It is my pleasure to let you know that Alex Bryant (McMaster/UBC) is coordinating a reading group on my book, Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability, that will run from next week to early August. Alex has indicated on Twitter that anyone interested can still join the group by sending him a DM on Twitter […]
Andrea J. Pitts Reviews My Book
Andrea Pitts has written a wonderful review of Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability for the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. Andrea’s review appears in a special issue of CJDS devoted to transinstitutionalism. The Table of Contents for the special issue is here: https://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/issue/view/33 You can find Andrea Pitts’s review of my book here: https://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/651/910
Acid Horizon Podcast about Feminist Philosophy of Disability, Foucault, The Exclusion of Disabled Philosophers, Etc.
Last week, I recorded a podcast with Acid Horizon about my work on feminist philosophy of disability and philosophy of disability, more generally, as well as exclusion of disabled philosophers from the profession of philosophy, the criticism that Foucault can’t address the phenomenology of the body, and my article “This is What a Historicist and […]
New Review of Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability
A new review of my book Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability (Tabetha K. Violet) appears in the Spring 2020 issue of IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics (vol. 13, no, 1, pp. 174-177). You can find the review online here. Links to a review of the book that appeared in the APA […]
Feminist Philosophy of Disability, Women’s History Month, and IWD
March is Women’s History Month and March 8th is International Women’s Day (IWD). In recognition of these occasions, the University of Michigan Press has applied a discount to a number of its publications relevant to women and feminism, including to my book, Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability. My book, the manuscript of which won […]
The Fallacy of the Good Philosopher-Activist
Julinna Oxley’s article “How to Be a Good Philosopher-Activist” is the focus of a post over at Daily Nous. I hadn’t previously read Oxley’s article, so I’m glad that it’s showcased on the Daily Nous blog. Although I read the article quickly, I derived from doing so the impression that it’s timely, instructive, and provocative. […]
Reconfiguring Values: A Riposte to Agnes Callard
In Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability, I argue that disability is a complex and complicated apparatus of power rather than a personal property, attribute, or difference, as assumed on the individualized and medicalized conceptions of disability that most philosophers (including most philosophers of disability) hold. In order to make this argument, I employ Foucault’s […]
Notes on Khader’s Decolonizing Universalism and the Problematization of Disability in Feminist Philosophy
In Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability, I aimed to denaturalize disability by arguing that disability is an apparatus of power rather than a natural human difference, personal attribute, or biological characteristic. My argument is thus distinct from the approaches to disability that disabled philosophers of disability such as Barnes, Silvers, and Stramondo take and […]
Biopower, Normalization, and Slippery Slopes
[This post previously appeared on Discrimination and Disadvantage. In an upcoming post, I will discuss how the subfield of bioethics has shaped Canadian philosophy and how the predominance of the subfield of bioethics in Canadian philosophy is intertwined with prestige bias. An earlier post on prestige bias in Canadian philosophy can be found here.] ____________________________________________________ […]
Reviews of Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability
In the past week, two very positive reviews of Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability have appeared (well, if they appeared before last week, I was unaware that they had been published). I was happy to read that, for the most part, the two reviews focus on and draw out disparate aspects of the book. […]
