diseases and Conditions: Down syndrome.” Accessed December 10, 2016. www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/complications/con-20020948.Google Scholar
National Symposium on Neurodiversity at Syracuse University 2016 “What is Neurodiversity?” Accessed January 6, 2016. www.neurodiversitysymposium.wordpress.com/what-is-neurodiversity/.Google Scholar
Sarrett, Jennifer C. 2016 “Biocertification and Neurodiversity: the Role and Implications of Self-Diagnosis in Autistic Communities,” Neuroethics 9 (1): 23–36.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, Tom 2006 “The Social Model of Disability,” in Davis, Lennard J., ed., The Disability Studies Reader Second Edition, New York: Routledge, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar
Scotch, Richard K., and Schriner, Kay 1997 “Disability as Human Variation: Implications for Policy,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 549 (1): 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shotwell, Alexis 2012 “Open Normativities: Gender, Disability, and Collective Political Change,” Signs 37 (4): 989–1016.Google Scholar
Tremain, Shelly 2001 “On the Government of Disability,” Social Theory and Practice 27 (4): 617–636.Google Scholar
Wasserman, David 2001 “Philosophical Issues in the Definition and Social Response to Disability,” in Albrecht, Gary L., Seelman, Katherine D., and Bury, Michael, eds., Handbook of Disability Studies , Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 219–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendell, Susan 2001 “Unhealthy Disabled: Treating Chronic Illnesses as Disabilities,” Hypatia 16 (4): 17–33.Google Scholar
Woodcock, Scott 2009 “Disability, Diversity, and the Elimination of Human Kinds,” Social Theory and Practice 35 (2): 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar