Abstract
In this paper, I critically examine phenomenological disability studies' critique of so-called ‘Cartesian Dualism’. I argue that it is not a metaphysical divide between mental and extended substance that disability studies must overcome, but rather a more fundamental understanding of world understood only in terms of substance, what Martin Heidegger calls the ‘ontology of objective presence’. This view of ‘the world’ passes over being-in-the-world and the problem of meaning. After outlining phenomenological disability studies' objection to Descartes' legacy, I critically contrast the mind–body problem with the substance problem, suggesting the latter is crucial, and the former derivative. I conclude by discussing the contours of a disabled phenomenology: one that takes physical and mental difference as the basis for a theoretical project, rather than another site for phenomenological investigation.
Highlights
In contrast to earlier historical materialist conceptions of disability and disablement, phenomenological disability studies emphasize the inalienable role of embodiment in the personal experience and cultural organization of disability (Toombs 1995; Hughes and Paterson 1997; Paterson and Hughes 1999; Turner 2001)
I turn to the existential phenomenology of Martin Heidegger, whose concept of the ‘ontological difference’ allows us to reorient phenomenological work away from substance dualism to substance ontology more generally (Abrams 2013a)
I outline the contours of a disabled phenomenology, and examine how Heidegger’s critique of substance ontology and human subjectivity can contribute to that future project
Summary
In contrast to earlier historical materialist conceptions of disability and disablement, phenomenological disability studies emphasize the inalienable role of embodiment in the personal experience and cultural organization of disability (Toombs 1995; Hughes and Paterson 1997; Paterson and Hughes 1999; Turner 2001). I outline the contours of a disabled phenomenology, and examine how Heidegger’s critique of substance ontology and human subjectivity can contribute to that future project.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
