Indi idual P e e ences? – Exclusion o
he Disabled in Con ac a ianism
B i a Noel e
–DRAFT–
Abs ac
Libe alism aims o no ma i e p io i y o he indi idual. In e e ence by he
s a e, as a powe ul g oup en i y, wi h assumed equal indi idual eedom is
equi ed o be jus i ied, in he con ac a ian case, by indi idual sel -in e es s.
Only, his amewo k excludes he disabled, wi h whom, due o hei na u al
bad luck o lack abili y o p oduce alue, coope a ion is no o in e es . In
con as , he social model o disabili y ega ds disabili y, o p oduce alue o
o he wise, no as an indi idual de ici , bu as he esul o social ac o s.
Explica ing his iew, I will a gue ha libe alism s a s o om a si ua ion,
in which some indi iduals can use he powe o hei g oup o in e e e wi h
alloca ion o alue p oduced by he disabled, con a he no ma i e p io i y o
he indi idual.
Exclusion o he Disabled in Con ac a ianism
Aiming o no ma i e p io i y o he indi idual, libe alism s a s o om
he assump ion o a hypo he ical ini ial si ua ion, in which indi iduals a e
equally ee o m in e e ence by he s a e as a powe ul g oup en i y. To
secu e his ini ial eedom, any de ia ion om i is equi ed o be jus i ied,
such as by ag eemen o indi iduals en e ing a con ac . The con ac can
be based on, o wha indi iduals would a ionally ag ee, ei he conside ing
1
hei espec o and wha hey could jus i y o o he s, as in con ac ualism,
o conside ing hei sel -in e es s, as in he con ac a ian e sion.
Con ac a ianism is commended o p o ec ing indi idual in e es s as hey
a e. I is said o ha e “no aim beyond hose gi en in he p e e ences o
i s membe s” (Gau hie , 1986, p.341). Especially, i is no “linked o any
subs an i e concep ion o wha is good” (Ibid.), which migh be in dange
o p omo ing communi y in e es s a he expense o he indi idual, ei he
di ec ly, i communi y goods ump indi idual in e es s, o ia s a e ac o s
usu ping he common good o hei own ends (c . Be lin, 1969).
Ye , con ac a ianism is also known (e.g. by Nussbaum, 2007) o exclude
hose conside ed unable o p oduce alue, wi h whom coope a ion conse-
quen ly is no o in e es , such as he elde ly o he disabled, he la e o
which I will discuss he e by example o he au is ic. Whils un o una e,
exclusion o he disabled, a guably, will no in alida e libe al p emises, i
i esul s no om a social choice, bu om he bad luck o lack abili y o
p oduce alue, wi h which he disabled en e he si ua ion. Fo exclusion as
an essen ially na u al phenomenon, no one should be assigned esponsibili y.
Con e sely, obliga ing non-disabled indi iduals o p o ide adap a ions nec-
essa y o he inclusion o he disabled wi hou g an ing hem app op ia e
compensa ion, would cons i u e in e e ence wi h hei in e es s ha needed
o be jus i ied.
In con as o his iew on disabili y as indi idual de iciency assigned by
na u al bad luck, he social model o disabili y ega ds disabili y, and by ex-
ension alleged inabili y o p oduce alue, as a esul o social ac o s ailing
o p o ide necessa y adap a ions. A i s glance, a he han con adic -
ing each o he , hese iews me ely seem o s em om wo non-o e lapping
discou ses ha a e each ollowing hei own axioma ic assump ion: while ac-
cep ance o exclusion o he disabled seems o ollow om con ac a ianism’s
aim o p o ec indi idual in e es s in a si ua ion as es ablished by na u al
luck, he demand o an equally accessible socie y by he social model o
2
disabili y seems o ollow om con ac ualism’s equi emen o espec o
o he s.
