Animality and disability: Theoretical map of (mis)matches
Abstract
This article surveys disability studies, animal studies and bioethics, with contributions from moral and political philosophy, in order to draw a comprehensive map of theoretical perspectives at the intersection of animality and disability. Through this panoramic approach, we established three paths of analysis based on divergent arguments: that of comparison; that of care and dignity; and that of citizenship and common oppression. In the literature review, we first deal with the foundations of antispeciesist and post-humanist theories, based on the comparison between characteristics and experiences of other-than-human animals and people with disabilities. Then, we evaluate how the neoaristotelian recognition of human animality was interpreted to support the notions of vulnerability and animal dignity, respectively in care ethics theory and in the capabilities approach. Finally, we address the recognition of citizenship and the common oppression experienced by people with disabilities and other-than-human animals, as generators, on the one hand, of a renewal of the concept of citizenship and, on the other hand, the establishment of the eco-crip theory. We used a dialectical approach, presenting arguments that support or refute opposing positions. Our methodology was based on a literature review, using a hypothetical-deductive approach, hence this paper has an eminently theoretical nature. Its contribution should be to provide an overview of the frameworks that enable to jointly address disability and other-than-human animality.
References
Albersmeier, F. (2014). In Defence of Extinctionism. In Les ateliers de l'éthique/The Ethics Forum (Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 68-88). Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal.
Anderson, E. (2004). Animal rights and the values of nonhuman life. En Cass, S., Nussbaum, M. (Eds.) Animal Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Braidotti, R. (2019). A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6), 31-61.
Bostrom, N., & Savulescu, J. (2009). Human Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate. In: Bostrom, N., & Savulescu, J. (Eds.). Human Enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Butler, J. (2015). Quadros de guerra: quando a vida é passível de luto. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Carlson, L. (2009). The faces of intellectual disability: Philosophical reflections. Bloogminton: Indiana University Press.
Carlson, L. (2010). Philosophers of intellectual disability: A taxonomy. En Kittay, E., Carlson, L. (Eds.). Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clark, J. P. (2009). Capabilities theory and the limits of liberal justice: On Nussbaum’s Frontiers of Justice. Human Rights Review, 10(4), 583.
Crary, A. (2016). Inside ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Crary, A. (2018). The horrific history of comparisons between cognitive disability and animality (and how to move past it). In: Adams, C. J., Rapsey-Probyn, F. (Eds.). Animaladies: Gender, Animals, and Madness. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Crescenzo, D. (2012). The problem of predator-prey relations and predator flourishing in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to justice. Environmental Ethics, 34(2), 177-197.
Cuenca Gómez, P. (2012). Sobre la inclusión de la discapacidad en la teoría de los derechos humanos. Revista de Estudios Políticos (Nueva Época). Madrid, (158), oct-dic, 103-137.
Gómez, P. C. (2016). Derechos humanos y discapacidad: de la renovación del discurso justificatorio al reconocimiento de nuevos derechos. Anuario de filosofía del derecho, (32), 53-83.
De Waal, F. B. (1999). Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial: consistency in our thinking about humans and other animals. Philosophical Topics, 27(1), 255-280.
Donovan, J., & Adams, C. J. (Eds.). (2007). The feminist care tradition in animal ethics: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
Francis, L. P., & Silvers, A. (2007). Liberalism and individually scripted ideas of the good: Meeting the challenge of dependent agency. Social Theory and Practice, 33(2), 311-334.
Francione, G. L. (2009). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Francione, G. (2010). The abolition of animal exploitation. En: Francione, G., Garner, R. The animal rights debate: Abolition or regulation, New York: Columbia University Press, 1-102.
Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., & Cole, K. R. (2014). Posthuman disability studies. Subjectivity, 7(4), 342-361.
Gruen, L., Rapsey-Probyn, F. (2018) Distillations. En Adams, C. J; Rapsey-Probyn, F. (Eds.). Animaladies: Gender, Animals, and Madness. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Horta, O. (2010). What is speciesism?. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 23(3), 243-266.
Kant, I. (2015) Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes. Trad. Paulo Quintela. Lisboa: Edições 70.
KIttAY, E. V. A. F.(1999): Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. New York: Routledge.
Kittay, E. F. (2011). The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris, 24(1), 49-58.
Kittay, E. F. (2005). At the margins of moral personhood. Ethics, 116(1), 100-131.
Kittay, E. F., Carlson, L. (2010) Introduction: Rethinking Philosophical Presumptions in Light of Cognitive Disability. Kittay, E., Carlson, L. (Eds.). Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kuhse, H., Singer, P., & Singer, P. (1985). Should the baby live?: The problem of handicapped infants (Vol. 138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way: Rethinking ethnocultural relations in Canada (Vol. 19). Toronto: Oxford university press.
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W., & Donaldson, S. (2014). Animal rights, multiculturalism, and the left. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(1), 116-135.
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2016). Rethinking membership and participation in an inclusive democracy: Cognitive disability, children, animals. Disability and political theory, 168-197.
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2017). Animals in Political Theory. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies, Oxford University Press.
Lee, T. M. L. (2006). Multicultural citizenship: The case of the disabled. Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy, and law, 87-105.
Linett, M. T. (2020). Literary Bioethics: Animality, Disability, and the Human (Vol. 3). New York: NYU Press.
