Introduction to special issue: New dialogues between medical sociology and disability studies

McLaughlin, Janice; Scambler, Sasha; Thomas, Gareth

doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13652

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, I examine the relationship between disability, social legitimacy and work that is respective paid/unpaid, recognised/unrecognised and visible/invisible. This relationship speaks to the persistent ontological discrepancy between medical sociology and disability studies (Cooper et al, 2023;Porter et al, 2022;Remnant et al, 2022), though also to the 'intersection, boundaries, and collaborative opportunities' (McLaughlin et al, 2023) between the disciplines-serving as an exemplar of how an interdisciplinary approach can help explain the way in which the discourse of rights and inclusion may legitimise ableist expectations.…”

Section: Introduction: Social Legitimacy and Work In The Age Of Human...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The double bind of social legitimacy: On disability, the sick role, and invisible work

Grue

2023

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last few decades, the human rights paradigm has shifted the normative status of disabled people, providing, in principle, the right to full and equal participation. Particularly in neoliberal economies, however, participation in work life is a major constraint on social legitimacy, creating a predicament for people who cannot adhere to the ideal of the ‘productive member of society’. In this article, I explore this predicament at the intersection of disability studies and the sociology of health and illness, reviewing literature and discussing key concepts. I argue that in neoliberal societies, two distinct and largely incompatible pathways to social legitimacy depend, respectively, on (a) a version of the classical sick role and (b) a more recently constituted able‐disabled role. Of these, the first pathway has mainly been explored and critiqued in the sociology of health and illness, while the second features mainly in disability studies. However, both pathways can be understood (1) as ableist mechanisms for maintaining adherence to values of productivity and by (2) imposing on disabled people an unequal burden of invisible work—a key feature of ableism, driving inequality both within the group of disabled people and for the group as a whole.

show abstract