Abstract
Public policy discourses on disability frequently reference emotions such as shame or pity to describe the lived experience of disabled people. While sociological research within the emotional realm is re-emerging as a growing area of interest, little work appears to have explored the relationship of emotions in articulating notions of deservingness that are a significant part of public policy discourses on disability. This is curious, considering that normative conceptions of deservingness have been integral to the legislative process that seeks to either elaborate or constrain the rights of disabled people. Drawing on the Howard government's workfirst welfare reform agenda as a case study, this article explores the role of ‘disgust’ in constraining disabled people's rights. In particular, we suggest that the politics of disgust was drawn upon by the Howard government to shift public notions of justice, from rights to deserving.
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.
