Skip to main content

Synonyms

Disability; Equality; Equity; Human rights

Definition

Critical disability theory is rooted in a critique of traditional discourses and assumptions of disability which serve to oppress persons with disabilities and infringe on their human rights. The theory is built upon the argument that “disability is not fundamentally a question of medicine or health, nor is it just an issue of sensitivity and compassion; rather, it is a question of politics and power(lessness), power over, and power to” (Devlin & Pothier, 2006, p. 2). This perspective challenges able-bodied supremacy and the oppression that arises from restricting economic and social benefits to persons with disabilities which are then redistributed as privileges to be negotiated (Oliver & Barnes, 1993; Rioux & Frazee, 1999; Rioux & Prince, 2002). Critical disability theory moves away from the individual pathology of disability (based on the biomedical model), and beyond liberalism and a social model of disability, toward...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 6,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 9,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bagenstos, S. (2003). “Rational discrimination,” accommodation, and the politics of (disability) civil rights. Virginia Law Review, 89(5), 825–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagenstos, S. (2004a). The future of disability law. Yale Law Journal, 114(1), 1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagenstos, S. (2004b). Justice Ginsburg and the judicial role in expanding “we the people”: The disability rights cases. Columbia Law Review, 104(1), 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichenbach, J. (2001). Disability human rights, law, and policy. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 565–584). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanck, P., Wilichowski, A., & Schmeling, J. (2004). Disability civil rights law and policy: Accessible courtroom technology. The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 12(3), 825–842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, R., & Pothier, D. (2006). Introduction: Toward a critical theory of dis-citizenship. In D. Pothier & R. Devlin (Eds.), Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy, and law. Toronto, ON: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability and Society, 12(3), 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, A. (2003). The globalization of disability rights law. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 30(2), 241–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, C. (2003). Ideas for action: Relevant theory for radical change. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neath, J., & Schriner, K. (1998). Power to people with disabilities: Empowerment issues in employment programming. Disability & Society, 13(2), 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (1993). Re-defining disability: A challenge to research. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers—enabling environments (pp. 61–68). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (1993). Discrimination, disability and welfare: From needs to rights. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers- enabling environments (pp. 267–277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rioux, M. (1997). Disability: The place of judgment in a world of fact. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41(2), 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rioux, M. (2003). On second thought: Constructing knowledge, law, disability, and inequality. In S. Herr, L. Gostin, & H. Koh (Eds.), The human rights of persons with intellectual disabilities: Different but equal (pp. 287–317). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rioux, M., & Frazee, C. (1999). The Canadian framework for disability equality rights. In M. Jones & L. A. Basser (Eds.), Disability, divers-ability and legal change (pp. 171–182). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rioux, M., & Prince, M. (2002). The Canadian political landscape of disability: Policy perspectives, social status, interest groups and the rights movement. In A. Puttee (Ed.), Federalism, democracy and disability policy in Canada (pp. 1–10). Montreal & Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2001). Theorizing disability. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 123–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Gillies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Gillies, J. (2014). Critical Disability Theory. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_619

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_619

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0752-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0753-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics