Josh Dohmen

This chapter has three sections. In the first, I give a brief summary of what Foucault means by "power-knowledge." In the second, I show how this concept can be used to analyze the situations of disabled adults in relation to complex institutions of benefits and employment in the United States. In the third, I argue that disabled adults are often subject to several types of epistemic injustice given these operations of power, including subjection to structural epistemic injustice and forms of epistemic labor.

In this article, I develop an account of genius inspired by Kristeva’s writings on feminine genius in order to argue that certain ill and disabled people should be considered geniuses in the face of social conditions and medical practices that too often marginalize, restrict, and silence them. In contrast to Kristeva’s notion of feminine genius, which relies on an Oedipal developmental story, I argue that we should understand genius as (1) the intimate revolt of (2) a singular subject who (3) occupies a marginalized social position and who, through their revolt, (4) creates a work. Conceiving of genius in this way, I contend, opens up the possibility of recognizing Kristevan genius from marginalized positions other than that of women while remaining true to Kristeva’s account of the intimate. Having developed this account, I offer an example by suggesting that Susan Wendell is one such genius. Finally, I move on to argue that, by taking Kristeva’s theory of the semiotic seriously, we may discover genius among those with “severe cognitive disabilities,” and discuss Eva Kittay’s daughter, Sesha, as an example. My hope is that this concept may help us be attentive to the singular accomplishments of those who face exclusion and silencing as a result of illness or disability.

This chapter considers some epistemic aspects of interactions with those who are believed to be delusional. The chapter makes five main claims: first, for the day-to-day purposes of most individuals, it is helpful to understand delusions as extreme epistemic failures, failures that all are guilty of to some degree. Second, one should be cautious when attributing delusions to others because to call someone delusional can act to discredit them, and this can be especially dangerous when applied to members of oppressed groups. Third, delusional individuals can indeed be wronged by epistemic injustice. Fourth, epistemic responsibility for delusions needs to be extended beyond the individual holding delusional beliefs to the conditions that shape those beliefs. Finally, the virtue of epistemic humility offers several important epistemic benefits in interactions with delusional others.

In this paper, I aim to articulate, at least in part, what makes Sara Ahmed’s uses and analyses of metaphors fruitful for thinking about problems in the social world. I argue that Ahmed’s these metaphorical concepts perform three functions. First, her analyses improve our understanding of the social world precisely because we already understand the world through metaphors. They draw out the metaphors we use to think about ourselves and others and, in doing so, allow us to think more carefully about those metaphors. To support this claim, I will draw on the insights of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their seminal Metaphors We Live By. Second, one thing that Ahmed’s analyses of metaphors often allow us to see is that the movement and arrangement of bodies in the social world can be analyzed in poetic terms. To be clear, it is not just that we linguistically express and understand bodies through metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and the like, but also that the movement, arrangement, and reactions of our bodies are themselves experienced as metaphorical and metonymical, and that they provide the foundation for understanding social reality in metaphorical terms. Finally, as a result of the first two functions, Ahmed helps us imagine ways to intervene so that we can change how we live and interact with others. Specifically, to work toward positive social change, we might both rework the metaphorical concepts we use to understand the social world and alter our practices of movement that, all too often, reify existing social boundaries and inequalities.

In this essay, I argue that rather than rejecting narcissism, the most appropriate response to contemporary egoism and individualism is a revised understanding of narcissism, one that acknowledges the deeply social nature of our selves by seeking to understand the ways in which we exist as individuals through others. I will call this form of narcissism “vulnerable narcissism.” Once we recognize the extent to which we are, as individuals, constitutively social, narcissistic investments in oneself can be recognized as investments in particular social conditions that influence, sustain, or disadvantage us.

As many of the contributors to Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy note, vulnerability has increasingly become a focus of philosophers. One may think, for example, of Robert Goodin, care ethicists such as Eva Kittay, or more recent works by Alasdair MacIntyre, Judith Butler, or Adriana Cavarero. While this volume does not offer sustained engagements with Butler, Cavarero, or the so-called Continental thinkers from which they draw, it does offer a wide range of thoughtful essays that contribute in myriad ways both to theorizing vulnerability and to understanding the ethical and political consequences of taking vulnerability seriously.1 Before discussing the essays...

In this essay, I argue that certain injustices faced by mentally disabled persons are epistemic injustices by drawing upon epistemic injustice literature, especially as it is developed by Miranda Fricker. First, I explain the terminology and arguments developed by Fricker, Gaile Pohlhaus, Jr., and Kristie Dotson that are useful in theorizing epistemic injustices against mentally disabled people. Second, I consider some specific cases of epistemic injustice to which mentally disabled persons are subject. Third, I turn to a discussion of severely mentally disabled persons who, because they are unable to share information or develop interpretations of shared social experiences, may fall outside Fricker’s discussion of epistemic injustice. Fourth and finally, following arguments given by Kristie Dotson and Christopher Hookway, I define and explain a type of epistemic injustice: intimate hermeneutical injustice that I believe supplements other discussions of epistemic injustice.

In this essay, I develop an account of disability exclusion that, though inspired by Julia Kristeva, diverges from her account in several important ways. I first offer a brief interpretation of Kristeva's essays “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and … Vulnerability” and “A Tragedy and a Dream: Disability Revisited” and, using this interpretation, I assess certain criticisms of Kristeva's position made by Jan Grue in his “Rhetorics of Difference: Julia Kristeva and Disability.” I then argue that Kristeva's concept of abjection, especially as developed by Sara Ahmed and Tina Chanter, offers important insights into disability oppression; Ahmed's and Chanter's contributions improve upon Kristeva's account. Understanding disability as abject helps to explain both resistances to interacting with disabled others and ways to resist disability oppression. Finally, I argue that understanding disability as abject is preferable to recent deployments of Lacanian theory in disability studies and that this account is compatible with social models of disability.