The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment
Abstract
James Charlton has produced a ringing indictment of disability oppression, which, he says, is rooted in degradation, dependency, and powerlessness and is experienced in some form by five hundred million persons throughout the world who have physical, sensory, cognitive, or developmental disabilities. Nothing About Without Us is the first book in the literature on disability to provide a theoretical overview of disability oppression that shows its similarities to, and differences from, racism, sexism, and colonialism. Charlton's analysis is illuminated by interviews he conducted over a ten-year period with disability rights activists throughout the Third World, Europe, and the United States. Charlton finds an antidote for dependency and powerlessness in the resistance to disability oppression that is emerging worldwide. His interviews contain striking stories of self-reliance and empowerment evoking the new consciousness of disability rights activists. As a latecomer among the world's liberation movements, the disability rights movement will gain visibility and momentum from Charlton's elucidation of its history and its political philosophy of self-determination, which is captured in the title of his book. Nothing About Without Us expresses the conviction of people with disabilities that they know what is best for them. Charlton's combination of personal involvement and theoretical awareness assures greater understanding of the disability rights movement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability
Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013) · Race Ethnicity and Education · doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.730511 · Cited by 1,272
Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research
Andresen, E. M. (2000) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.20619 · Cited by 869
Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults
Doyle, N. (2020) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldaa021 · Cited by 527
Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice
Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A. (2015) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.14.79 · Cited by 502
In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions
Shinohara, K., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979044 · Cited by 495
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1998-09-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 36-0640-36-0640
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1568037033
- Cited by
- 1,122
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.36-0640
- The paper
- Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment. (1998). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.36-0640
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.