This article presents elements of a capability perspective on impairment and
disability and develops in connection with it a multidimensional and relational
account of disability. It suggests how a capability perspective provides new and
fundamental insights into the conceptualization of impairment and disability, and in
doing this, resolves the tension between natural and social causal factors evident
in current discussions of disability and education. It argues that the capability
approach is innovative with respect to the centrality of human diversity in
assessing equality, and that the specific understanding of human diversity proposed,
the democratic decisional process promoted and the normative account of disability
those entail, all have the potential to take educational theory and inclusive
education policies in fruitful directions.
Alkire, S.
(2002) Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach
and Poverty Reduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
2.
Barnes, C.
,
Mercer, G.
and
Shakespeare, T.
(1999) Exploring Disability: A Sociological
Introduction.
Cambridge: Polity Press
.
3.
Brighouse, H.
(2000) School Choice and Social Justice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
4.
Buchanan, A.
(2000) ‘Genetic intervention and the morality of
inclusion’, in
A. Buchanan
,
D.W. Brock
,
N. Daniels
and
D.Wikler
(eds) From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, pp.
258-303.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
5.
Bury, M.
(1996) ‘Defining and researching disability:
challenges and responses’, in
C. Barnes
and
G. Mercer
(eds) Exploring the Divide: Illness and Disability, pp.
17-38.
Leeds: The Disability Press
.
6.
Corker, M.
(1999)
‘Differences, conflations and foundations: the limits to
‘accurate’ theoretical representation of disabled
people’s experience?’Disability and Society14(5):
627-642
.
7.
Dworkin, R.
(2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of
Equality.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
8.
Finkelstein, V.
(1980) Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for
Discussion.
New York: World Rehabilitation Fund
.
9.
French, S.
(1993) ‘Disability, impairment or something in
between?’, in
J. Swain
,
V. Finkelstein
,
S. French
and
M. Oliver
(eds) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments, pp.
17-25.
London: SAGE
.
10.
Kittay, E.F.
(2003) ‘A response to Martha Nussabaum’s
Tanner lecture on Justice for Mentally Disabled Citizens’
(unpublished manuscript).
11.
McDermott, R.P.
(1993) ‘The acquisition of a child by a learning
disability’, in
S. Chaiklin
and
J. Lave
(eds) Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and
Context, pp. 269-305.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
12.
Morris, J.
(1991) Pride Against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to
Disability.
London: Women Press
.
13.
Nussbaum, M.C.
(2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities
Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
14.
Nussbaum, M.C.
(2005) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species
Membership.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
15.
Nagel, T.
(2002) Concealment and Exposure.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
16.
Oliver, M.
(1990) The Politics of Disablement.
London: The Macmillan Press
.
17.
Oliver, M.
(1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to
Practice.
Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave
.
18.
Perry, J.
,
Macken, E.
,
Scott, N.
and
McKinley, J.
(1996) ‘Disability, inability and
cyberspace’, in
B. Friedman
(ed.) Designing Computers for People: Human Values and the Design of
Computer Technology.
Stanford: CSLI Publications
.
19.
Perry, J.
,
Macken, E.
and
Israel, D.
(1999) ‘Prolegomena to A Theory of Disability,
Inability and Handicap’, in
L. Moss
,
J. Ginzburg, J.
and
M. De Rijke
(eds) Logic, Language and Computation, vol. 2.
Stanford: CSLI Publications
.
20.
Pogge, T.W.
(2003) ‘Can the capability approach be
justified?’ Available at
http://aran.univ_pau.fr/ee/index.html (accessed June 2003).
21.
Rawls, J.
(1971) A Theory of Justice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
22.
Rawls, J.
(2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
23.
Robeyns, I.
(2003)
‘Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality:
selecting relevant capabilities’
, forthcoming in Feminist Economics, No. 2. Available at:
www.ingridrobeyins.nl (accessed June 2003).
24.
Saito, M.
(2003)
‘Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: a
critical exploration’
, Journal of Philosophy of Education37(1):
17-34
.
25.
Sen, A.
(1992) Inequality Reexamined.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
26.
Sen, A.
(1999) Development as Freedom.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
27.
Shakespeare, T.
(1997) ‘Cultural representation of disabled
people: dustbins of disavowal?’, in
L. Barton
and
M. Oliver
(eds) Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future.
Leeds: Disability Press
.
28.
Shapiro, T.
(2003) ‘Childhood and personhood’
(unpublished manuscript).
29.
Terzi, L.
(2004)
‘The social model of disability: a philosophical critique’
. Journal of Applied Philosophy21(2):
141-157
.
30.
Thomas, C.
(1999) Female Forms: Experiencing and Understanding
Disability.
Buckingham: Open University Press
.
31.
Unterhalter, E.
(2003)
‘Education, capabilities and social justice’
, UNESCO EFA Monitoring Report (UNESCO), in press.
32.
Wendell, S.
(1996) The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections
on Disability.
London: Routledge
.
33.
WHO (ICFDH)
(2001) International Classification of Functioning,
Disability and Health.
Geneva: World Health Organization
.
34.
WHO (ICIDH)
(1980) International Classification of Impairments,
Disability and Handicap.
Geneva: World Health Organization
.
