Barnes on Disability

2023-2 Metaphysics of the Self Segment 2 (E. Barnes, ch.1, "Constructing Disability", in The Minority Body: Theory of Disability)

 

Q) Present an example of a naturalistic account of disability. What sort of objection(s) does Barnes raise against it?

The naturalistic account defines disability as a departure from normal functioning or the species norm. Barnes challenges this account by arguing that it faces issues of overgeneralization. For instance, individuals like Michael Phelps or Spiderman surely possess traits that can be considered departures from normal functioning or species norm. However, this doesn't necessarily imply that they are disabled in any sense. Furthermore, objections extend to the challenge of precisely defining 'normal functioning.' Questions arise about whether a specific threshold, such as 80% or 90%, should be established to distinguish normal from abnormal functioning.

 

Q) In whay way does Barnes's account for disability? What do you take to be the biggest difficulty for her view?

According to Barnes, an individual S is considered disabled if and only if S has a specific physical condition x, and members of the disability rights movement judge that x falls within the category of physical conditions for which they aim to advocate for justice. However, Barnes's definition raises concerns as it excessively relies on the external authority of a particular group. The questions of why such a group should possess the right to define disabilities and which group holds such a right when multiple groups are involved remain unclear. Ironically, this definition excludes the right of individuals with disabilities to define themselves.