In:Disability in Dialogue
Edited by Jessica M.F. Hughes and Mariaelena Bartesaghi
[Dialogue Studies 33] 2023
► pp. 49–66
Disability and employability
A case study of the rhetoric of neoliberal inclusionism
Published online: 19 September 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.33.03gru
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.33.03gru
Abstract
When disabled people seek accommodation and inclusion,
including within the framework of modern human rights discourse, a complex
interaction ensues. While negotiations over accommodation may be explicit
and formalized, they may also take the form of a more subtle, even implicit,
dialogue that indexes psychological and moral attributes. Being an
“includable” disabled person means living up to a set of often tacit role
expectations, which are present in discourse and shape recruitment
processes. Normative representations of “includable” disabled people – i.e.,
people who are represented as being, potentially, valued members of
society – carry considerable force. This paper takes as its topic one corpus
of such representations, drawn from a social media campaign launched by the
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. We ask the question of what
norms and values the campaign presupposes and conveys, concluding with the
analytical modes of rhetoric and critical discourse analysis. Focusing on
the interaction between narrative content and reader expectations, we
suggest that the campaign’s normative stance is that of neoliberal
inclusionism, an ethos in which disabled people are valued and
provided with accommodations chiefly to the extent to which they are able to
act as productive employees – ideally on a par with non-disabled people.
Keywords: inclusionism, neoliberalism, dialogue, rhetoric, argumentation, topos
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background: A genealogy of neoliberal inclusionism
- 3.An inclusionist social media campaign: #Semuligheter
- 4.A note on scoping and methods
- 5.Primary analysis: Neoliberal inclusionism and dreams of productivity
- 6.Secondary analysis and conclusion: Inclusionism, reflexivity, and the normative implications of the productivity ethos
Notes References
References (33)
Braet, Antoine C. 2005. “The
Common Topic in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Precursor of the Argumentation
Scheme.” Argumentation 19(1): 65–83.
Chouliaraki, Lilie and Norman Fairclough. 2002. Discourse
in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse
Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Colker, Ruth. 2005. The
Disability Pendulum: The First Decade of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. New York: New York University Press.
Grue, Jan. 2016. “The
Problem with Inspiration Porn: A Tentative Definition and a
Provisional Critique.” Disability and
Society 31(6): 838–849.
. 2019. “Inclusive
Marginalisation? A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Disability,
its Framings and their Implications in the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.” Nordic Journal of
Human
Rights 37(1): 3–17.
Hughes, Bill. 2019. A
Historical Sociology of Disability: Human Validity and Invalidity
from Antiquity to Early
Modernity. London: Routledge.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. From
Pragmatics to
Dialogue. In The
Routledge Handbook of Language and
Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 78–93. London: Routledge.
Krieger, Linda H. 2003. Backlash
against the ADA: Reinterpreting Disability
Rights. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Létourneau, Alain. 2012. “Towards
an Inclusive Notion of Dialogue for Ethical and Moral
Purposes.” In (Re)presentations
and Dialogue, ed.
by François Cooren and Alain Létourneau. 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mitchell, David T. and Sharon L. Snyder. 2020. “Disability,
Neoliberal Inclusionism and Non-Normative
Positivism.” In Neoliberalism
in Context: Governance, Subjectivity, and
Knowledge, ed. by Simon Dawes and Marc Lenormand, 177–193. Berlin: Springer.
Norden, Martin F. 1994. The
Cinema of Isolation: A History of Disability in the
Movies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Norges Offentlige Utredninger
(NOU). 2001. Fra Bruker
til Borger [From user to citizen] (Nummer
22). Statens Forvaltningstjeneste. [URL]
O’Halloran, Kieran. 2003. Critical
Discourse Analysis and
Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Oliver, Michael and Colin Barnes. 2012. The
New Politics of
Disablement. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ot. Prp. Nr 2.
Ang. Utfærdigelse af en Lov om Skoler for Abnorme
Børn, 1879. (testimony
of Kirkedepartementet).
Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2009. “The
Discourse-Historical Approach
(DHA).” In Methods
of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed.
by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. Newbury Park, Sage.
Sosialdepartementet. 1966. Om
Utviklingen av Omsorgen for Funksjonshemmede. St.mld nr. 88.
(1966–1967). [URL]
Statistics
Norway. 2019. Labour
Force Survey. [URL]
Titchkosky, Tanya. 2003. “Governing
Embodiment: Technologies of Constituting Citizens with
Disabilities.” Canadian Journal of
Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de
Sociologie 28(4): 517–542.
United
Nations. 2006. “General
Assembly Resolution
61/106,” Convention on the Rights of
Persons with
Disabilities A/RES/61/106. [URL]
Weigand, Edda. 2017. “The
Mixed Game Model: A Holistic
Theory.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Language and
Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 174–193. London: Routledge.
Weiss, Gilbert and Ruth Wodak. 2003. Critical
Discourse Analysis: Theory
andIinterdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2004. Text,
Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse
Analysis. Hoboken, Blackwell.
Young, Stella. 2014. I’m
Not Your Inspiration, Thank You Very
Much [Video]. TEDxSydney. [URL]
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
