Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:09:23.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Capability and Disability

from Part III - Issues in Public Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
University of Pavia
Siddiqur Osmani
Affiliation:
Ulster University
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

The capability approach provides three important insights to the debate on disability and justice. First, the approach helps resolve some of the tensions in current views of disability, which either emphasize disability as a natural suboptimal trait, or as prevalently socially determined. The approach suggests instead an interactional understanding of disability, where impairment relates to restrictions in functionings, and disability to the consequent limitations in real opportunities. Second, the approach provides a metric of justice which, unlike other metrics such as the Rawlsian social primary goods, is sensitive to the demands of people with disabilities. The potential lower opportunity for well-being of a person with disabilities can only be evaluated in relation to the absence of a certain functioning, and the related inequality in her real opportunities to lead her life fully. Finally, the capability approach, specifically in Nussbaum’s work, advances the discussion on the equal moral and political status of people with disabilities, and cognitive disabilities in particular, by suggesting that their full citizenship is enacted through forms of surrogacy and guardianship when needed, and by defending their human dignity as participants in the human community.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Anand, P., Hunter, G., Carter, I., Dowding, K., Guala, F. and van Hees, M. 2009. ‘The Development of Capability Indicators’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 10/1: 125152.Google Scholar
Barclay, L. 2012. ‘Natural Deficiency or Social Oppression? The Capability Approach to Justice for People with Disabilities’. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9: 500520.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. 2009. ‘Disability, Minority, and Difference’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26/4: 337355.Google Scholar
Bérubé, M. 2010. ‘Equality, Freedom, and/or Justice for All: A Response to Martha Nussbaum’, in Kittay, and Carlson, 2010: 97110.Google Scholar
Bickenbach, J. 2014. ‘The Capability Approach and the International Classification of Functioning’. ALTER: The European Journal of Disability Research 8/10: 1723.Google Scholar
Burchardt, T. 2004. ‘Capabilities and Disability: The Capabilities Framework and the Social Model of Disability’. Disability & Society 19/7: 735751.Google Scholar
ICF. 2001. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Kittay, E. 2010. ‘The Personal Is Philosophical Is Political: A Philosopher and Mother of a Cognitively Disabled Person Sends Notes from the Battlefield’, in Kittay, and Carlson, 2010: 393413.Google Scholar
Kittay, E. and Carlson, L. (eds.). 2010. Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mitra, S. 2006. ‘The Capability Approach and Disability’. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 16/4: 236247.Google Scholar
Mitra, S. 2014. ‘The Capability Approach and the International Classification of Functionings: A Response’. ALTER: The European Journal of Disability Research 8/10: 2429.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Posarac, A. and Vick, B. 2013. ‘Disability and Poverty in Developing Countries: A Multidimensional Study’. World Development 41: 118.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2008. ‘Human Dignity and Political Entitlements’. In Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington, DC: The President’s Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2010. ‘The Capabilities of People with Cognitive Disabilities’, in Kittay, and Carlson, 2010: 7596.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. 1996. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pogge, T. 2010. ‘A Critique of the Capability Approach’, in Brighouse, H and Robeyns, I (eds.). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press: 1760.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. 2006. ‘Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled’. Journal of Ethics 10: 419462.Google Scholar
Riddle, C. 2014. Disability and Justice. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, T. 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silvers, A. 1998. ‘Formal Justice’, in Silvers, A, Wasserman, D and Mahowald, M (eds.). Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield: 13146.Google Scholar
Sparrow, F. 2005. ‘Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants’. Journal of Political Philosophy 13: 135152.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2004. ‘The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21: 141157.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2005. ‘A Capability Perspective on Impairment, Disability and Special Educational Needs: Towards Social Justice in Education’. Theory and Research in Education 3: 197223.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2008. Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and Special Educational Needs. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2009. ‘Vagaries of the Natural Lottery? Human Diversity, Disability and Justice’, in Brownlee, K and Cureton, A (eds.). Disability and Disadvantage. Oxford University Press: 86111.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2010. ‘What Metric for Justice for Disabled People? Capability and Disability’, in Brighouse, H and Robeyns, I (eds.). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods Versus Capabilities. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2015. ‘Cognitive Disabilities, Capability and Citizenship’, in Hirschmann, N and Linker, B (eds.) Civil Disabilities: Citizenship, Membership, and Belonging. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Trani, J.-F., Bakhshi, P., Myers Tlapek, S., Lopez, D. and Gall, F. 2015. ‘Disability and Poverty in Morocco and Tunisia: A Multidimensional Approach’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 16/4: 518548.Google Scholar
Trani, J.-F., Kuhlberg, J., Cannings, T. and Chakkal, D. 2016. ‘Multidimensional Poverty in Afghanistan: Who Are the Poorest of the Poor?Oxford Development Studies 44/2: 220245.Google Scholar
UN. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
UPIAS. 1976. Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. 2009. ‘Disability Among Equals’, in Brownlee, K and Cureton, A (eds.). Disability and Disadvantage. Oxford University Press: 112137.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. and de-Shalit, A. 2007. Disadvantage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
WHO. 1980. International Classification of Impairment, Disability and Handicap. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
WHO and World Bank. 2011. World Report on Disability. Washington, DC: World Health Organization and World Bank (rev. ed. 2016).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×