The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability
Abstract
There is a massive disconnect between the way disability is understood in the disability rights and disability pride movements and the way disability is understood within analytic philosophy. The former see being disabled as primarily a social phenomenon—a way of being a minority, a way of facing social oppression, but not a way of being inherently or intrinsically worse off. But while this view of disability has been widely incorporated into academic disability studies, it remains at the margins of analytic philosophy. The idea that disability is not inherently bad or suboptimal is one that many philosophers treat with open skepticism, and sometimes even with scorn. The goal of this book is to articulate and defend a version of the view of disability that is common in the disability rights movement. This book argues that to be physically disabled is not to have a defective body, but simply to have a minority body.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Disability is assumed to be incompatible with living good or happy lives.
“This follows a typical set of stereotypes widely held about disabled persons, whereby disability is assumed to be incompatible with living good or happy lives (Barnes, 2016).”
From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Barnes, 2016
Cites
Learning to live with the pain: acceptance of pain predicts adjustment in persons with chronic pain
McCracken, L. M. (1998) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00146-2 · Cited by 685 · see citing works
Boonen, A., van den Heuvel, R., van Tubergen, A., Goossens, M., Severens, J. L., van der Heijde, D., & van der Linden, S. (2005) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2003.019711 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions
Chapman, R. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620959833 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life
Chapman, R., & Carel, H. (2022) · Journal of Social Philosophy · doi:10.1111/josp.12456 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Neurodivergence-informed therapy
Chapman, R., & Botha, M. (2023) · Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology · doi:10.1111/dmcn.15384 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Ableism, technoableism, and future AI
Shew, A. (2020) · IEEE Technology and Society Magazine · doi:10.1109/mts.2020.2967492 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Scully, J. L. (2018) · International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics · doi:10.3138/ijfab.11.1.106 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
- Authors
- Barnes, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Barnes, Elizabeth
- ORCID
- Barnes, Elizabeth
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2016-03-01
- OpenAlex
- W4255727569
- Cited by
- 596
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 90 · 2025: 139 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 35.73
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- disability, disability rights movement, disability pride, social model of disability, disability studies, physical disability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review