Disability activisms: Social model stalwarts and biological citizens

Disability and Society

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 677-688

  Hughes, Bill ^a  

^a GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Activism; Biological citizens; Disabled people's movement; Social model; Social movement

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350180458     PISSN: 09687599     EISSN: 13600508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09687590903160118     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allsop, J., K. Jones, and R. Baggot. 2004. Health consumer groups in the UK: A new social movement. Sociology of Health and Illness 26, no. 6: 737-56.
2. Beck, U. 1992. The risk society. London: Sage.
3. Benton, T. 1991. Biology and social science: Why the return of the repressed should be given a cautious welcome. Sociology 25: 1-29.
4. Benton, T. 2003. Ecology, health and society. In Debating biology: Sociological reflections on health, medicine and society, ed. S. Williams, L. Birke, and G. Bendelow, 283-7. London: Routledge.
5. Borsay, A. 2005. Disability and social policy in Britain since 1750. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Brown, P., and S. Zavestovski. 2004. Social movements in health: An introduction. Sociology of Health and Illness 26, no. 6: 679-94.
7. Brown, P., S. Zavestovski, S. McCormick, B. Mayer, R. Morello-Frosch, and R. Gaisor. 2004. Embodied health movements: Uncharted territory in social movement research. Sociology of Health and Illness 26: 1-31.
8. Campbell, J., and M. Oliver. 1996. Disability politics: Understanding our past, changing our future. London: Routledge.
9. Clarke, A., L. Mamo, J. Shim, J. Fishman, and J. Fosket. 2003. Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness and US biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68: 161-94.
10. Coulter, D., and E. Willis. 2004. The rise and rise of complementary and alternative medicine: A sociological perspective. The Medical Journal of Australia 180, no. 11: 587-89.
11. Finkelstein, V. 1980. Attitudes and disabled people: Issues for discussion. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
12. Frank, A.W. 2003. The bioethics of biotechnology. In Debating biology: Sociological reflections of health, medicine and society, ed. S. Williams, L. Birke, and G. Bendelow, 260-70. London: Routledge.
13. Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future. London: Profile Books.
14. Furnham, A., and C. Vincent. 2006. Reasons for using CAM. In Complementary and alternative medicine: Challenge and change, ed. M. Kelner, B. Wellman, B. Pescosolido, and M. Saks. London: Routledge.
15. Gabe, J., D. Kelleher, and G. Williams. 2006. Challenging medicine, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
16. Ganchoff, C. 2004. Regenerating movements: Embryonic stem cells and the politics of potentiality. Sociology of Health and Illness 26, no. 6: 757-74.
17. Gibbon, S., and C. Novas. 2007. Genetics and the social sciences: Making biosociality. London: Routledge.
18. Heath, D., R. Rapp, and K. Taussig. 2003. Genetic citizenship. In Companion to the handbook of political anthropology, ed. D. Nugent and J. Vincent, 86-114. Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Hess, D. 2004. Medical modernisation, scientific research fields and the epistemic politics of health social movements. Sociology of Health and Illness 26, no. 6: 695-709.
20. Hughes, B. 2000. Medical bodies. In The Body, culture and society: An introduction, ed. P. Hancock et al. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
21. Hughes, B. 2001. Disability and the constitution of dependency. In Disability and the politics of change, ed. L. Barton, 24-33. London: David Fulton Publishers.
22. Hughes, B. 2002. Invalidated strangers: Impairment and the cultures of modernity and post-modernity. Disability & Society 17, no. 5: 571-84.
23. Hughes, B. 2007. Being disabled: Towards a critical social ontology for disability studies. Disability & Society 22, no. 7: 673-84.
24. Hughes, B., and K. Paterson. 1997. The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society 12, no. 3: 325-40.
25. Kerr, A., and T. Shakespeare. 2002. Genetic politics: From eugenics to genome. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.
26. Lash, S. 2002. Critique of information. London: Sage.
27. Le Breton, D. 2004. Genetic fundamentalism or the cult of the gene. Body & Society 10, no. 4: 1-20.
28. Linton, S. 2006. My body politic: A memoir. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
29. Novas, C., and N. Rose. 2000. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society 29, no. 4: 484-513.
30. Oliver, M. 1990. The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan.
31. Pinell, P. 1996. Modern medicine and the civilising process. Sociology of Health and Illness 18, no. 1: 1-16.
32. Rabinow, P. 1996. Artificiality and the enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Essays on the anthropology of reason, 91-111. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33. Rabinow, P., and N. Rose. 2003. Thoughts on the concept of biopower today. Molecular Sciences Institute. http://www.molsci.org/files/Rose_Rabinow_Biopower_Today.pdf.
34. Rose, N. 2001. The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture and Society 18, no. 6: 1-30.
35. Rose, N. 2007. Molecular biopolitics, somatic ethics and the spirit of biocapital. Social Theory and Health, 5: 3-29.
36. Rose, N., and C. Novas. 2004. Biological citizenship. In Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems, ed. A. Ong and S. Collier. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
37. Shakespeare, T. 2006. Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge
38. Shakespeare, T., and N. Watson. 2002. The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability 2: 9-28.
39. Shilling, C. 2005. The body in culture, technology and society. London: Sage.
40. Snow, D., and R. Benford. 1998. Ideology, frame resonance and participant mobilization. International Journal of Social Movement Research 1: 197-217.
41. Svendsen, M.N., and L. Koch. 2006. Genetics and prevention: A policy in the making. New Genetics and Society 25, no. 1: 51-68.
42. Thomas, C. 1999. Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
43. Turner, B.S. 1996. The body and society: Explorations in social theory, 2nd ed. London: Sage.
44. Turner, B.S. 2001. Disability and the sociology of the body. In The handbook of disability studies, ed. G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, and M. Bury, 252-66. London: Sage.
45. Turner, B.S. 2003. Biology, vulnerability and politics. In Debating biology: Sociological reflections on health medicine and society, ed. S. Williams, L. Birke, and G. Bendelow, 271-82. London: Routledge.
46. Van Dijck, J. 1998. Imagenation: Popular images of genetics. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
47. Waldby, C. 2002. Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health 6, no. 3: 305-23.
48. Watson, N., L. McKie, B. Hughes, D. Hopkins, and S. Gregory. 2004. (Inter)Dependence, needs and care: The potential for disability and feminist theorists to develop an emancipatory model. Sociology 38, no. 2: 331-50.
49. Williams, S. 1999. Is anybody there? Critical realism, chronic illness and the disability debate. Sociology of Health and Illness 21, no. 6: 797-819.
50. Williams, S., L. Birke, and G. Bendelow. 2003. Debating biology: Sociological reflections of health, medicine and society. London: Routledge.
51. World Health Organisation. 1996. Lifestyle and health. Social Science and Medicine 22: 117-24.