Ye , ins ead o co obo a ing a clea -cu di ision be ween hese wo dis-
cou ses, I main ain ha he social model o disabili y can challenge he a -
gumen , based on which con ac a ianism accep s exclusion o he disabled
as a co olla y o i s p o ec ion o indi idual in e es s. Speci ically, in chap e
2, I will explica e he social model o disabili y o show, in chap e 3, ha
exclusion o he disabled need no necessa ily esul om hei inabili y o
p oduce alue, bu can s em om ini ial indi idual di e ences in oppo u-
ni y o use he powe o one’s g oup o in e e e wi h dis ibu ion o alue
p oduced.
The Social Model o Disabili y
How does he social model unde s and disabili y, hen? In con as o he
medical model, which iews disabili y as an indi idual de ici , i ocuses on
he disabling e ec o social ac o s (see e.g. Oli e , 1990). Indi iduals may
be ei he impai ed o ha e di e en p o iles, bu socie y disables hem by
way o social s uc u es ailing o p o ide necessa y accommoda ions.
The neu odi e si y mo emen has picked up his pa adigm, acco ding o
which au ism is bu one o se e al neu ocogni i e p o iles, whose disabling
e ec s esul om opp essi e social en i onmen s (Chapman, 2023, p.117).
The social en i onmen is no only labelled as opp essi e, ins ead o he au is-
ic as de icien , neu ocogni i e di e si y a la ge, lending om he concep
o biodi e si y, is classi ied as aluable (Walke , 2021, p.19). How should
we unde s and neu odi e si y’s alue, hen? A con ac a ian con ex , as in-
oduced abo e, would allow he dis ega d o a con ac ualis unde s anding
ha ocuses on he inhe en alue o humans in all hei a ia ions, bu would
ins ead ask neu odi e si y as ins umen ally aluable o o he s o be spelled
ou .
3
Neu odi e si y can be ins umen ally aluable, i au is ic inpu , e en i
ailing o p oduce di ec alue o he espec i e exchange pa ne in hese
ins ances, c ea es alue o he sys em as a whole. A di e se inpu o pe -
spec i es, o example, can enhance he quali y o scien i ic ou pu (O’Conno
and B une , 2019), which is aluable o socie y a la ge. P o iding accom-
moda ions ha enabled he inclusion o au is ics would be in he common
in e es , hen.
Ye , can his easoning ackle he ini ial p oblem o exclusion o he dis-
abled? Indi iduals wi h di e gen bu ins umen ally aluable p o iles, who,
o example, excel a ma hs o a playing he piano, a e al eady p edomi-
nan ly labelled as alen ed ins ead o as disabled (see Ba nes, 2016, o an
analogue example om he discussion o physical disabili y), o a leas a e
al eady able o ba gain o necessa y accommoda ions in e u n o p o iding
hei inpu . E en awa ding he same bene i s o hose p o iding commonly
aluable inpu , would only be help ul o all au is ics, i no only di e se in-
pu in gene al, o some cases o di e gen inpu , was aluable, bu , c ucially,
e e y a ian o he whole ange o di e se inpu , ba none. O he wise, his
s a egy was in dange , jus o ed aw he di iding line be ween who is con-
side ed able o p o ide alue and who is no , whils ailing o elimina e i
al oge he .
Con e sely, de i ing ins umen al alue o neu odi e si y om ha o bio-
di e si y, is p one o seg ega e disabled indi iduals by design, I would a gue.
Biodi e si y esul s om e olu iona y p ocesses, which a e cons an ly p o-
ducing a ia ion, bu which also, by condi ioning su i al on en i onmen al
i , a e cons an ly e asing unsui able a ian s p oduced. Biodi e si y’s alue
o a sys em a la ge migh sugges ha o neu odi e si y, bu wi hou eason
o employing his analogy while simul aneously wi hholding he ans e o
he non- iabili y o some a ian s, i migh be di icul o dis inguish om a
social da winis posi ion.
