Résumés
Abstract
It appears that liberal thought pays too little attention to negative affective responses toward people with disabilities. As a result, liberal theories may lack corrective structures to deal with such emotions and theorists themselves may fall prey to their influence. Assuming these troubling suggestions are at least partly well-founded and thereby warrant closer investigation, I examine three hypothetical causes of this state of affairs: the philosophical distrust toward emotions, the failure to attend to anxious reactions toward anomalous bodies, and the fear of vulnerability connected to liberal ideology. Although the causal factors that I discus are difficult to demonstrate empirically, they are nonetheless intuitively compelling.
Keywords:
- emotions,
- affective responses,
- liberalism,
- disability
Résumé
Il semble que la pensée libérale accorde trop peu d'attention aux réactions affectives négatives envers les personnes handicapées. Par conséquent, les théories libérales peuvent manquer de structures correctives pour traiter efficacement ces émotions et les théoricien(ne)s eux-mêmes peuvent devenir la proie de leur influence. En supposant que ces suggestions inquiétantes soient tout au moins partiellement bien fondées et justifient un approfondissement, cet essai examine trois causes hypothétiques relatives à cette situation: la méfiance philosophique envers les émotions, l'échec à reconnaître les réactions d’anxiété que suscitent les anomalies corporelles et la crainte de la vulnérabilité liée à l’idéologie libérale. Bien que ces facteurs de causalité soient difficiles à évaluer, ils sont néanmoins intuitivement convaincants.
Mots-clés :
- émotions,
- réponse affective,
- libéralisme,
- handicap
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- 1. Wolfensberger W. Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation. 1981; 21: 234-9; republished in Intellect Dev Disabil. 2011; 49(6): 435-40.
- 2. Silvers A. A fatal attraction to normalizing: treating disabilities ad deviations from species-typical functioning. In: Erik Parens Editor. Enhancing Human Traits: Conceptual Complexities and Ethical Implications. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000.
- 3. Lemée M. Various artistic projects listed on personal website (http://www.mael-lemee.org/)
- 4. Schklar J. Ordinary Vices. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1985.
- 5. Nussbaum M. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2001.
- 6. Nussbaum M. Hiding From Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004.
- 7. Nussbaum M. Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2013.
- 8. Andrew A, Ross G. Mixed Emotions: Beyond Fear and Hatred in International Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2014.
- 9. Anderson E. What is the point of equality? Ethics. 1999; 109(2): 287-337.
- 10. Young IM. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.
- 11. Plato. The Republic. Various editions. Book VII, 514a–520a.
- 12. Hobbes T. Leviathan. Various editions.
- 13. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice, Revised edition. Cambridge: Belknap Press; 1999.
- 14. Duchamp M. Fountain. Work of art, first exhibited at the Society of Independent Artists, in 1917, New York.
- 15. McMahan J. Cognitive disability, misfortune, and justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1996; 25(1): 3-35.
- 16. Dimock S. Why all feminists should be contractarians. Dialogue. 2008; 47(2): 273-290
- 17. Fraser N. Why overcoming prejudice is not enough: a rejoinder to Richard Rorty. Critical Horizons. 2000; 1(1): 21-28.
- 18. Little MO. Seeing and caring: the role of affect in feminist moral epistemology. Hypatia. 1995; 10(3): 117-137.
- 19. Pliskin R, Bar-Tal D, Sheppes G, Halerin E. Are leftists more emotion-driven than rightists? The interactive influence of ideology and emotions on support for policies. Pers Soc Psychol Bul. 2014; 40(12): 1681-1697.
- 20. Damasio AR. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; 1994.
- 21. Holler L. Erotic Morality: The Role of Touch in Moral Agency. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press; 2002.
- 22. Nussbaum M. The Feminist Critique of Liberalism, The Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas, Department of Philosophy. 1997 March 4.
- 23. Christman J, Anderson J, eds. Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
- 24. Mackenzie C, Stoljar N, eds. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
- 25. Finnis J. Natural Law and Natural Rights. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
- 26. Berlin I. Two concepts of liberty, 1958. In Berlin I, editor. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1969.
- 27. Bronisław B. Rousseau, solitude et communauté. Brendhel-Lamhout C. translator. Paris : Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales; 1995.
- 28. Jones JF. Rousseau’s Dialogues: An Interpretive Essay. Genève: Droz; 1991.
- 29. Carlson L. The Faces of Intellectual Disability: Philosophical Reflections. Bloomington : Indiana University Press; 2010.
- 30. Shildrick M. Dangerous Discourses of Disability, Subjectivity and Sexuality. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009.
- 31. Kittay EF. The personal is philosophical is political: a philosopher and mother of a cognitively disabled person sends notes from the battlefield, in Kittay E, Carlson L. editors, Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
- 32. Diamond C. The importance of being human. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. 1991; 29: 35-62.
- 33. Foucault M. Les Anormaux : Cours au Collège de France, 1974-1975 Paris: Seuil/Gallimard; 1999.
- 34. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan Press; 1974
- 35. Savulescu J., Persson I. Conjoined twins: philosophical problems and ethical challenges. J Med Philos. 2016; 41(1): 41-55.
- 36. Olson ET. The metaphysical implications of conjoined twinning, Spindel Supplement. South J Philos. 2014; 52: 24-40.
- 37. Fineman M. The vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale J.L. & Feminism. 2008; 20(1): 1-23.
- 38. Nedelsky J. Law’s Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
- 39. Unger RM. What Should Legal Analysis Become? London, New York: Verso; 1996.
- 40. National Council on Disabilities. Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children. Washington (DC): National Council on Disabilities; 2012
- 41. Razack S. From consent to responsibility, from pity to respect: subtexts in cases of sexual violence involving girls and women with developmental disabilities. Law Soc Inq. 1994; 19(4): 891.
- 42. Noddings N. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982.
- 43. Baier A. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1994.
- 44. Ruddick S. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. New York: Ballentine Books; 1989.
- 45. Singer P. All animals are equal. Philos Exch. 1974; 5(1): Art. 6.; reprinted in LaFollette, H. (ed.). 2007. Ethics in Practice: Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. p. 171-180.
- 46. Haksar V. Equality, Liberty and Perfectionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1980.
- 47. McIntyre A. Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Chicago: Open Court; 2001.
- 48. Held V. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, Global. Oxford: Oxford University. Press; 2006.
- 49. Kittay EF. Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. New York: Routledge; 1998.
- 50. Slote M. Moral Sentimentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
- 51. Engster D. The Heart of Justice: Care Ethics and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
- 52. McBryde Johnson H. Unspeakable Conversations. 2003 (Feb 16) New York Times.
- 53. Vehmas S. Discriminative Assumptions of Utilitarian Bioethics Regarding Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. Disability & Society. 1999; 14(1): 37-52.
- 54. Williams B. Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2006.
- 55. Cox D, La Caze M and Levine M. Integrity, in Zalta EN. editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2013.
- 56. Byrne P. Philosophical and Ethical Problems in Mental Handicap. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 2000.
- 57. Vehmas S. Parental Responsibility and the Morality of Selective Abortion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2002; 5(4): 463-484.
- 58. Nietzsche F. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Johnston I, translator. Arlington, VA: Richer Resources Publications; 2009.