The post(hu)man always rings twice: theorising the difference of impairment in the lives of people with ‘mental health problems’

Abstract

A vital debate in British disability studies concerns the question of how impairment can be theorised, taking place between those who claim a critical realist ontology and those who argue for a critical social ontology. Recently, this discussion on impairment issues seems to merge with the agenda of the newly emerging perspective of critical disability studies. In contrast to the recent claim of Vehmas and Watson in Disability & Society that critical disability theorists only engage in a relativistic deconstruction of impairment, as critical disability scholars we explore the recent work of Braidotti who addresses a difference between a deconstructive anti-humanist stance and an affirmative post-humanist turn. Inspired by our empirical research, we theorise the difference of impairment in the lives of people with ‘mental health problems’ that can imply, in theoretical and in practical real-life terms, both a limitation and a potential that matters.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.