Mo eo e , i di e si y – by de ini ion a g oup-le el p ope y – a ec s all
4
membe s o a g oup, why a e e iden ly only some o hem disabled? To
answe his ques ion, i migh be help ul o explo e a pa o he deba e abou
he social model o disabili y ha ocuses on he ela i e equency o di e en
ypes o indi idual p o iles. Ba nes, o example, in he aim o discuss he
e ec s o disabili y on well-being, cha ac e ises disabili y ia i s p opensi y
o “make[ ] you non-s anda d” (Ba nes, 2016, p.55), as “some hing ha
makes you a mino i y” (p.78), which can esul in disc imina ion, exclusion,
p ejudice and s igma. In gene al, mino i y s a us could ei he su icien ly
desc ibe, wha i means o be disabled, o migh need o be complemen ed
by u he p ope ies o disabili y, such as a kind o su e ing in i sel , bu
he pu pose o his a gumen does no equi e a decision on ha .
In a neu odi e si y con ex , Walke (2021) coined he e m ’neu omi-
no i y’ o cap u e, why some indi iduals a e disabled by hei ype o neu-
ocogni i e p o ile occu ing ela i ely a ely. I ecognises au is ics as “an
opp essed mino i y” (p.12-13) by d awing an analogy o e hnic o gende
mino i y g oups. This iew denies he exis ence o “no mal people” o “de-
aul g oups” (p.22) as well as ha o a no mal o igh way, in which b ains
should unc ion (p.19). Ye , in a socie y ope a ing on he con a y assump-
ion, au is ics li e in “a wo ld by and o neu ono malized people o he
de imen o neu omino i ized people” (Ca ala, 2023, p.147), in a wo ld, in
which hey a e subjec ed o “p i ilege and powe ha dominan majo i ies
so o en wield o e mino i ies” (Walke , 2021, p.28).
Hahn, as an ea ly p oponen o he mino i y iew, claims ha disc imina-
ion o he disabled can be aced back o public policy: “a chi ec u al s uc-
u es and social ins i u ions exis because s a u es, o dinances, and codes
ei he equi ed o pe mi ed hem o be cons uc ed in ha manne ” (1988,
p.40). As hese ins i u ions and s uc u es de ine, which capaci ies and unc-
ions indi iduals a e equi ed o possess o being able o pa icipa e in com-
muni y li e, hey e ec i ely exclude mino i y membe s lacking hem. In his
con ex , I will assume ha he con ac , inso a as i is no abou speci ic
5
policy choices bu he unde lying e ms o poli ical associa ion, is p one o
exclude mino i y membe s in he same way, by condi ioning pa icipa ion in
poli ical associa ion on speci ic indi idual capaci ies.
Con ac heo y assumes ha such join ly ag eed-upon in e e ence, whe-
he in he o m o policy o poli y choices, is launched om an impa ial
ini ial si ua ion o ho izon al in e ac ion be ween indi iduals ha is absen
o any s a e in e e ence ye . As his ini ial si ua ion p o ides he basis, om
which he e ms o he con ac a e es ablished, i will be he objec o my
ollowing ocus. Howe e , ho izon al in e ac ion in he ini ial si ua ion could
equi e indi iduals o ha e ce ain capaci ies as condi ion o hei pa icipa-
ion oo. A coope a i ely p oduced esou ce, o example, can ha e speci ic
p ope ies ha con on mino i y membe s wi h insu moun able asks, such
as equi ing someone using a wheelchai o climb s ai s, o ha con on hem
wi h asks ha a e p ohibi i ely cos ly, in case cos s a e exceeding po en ial
bene i s. In his con ex , exclusion om pa icipa ing in an exchange, and
he eby om gaining bene i s om i , is unde s ood in a bina y way, whe e
a mino i y membe is ’ou ’ ins ead o ’in’.
