Groundwork in Disability Studies

DOI Web Site

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 障害学の存立基盤
  • 障害学の存立基盤 : 反優生思想と健常主義批判の比較から
  • ショウガイガク ノ ソンリツ キバン : ハン ユウセイ シソウ ト ケンジョウ シュギ ヒハン ノ ヒカク カラ
  • A Comparison of the Anti-Eugenic Viewpoint and Criticism against Ableism
  • 反優生思想と健常主義批判の比較から

Search this article

Description

This study interrogates the groundwork of disability studies in Japan and suggests theoretical prerequisites for the foundation of disability studies. This is an important attempt because relevant studies cannot be accumulated without a common understanding about the foundation of disability studies. This study addresses this issue by comparing the anti-eugenic viewpoint with criticism against ableism. The former viewpoint by Hori (2014) provided the groundwork for disability studies in Japan and the latter has been discussed recently in Western countries. Through this comparison, the study reveals that the two perspectives are similar in that both of them solve the problem of the social model of disability that treats disability (not disabled persons) as an undesirable situation. However, they are quite different in regard to certain points. That is, the anti-eugenic viewpoint takes the boundary between disabled and non-disabled persons as given and may help does not question the categorization that labels disabled persons as inferior; although it can easily differentiate disability studies from those of other minorities. On the other hand, disability studies based on criticism against ableism do not consider this boundary as a firm division and can target the process in which certain people are treated as disabled persons. However, it may become less sensitive to the differences in disadvantages among disabled persons, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities, and so on. Although both views have strong points, they also have crucial theoretical problems. Taking these issues into account, the author argues that criticism against ableism is more promising as the basic perspective of disability studies because empirical studies can compensate for its demerits. On the other hand, the author also suggests that the anti-eugenic viewpoint is still effective in the disability rights movement. Thus, criticism against ableism and the anti-eugenic viewpoint can supplement each other in disability studies and the disability rights movement respectively.

Journal

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top