Lion, V. (2020). Disrupting Temple Grandin: Resisting a “humane” face for autistic and animal oppression. In Disability and Animality (pp. 182-211). Routledge.
MacIntyre, A. C. (1999). Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues (Vol. 20). Chicago: Open Court Publishing.
MacIntyre, A. C. (2006) After virtue: a study in moral theory. 3. ed. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W., & Dodds, S. (Eds.). (2014). Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Maskos, R. (2020) Posthuman risks? Some thoughts on posthuman disability studies and ‘strategic humanism’. In: Atkinson, R.; Goodley, D. (Eds.) Humanity under duress. Sheffield: Multitude Press.
McMahan, J. (1996). Cognitive disability, misfortune, and justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25(1), 3-35.
McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. Oxford University Press, USA.
McMahan, J. (2008). Challenges to human equality. The Journal of Ethics, 12(1), 81-104.
McMahan, J. (2009). Radical Cognitive Limitation, Disability and Disadvantage. En: Brownlee, K., Cureton, A. (Eds.). Disability and disadvantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
McMahan, J. (2010). Cognitive Disability and Cognitive Enhancement. En Kittay, E., Carlson, L. (Eds.). Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Monroe, H. (2018). Ableism, speciesism, animals and autism: The devaluation of interspecies friendships. Animaladies: Gender, Animals, and Madness, 89-99.
MONROE, Hannah. Ableism, speciesism animals and autism: the devaluation of interspecies friendship. En Adams, C. J; Rapsey-Probyn, F. (Eds.). Animaladies: Gender, Animals, and Madness. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
NUSBAUMM, M. (2013). Fronteiras da justiça: deficiência, nacionalidade, pertencimento à espécie. Trad. Susana de Castro. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes.
NUSBAUMM, M. (2001). Animal rights: The need for a theoretical basis: Review of Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Harvard Law Review, 114.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond 'compassion and humanity': justice for nonhuman animals. En Cass, S., Nussbaum, M. (Eds.) Animal Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Passantino, A., Fenga, C., Morciano, C., Morelli, C., Russo, M., Di, C. P., & Passantino, M. (2006). Euthanasia of companion animals: a legal and ethical analysis. Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanità, 42(4), 491-495.
Patsavas, A. (2014). Recovering a cripistemology of pain. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8(2), 203-219.
Puar, J. K. (2012). “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess”: Becoming-intersectional in assemblage theory. PhiloSOPHIA, 2(1), 49-66.
Rawls, J. (1997) Uma teoria de Justiça. Trad. Almiro Pisetta e Lenitta M. R. Esteves. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Rawls, J. (2000) O liberalismo político. Trad. Dinah de A. Azevedo. 2. ed. São Paulo: Ática.
Rawls, J. (2001) O Direito dos Povos. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Reilly, J. S. (Ed.). (2001). Euthanasia of animals used for scientific purposes. Anzccart.
Rock, M. J., & Degeling, C. (2015). Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 61-67.
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. 2 ed. Londres, Nova York: Routledge, 2014.
Scotton, G. (2018). Metaphors and maladies: Against psychologizing speciesism. En Adams, C. J; Rapsey-Probyn, F. (Eds.). Animaladies: Gender, Animals, and Madness. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Schinkel, A. (2008). Martha Nussbaum on animal rights. Ethics and the Environment, 41-69.
Silvers, A., & Francis, L. P. (2005). Justice through trust: Disability and the “outlier problem” in social contract theory. Ethics, 116(1), 40-76.
Singer, P. (1974) All animals are equal. Philosophic Exchange, 5 (1), 1974.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics. 2. Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Singer, P. (1996). Rethinking life and death: The collapse of our traditional ethics. Macmillan.
Singer, P. (2009). Animal Liberation: the definitive classic of the animal liberation movement. New York: Open Road, 2009.
Singer, P. (2010). Speciesism and moral status. En Kittay, E., Carlson, L. (Eds.). Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Taylor, S. (2013). Vegans, freaks, and animals: Toward a new table fellowship. American Quarterly, 65(3), 757-764.
Taylor, S. (2017). Beasts of burden: Animal and disability liberation. The New Press.
Taylor, A. (2013). An Interview with Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka. Between the species, 17(1), 8.
Turner, P., Berry, J., & MacDonald, S. (2012). Animal shelters and animal welfare: Raising the bar. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 53(8), 893.
Vehmas, S. (2004). Dimensions of disability. Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics, 13, 34.
Vehmas, S., & Watson, N. (2016). Exploring normativity in disability studies. Disability & Society, 31(1), 1-16.
Wasserman, D., Asch, A., Blustein, J., & Putnam, D. (2012). Cognitive disability and moral status. En: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
White, T. I. (2013). Humans and dolphins: An exploration of anthropocentrism in applied environmental ethics. Journal of Animal Ethics, 3(1), 85-99.
Wolfe, C. (2010) What is posthumanism?. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Luana Adriano Araújo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The author retains the copyright and grants Revista de Bioética y Derecho the right of first publication of the article. All articles published in Revista de Bioética y Derecho are under Creative Commons licensing Recognition – Non Commercial – NoDerivedArtwork (by-nc-nd 4.0), which allows sharing the content with third parties, provided that they acknowledge its authorship, initial publication in this journal and the terms of the license. No commercial use of the original work or generation of derivative works is permitted.