Ye , mino i y membe s could be excluded ac oss a con inuum as well, I
will assume, i hei p e e ences a e conside ed o a lesse ex en han hose
o majo i y membe s, when ci cums ances o p ope ies o he coope a i e
exchange a e es ablished. In hese cases, mino i y membe s can pa icipa e
in he exchange, bu a e equi ed o co e accommoda ion cos s necessa y
o adap o he ci cums ances alien o hem, which de ac s om how much
bene i s hey can gain. I will conside mino i y membe s o be excluded
om such an exchange o he deg ee, ha hey loose bene i s due o hei
p e e ences being aken in o accoun o a lesse ex en . Fu he mo e, I will
assume ha , i p e e ences ega ding he ci cums ances o p ope ies o an
exchange di e ge, he esul ing disag eemen – abou he speci ics o he
exchange, hus abou he dis ibu ion o bene i s and hus, ul ima ely, abou
indi iduals’ deg ee o exclusion – will be decided upon by ba gaining, whe e
6
each indi idual ies o en o ce hei own in e es s as bes as possible.
Al oge he , which dis ibu ion o bene i s should we expec , hen, o esul
om ba gaining be ween a g oup o indi iduals, ha consis s o a majo i y
and a mino i y, while assuming ha his exchange is amed by an ini ial
si ua ion o ho izon al coope a ion absen o any s a e in e e ence ye ? C u-
cially, inso a as he expec ed dis ibu ion o bene i s u ns ou o exclude
mino i y membe s, can i s ill be jus i ied by e e ence o he con ac a ian
p o ec ion o indi idual in e es s in a si ua ion as ende ed by na u al luck?
Can con ac a ianism claim ha he disabled only need o co e cos s e-
qui ed o accommoda e ha con igu a ion o he coope a i e exchange ha
ollows he in e es s o equally ee indi iduals? In he nex chap e , I will
a gue ha he mino i y s a us o he disabled can challenge his assump ion.
Admi edly, including majo i y and mino i y s a us in he analysis o he
ini ial si ua ion de ia es om he usual desc ip ion by con ac heo y, ac-
co ding o which he ini ial si ua ion as a hypo he ical scena io popula ed
by a omis ic, sepa a e indi iduals allows insigh in o, wi h wha indi iduals
by hemsel es a e na u ally equipped and hus wha hey can claim, when
en e ing social coope a ion. Howe e , as indi idual a ilia ion wi h a ma-
jo i y o mino i y g oup, espec i ely, is an empi ically indispu able ac ,
he analysis o he ini ial si ua ion should be able o include i , o wan
o becoming p ac ically i ele an o he wise. Al e na i ely elimina ing he
e ec s o majo i y and mino i y s a us om non-hypo he ical si ua ions, o
sa e he applicabili y o he hypo he ical ini ial si ua ion in i s usual o m as
ske ched, would equi e he non-hypo he ical si ua ion o deny indi iduals
ini ial oppo uni ies o en e and ac in associa ion, which can be uled ou
o de ia ing, disp opo iona ely, om libe al p inciples.
7
Ba gaining wi h Mino i ies
Conside ing a coope a i e exchange, hen, be ween a se o indi iduals, o
which mos belong o he majo i y and a ew o he mino i y, which dis-
ibu ion o he bene i s om his exchange ( ha is, alue p oduced minus
cos s) should we expec ? Le ’s assume, i s ly, ha 100 indi iduals join ly
c ea e 100 uni s o a esou ce R by each p o iding an inpu , ha , secondly,
o hose 100 indi iduals, 97 indi iduals wan he esou ce o ha e p ope y
aand 3 indi iduals wan he esou ce o ha e p ope y b, and ha , hi dly,
cos s o swi ching be ween e sion aand ba e negligible, such as when wo
p in ing pa e ns can be p oduced a low cos and be exchanged seamlessly
du ing ope a ion. Fo now, I will dis ega d cases, in which cos s o swi ching
be ween di e en e sions o a esou ce a e subs an ial, o a he I will gen-
e ally dis ega d cases, in which coope a ion alls h ough due o o al cos s
exceeding po en ial alue p oduced.
