Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines how political theory can better account for and include persons with intellectual disabilities (PWID) in conceptualizations of democratic politics. Through analysis of major democratic theories, I challenge traditional assumptions about political participation that have historically excluded PWID from meaningful engagement in political life.I begin by analyzing classical liberal notions of autonomy that presume rational independence and self-sufficiency as prerequisites for political participation. Drawing on feminist scholarship and disability studies, I propose a relational understanding of autonomy that acknowledges human interdependence and a range of human capacities. However, I argue that articulating autonomy as relational is necessary but insufficient for accounting for the political expressions of PWID. I then examine the common forms of political participation, advocacy and voting. While traditional modes of engagement should be made more accessible, I suggest they too are limited. I thus turn to theories of deliberative democracy as a potentially more inclusive framework, given its ‘all affected principle’ aligns with disability advocacy. I propose a more expansive account of deliberative politics that enables collaborative and non-verbal participation, but I again argue this too remains insufficient as it remains tied to ideals of rational capacity. Finally, I propose an account of the “politics of acknowledgment.” I see this as a framework for thinking about transformative political action that need not rest on rational capacity. I articulate four key components of acknowledgment: openness to possibility, collective freedom-oriented action, commitment to the possibility of transformation, and affective receptivity. This framework creates space for recognizing political engagement occurring outside traditional channels, particularly in communities built by and for disabled people. I conclude that no single democratic theory can fully address the exclusion of PWID from political life. What is needed is a multifaceted approach that recognizes human interdependence as fundamental to political community and the possibility that arises from relationships that are typically ignored. By acknowledging disability as a universal human experience, and including it from the beginning in political theorizing, I argue that more inclusive political theories and practices can benefit all members of society, while advancing more just and representative understandings of human political life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".