Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies

Vehmas, S. and Watson, N. (2014) Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies. Disability and Society, 29(4), pp. 638-650. (doi:10.1080/09687599.2013.831751)

[img]
Preview
Text
85082.pdf - Published Version

248kB

Publisher's URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.831751

Abstract

Critical disability studies (CDS) has emerged as an approach to the study of disability over the last decade or so and has sought to present a challenge to the predominantly materialist line found in the more conventional disability studies approaches. In much the same way that the original development of the social model resulted in a necessary correction to the overly individualized accounts of disability that prevailed in much of the interpretive accounts which then dominated medical sociology, so too has CDS challenged the materialist line of disability studies. In this paper we review the ideas behind this development and analyse and critique some of its key ideas. The paper starts with a brief overview of the main theorists and approaches contained within CDS and then moves on to normative issues; namely, to the ethical and political applicability of CDS.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Watson, Professor Nicholas
Authors: Vehmas, S., and Watson, N.
Subjects:H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Social Scientists working in Health and Wellbeing
College of Social Sciences > School of Social and Political Sciences > Sociology Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences
Journal Name:Disability and Society
Publisher:Taylor and Francis (Routledge)
ISSN:0968-7599
ISSN (Online):1360-0508
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2013 Taylor and Francis
First Published:First published in Disability and Society 29(4):638-650
Publisher Policy:Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record