In case se e al indi iduals, who each belong o a majo i y o mino i y,
espec i ely, a e coope a ing, should hey p oduce e sion ao he esou ce,
p e e ed by he majo i y, e sion b, p e e ed by he mino i y, o bo h e -
sions? A uni o m p oduc ion o e sion a, o one, would igno e he p e e -
ences o he mino i y wi hou eason, bu ins ead exp ess en i lemen o he
majo i y o decla e hei p e e ence o be he ’no mal’ o ’ igh ’ one. How-
e e , p opo ionally mi o ing indi idual p e e ences by p oducing e sion
a97 imes and e sion b3 imes, would e lec equal conside a ion o all
p e e ences.
I quan i y o each e sion p oduced ma ched wi h p e e ences p esen ,
hen, and i indi idual cos s o selec ing one’s p e e ed e sion we e negligi-
bly low oo, all pa icipa ing indi iduals would be g an ed he same amoun
o bene i s. Howe e , i cos s o ma ching wi h one’s p e e ed e sion we e
exis en o e en p ohibi i ely high, such ha each indi idual ou inely had o
choose a andom e sion, mino i y membe s would be expec ed o gain less
bene i s han majo i y membe s, as hey would ha e o bea highe cos s o
8
selec ing and gaining access o hei p e e ed e sion o o adap ing o he
majo i y e sion, ye mino i y p e e ences could be conside ed o be included
s ill.
C ucially, howe e , ba gaining be ween membe s o a g oup, consis ing o
a majo i y and a mino i y, could esul in a de ia ion om his p opo ional
benchma k as jus desc ibed, due o a di e ence be ween membe s o he ma-
jo i y and he mino i y, ega ding how much bene i s hey can be expec ed
o loose, espec i ely, om an al e na i e o his exchange. Speci ically, an
exi o mino i y membe s om his exchange would loose mino i y membe s
mo e bene i s han i would majo i y membe s, which, acco ding o ba -
gaining heo y (Mu hoo, 1999), equips majo i y membe s wi h a ba gaining
ad an age.
This mechanism should be expec ed o un old, when economies o scale
a e p esen , which ealis ically a ec a b oad ange o esou ces. Economies
o scale allow pa icipan s o sha e ixed cos s by hei numbe and hus o
dec ease cos s pe uni , wi h each addi ional uni p oduced. When ba gaining
o e which e sion o a esou ce should be p oduced, majo i y membe s a e
g an ed an ad an age by economies o scale. E ec i ely, i majo i y membe s
h ea en mino i y membe s wi h hei exclusion, majo i y membe s isk o
loose less han mino i y membe s do, i hey h ea en majo i y membe s
wi h hei , he mino i y membe s’, exi . Majo i y membe s can consequen ly
ba gain o he inc eased p oduc ion o hei p e e ed e sion o he esou ce,
which g an s hem, ia a dec ease in hei own accommoda ion cos s and
he simul aneous inc ease in accommoda ion cos s o mino i y membe s,
a bigge sha e o bene i s, a he expense o mino i y membe s. Majo i y
membe s can hus app op ia e a sha e o bene i s ha , al hough bound by
he speci ic con igu a ion o he exchange, can exceed he one ha esul ed
om a p opo ional conside a ion o p e e ences as in oduced as benchma k
abo e.
Which dis ibu ion o bene i s should one expec , o example, om co-
9
necessa y o launch join ly ag eed-upon in e e ence.
An ini ial si ua ion shaped, ins ead, by he powe o g oups, should be
expec ed o ou i di e en indi iduals wi h di e en oppo uni ies o in-
e e e wi h dis ibu ion o bene i s. Bene i s gained in his way, can hen
be used as powe ools o in luence he poli ical p ocess. Gene al skep i-
cism abou whe he indi iduals wi h ad an ages in money, social s a us,
ime, men al ene gy, knowledge o p o essional abili ies, should be allowed
o use hese o in luence he poli ical p ocess o a g ea e ex en , will ge
supe cha ged, i hese ad an ages esul om p e ious oppo uni ies o use
he powe o one’s g oup o in e e e wi h dis ibu ion o bene i s. Con-
e sely, unde -p opo ional ep esen a ion o neu omino i ies in poli ical and
high-le el adminis a i e oles, o example, can be c i icised wi h addi ional
se e i y, i he exclusion o neu omino i y membe s has been exace ba ed by
hei lack o pe sonal esou ces, such as capaci y o ole a e s ess, ha hey
would ha e equi ed o launch a candidacy o hese oles, bu miss due o
unde -p opo ional ega d o hei communica ion s yle, in gene al.
Mo eo e , i posi i e eedback loops eme ge, he e ec s o a lack o an im-
pa ial basis can compound. I in a biased ini ial si ua ion, biased poli ical
ules a e es ablished, ha u he bias he si ua ion, in which inc easingly
biased poli ical ules a e es ablished, a powe ul majo i y will con inually in-
c ease hei bene i s, one i e a ion a e he nex . Addi ionally, my discussion
has been ancho ed in he example o au is ics, bu u he immu able ai s –
cons i u ing o he kinds o disabili y o o he social iden i ies, e.g. along he
dimensions o gende , ace o eligion – ha con e mino i y s a us, could
igge u he sys emic disad an ages, whose e ec s can mu ually ein o ce
each o he , pa icula ly o hose a hei in e sec ion, whils he ad an age
o majo i y membe s migh de elop an oomph, ha di e s signi ican ly om
i s basic building blocks.
Ye , conside ing how libe al p inciples a e embedded in an ac ual poli i-
cal con ex , demands ecogni ion o mino i y igh s as a signi ican ea u e o
16
ha con ex , oo. One would expec mino i y igh s, in ended o coun e he
well-known di icul ies mino i y g oups ace in any poli ical socie y (see e.g.
Kymlicka, 1995), able o compensa e o in e e ence by powe ul majo i ies,
ei he by p ohibi ing disc imina ion o by sa e-gua ding a minimal s anda d
o li e o mino i y membe s. Mino i y igh s migh indeed achie e his, o
an ex en ha should be de e mined, bu hey can be successi ely e oded in
he poli ical p ocess, oo, I would a gue. E en g an ing mino i y igh s con-
s i u ional p io i y, does no nega e he necessi y ha , as abs ac p inciples,
hey need o be ansla ed and in eg a ed in o a wide- anging body o case-
speci ic, ac ionable poli ical legisla u e and judicial con ol – he p ocess o
which is bo h consis en ly implemen ed and o e seen by majo i y membe s,
who, again, en e he poli ical p ocess wi h an ad an age in esou ces. Mo e-
o e , mino i y igh s ha a e only e e in ended o co e a basic s anda d o
li e, could g an mino i y membe s less bene i s han hey could ha e gained,
i majo i y membe s had no been able o use he o e -p opo ional powe
o hei g oup o dis ega d mino i y p e e ences.
This easoning migh o migh no be con incing, bu e en conceding ha
libe alism, pa ially, ails i s own p omise, could no be used o ad oca e o
non-libe al egimes, as hese p o ec nei he om in e e ence by powe ul
p i a e no s a e ac o s. Fu he mo e, po en ially ad e se e ec s o he lib-
e al o de g an ing p io i y o nega i e indi idual eedom, as discussed he e,
do no necessa ily in alida e conce ns abou po en ially ad e se e ec s o he
in e se poli ical o de g an ing p io i y o posi i e eedom (c . Be lin, 1969),
bu could a he demand o be ecognised as an in eg al pa o a undamen-
al dilemma: how can indi idual p e e ences be p o ec ed om in e e ence
by powe ul p i a e as well as s a e g oups?
Las ly, i is no necessa y o commi o con ac a ianism, as a p e equi-
si e o employing i s p omise o p o ec indi idual in e es s as a benchma k
agains which o c i icise i s ac ual ou pu . I one was commi ed o con ac-
ualism ins ead, one could s ill be mo i a ed o examine con ac a ianism,
17
i s , wi h ega d o he ou pu i p oduces, when implemen ed in a non-
idealized socie y ha includes majo i y and mino i y g oups, as his speci ies
he condi ions o which libe al socie ies e e back, inso a as he mo e chal-
lenging con ac ualis equi emen o espec o o he s ails o ma e ialize.
Secondly, one could be mo i a ed o examine, wha one could ideally ex-
pec om con ac a ianism, i i was conside ing p e e ences equally, as his
p o ides he baseline, whe e om a con ac ualis no ion o espec is i s
needed.
I espec i e o one’s b oade heo e ical belie s, he a gumen p esen ed
he e, and i w ong, he insigh gained om e u ing he a gumen p esen ed
he e, illus a es, how aluable a co e deba e om disabili y s udies can be
o a b oade one o poli ical philosophy, which challenges disabili y s udies’
and disabili y philosophy’s elega ion o bioe hics (T emain, 2017). A leas
i migh do so, i no poli ical philosophy i sel is used as a ehicle o he
neu omajo i y o s eng hen hei poli ical powe by pushing o a heo e ical
ounda ion o poli ical associa ion ha implies he app op ia ion o esou ces
by some o be a case o pe sonal de iciencies o o he s.
18
Re e ences
Elizabe h Ba nes. The Mino i y Body: A Theo y o Disabili y. Ox o d Uni-
e si y P ess, 2016.
Isaiah Be lin. Fou Essays on Libe y. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1969.
Jus in P B une . Mino i y (dis)ad an age in popula ion games. Syn hese,
196(1):413–427, 2019.
Amandine Ca ala. Epis emic injus ice and epis emic au ho i y in au ism.
In Shelley Lynn T emain, edi o , The Bloomsbu y Guide o Philosophy o
Disabili y. Bloomsbu y Academic, London, UK, 2023.
Robe Chapman. Neu odi e si y, an i-psychia y, and he poli ics o men-
al heal h. In Shelley Lynn T emain, edi o , The Bloomsbu y Guide o
Philosophy o Disabili y. Bloomsbu y Academic, London, UK, 2023.
Da id Gau hie . Mo als by Ag eemen . Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1986.
Ha lan Hahn. The poli ics o physical di e ences: disabili y and disc imina-
ion. Jou nal o Social Issues, 44(1):39–47, 1988.
Thomas Hobbes. Le ia han. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, 1991.
O iginally published 1651.
Will Kymlicka. Mul icul u al Ci izenship: A Libe al Theo y o Mino i y
Righ s. Cla endon P ess, 1995.
Aydin Mohseni, Cailin O’Conno , and Hannah Rubin. On he eme gence o
mino i y disad an age: es ing he cul u al ed king hypo hesis. Syn hese,
198(6):5599–5621, 2021.
Abhinay Mu hoo. Ba gaining Theo y wi h Applica ions. Camb idge Uni e -
si y P ess, 1999.
19
Ma ha C Nussbaum. F on ie s o Jus ice: Disabili y, Na ionali y, Species
Membe ship. Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 2007.
Michael Oli e . The Poli ics o Disablemen — New Social Mo emen s.
Sp inge , 1990.
Cailin O’Conno and Jus in B une . Dynamics and di e si y in epis emic
communi ies. E kenn nis, 84(1):101–119, 2019.
Shelley T emain. Foucaul and Feminis Philosophy o Disabili y. Uni e si y
o Michigan P ess, 2017.
Nick Walke . Neu oquee He esies, No es on he Neu odi e si y Pa adigm,
Au is ic Empowe men , and Pos no mal Possibili ies. Au onomous P ess,
2021.
©
2025. This wo k is licensed unde a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
20
