Can you explain Stacy Simplicans: 'The Capacity Contract
ChatGPT said:
Yes — Stacy Clifford Simplican’s The Capacity Contract: Intellectual Disability and the Question of Citizenship is a major work in disability studies and political theory. I’ll break it down for you.
Core Argument
Simplican argues that modern ideas of democracy and citizenship are built around what she calls “the capacity contract.”
This is a hidden social contract that assumes:
-
To be a full citizen, you must demonstrate capacity (reason, rationality, autonomy, productivity, etc.).
-
Those deemed to lack these capacities (especially people with intellectual disabilities) are excluded from full political membership.
In other words, modern democracies proclaim equality and universal inclusion but secretly hinge citizenship on standards of mental capacity that exclude certain people.
What “Capacity” Means Here
-
Rationality
-
Autonomy
-
Ability to deliberate, make choices, and participate in democratic processes
-
Economic productivity
These traits are treated as prerequisites for recognition as a political subject.
How the Contract Works
-
Exclusion: People with intellectual disabilities are treated as outside the “we” of democratic citizenship.
-
Conditional Inclusion: Sometimes they are included, but only via guardianship, advocacy, or “proxies” who speak for them — still treating them as exceptions to the rule.
-
Justification: The exclusion is justified on grounds that “capacity is necessary for democracy” — but this is circular, since democracy itself creates those standards.
Key Intervention
Simplican shows that:
-
The capacity contract is not natural or inevitable; it is historically constructed.
-
It mirrors other “contracts” (like Charles Mills’ racial contract or Carole Pateman’s sexual contract) that hide structural exclusions beneath ideals of equality.
-
By exposing this, she opens space to imagine forms of democracy not bound by capacity — ways of belonging and political life that don’t rest on exclusion.
Broader Stakes
-
Challenges liberal political theory that equates citizenship with reason and deliberation.
-
Intersects with disability justice by highlighting how people with intellectual disabilities are systematically sidelined.
-
Forces a rethinking of democracy beyond productivity, rationality, and independence.
Would you like me to also show how Simplican connects this to thinkers like Mills, Pateman, and Locke, or focus more on the implications for contemporary disability rights and policy?
You said:
Would you like me to also show **how Simplican connects this to thinkers like Mills, Pateman, and Locke**
ChatGPT said:
Great — let’s situate Simplican’s capacity contract in relation to Mills, Pateman, and Locke, since she deliberately builds her argument as a “family resemblance” to their critiques of contract theory.
1. Charles Mills – The Racial Contract
-
Mills’ claim: Liberal social contract theory presents itself as universal, but in practice it has always been racialized. White supremacy was baked into its foundations, so the “universal” citizen was coded white.
-
Simplican’s parallel: Just as the racial contract hides systematic exclusion of nonwhite people behind the fiction of equality, the capacity contract hides the exclusion of people deemed cognitively deficient. Citizenship is presented as universal, but in reality only the “capable” are admitted.
2. Carole Pateman – The Sexual Contract
-
Pateman’s claim: The social contract that supposedly created free and equal citizens was parasitic on an unspoken “sexual contract,” subordinating women and naturalizing patriarchal power.
-
Simplican’s parallel: Similarly, the democratic ideal of equality relies on an unspoken capacity contract that subordinates those deemed “incapable.” The formal universality of the contract is always undercut by a silent exclusion.
3. John Locke – Social Contract & Property
-
Locke’s role: Locke is one of the canonical sources for the liberal social contract. He emphasizes reason, rational self-ownership, and capacity to consent as foundations of political legitimacy.
-
Simplican’s critique: Locke’s framework already contains the seeds of exclusion:
-
Children, “idiots,” and “lunatics” were explicitly seen as outside political capacity.
-
Property and productivity were measures of worthiness, so non-productive or dependent lives were discounted.
-
-
This genealogy shows the deep historical roots of the capacity contract.
Simplican’s Innovation
By drawing on Mills and Pateman, Simplican is saying:
-
The story of liberal democracy isn’t just about inclusion and progress; it’s also about contracts of exclusion.
-
Race, gender, and capacity are not marginal but structural to how citizenship was imagined.
-
Disability studies therefore belongs at the same level of critique as feminist and critical race theory in rethinking political membership.
👉 Would you like me to also trace how Simplican moves from this diagnosis toward her proposals for rethinking democracy without capacity as its measure (her constructive side), or do you mainly want to stay with the critical/expositional side?
You said:
Would you like me to also trace how Simplican moves from this **diagnosis** toward her proposals for **rethinking democracy without capacity as its measure**
ChatGPT said:
Yes — Simplican doesn’t stop at diagnosis; she’s also trying to imagine what democracy might look like if it weren’t bound to capacity as its gatekeeping measure. Here’s how she develops the constructive side:
1. Rethinking Democracy Beyond Deliberation
-
Much of political theory (especially deliberative democracy à la Habermas, Rawls, etc.) assumes participation means rational argument in a public forum.
-
Simplican asks: what if democracy is not only deliberation, but also being together, affiliating, belonging, and forming community?
-
This opens up forms of citizenship that don’t require passing a test of rationality or speech.
2. Social Belonging as Political Belonging
-
She redefines citizenship not as “having capacity” but as participating in networks of belonging.
-
Belonging can be grounded in affect, care, presence, interdependence, shared space, or even silence — not just reasoned argument.
-
This reframing shifts from “Who is capable?” to “Who is connected, who belongs, and how?”
3. Rethinking “Inclusion”
-
Many disability rights approaches focus on “inclusion” in existing democratic structures — e.g. making voting more accessible, or providing guardianship.
-
Simplican argues this still presumes the capacity contract — inclusion is conditional on adapting disabled people to capacity-driven norms.
-
She pushes instead for altering the meaning of democracy itself, so that it is not capacity-dependent.
4. Politics of Intimacy & Everyday Life
-
She highlights intimate, small-scale, everyday practices as democratic.
-
Example: friendship networks, caregiving, shared rituals, and communities of support.
-
These are often dismissed as “private,” but she insists they are politically significant spaces where belonging is created and contested.
5. A Democracy of Interdependence
-
Simplican gestures toward a democracy that starts not from independence and autonomy, but from interdependence.
-
Everyone is dependent at some point (children, the elderly, the sick), so basing citizenship on independence is arbitrary and exclusionary.
-
Recognizing interdependence makes space for a fuller, more humane democracy.
The Risk She Takes
Simplican acknowledges this reimagining is difficult:
-
If democracy is no longer based on capacity, how do we make collective decisions?
-
How do we guard against paternalism or erasure of disabled voices when they cannot speak in “authorized” forms?
Her point is not that she has a neat blueprint, but that democracy must expand its imagination if it’s to live up to its universal promise.
✨ So, to sum up:
Simplican moves from critique (the capacity contract as an exclusionary logic underpinning citizenship) → to proposal (rethinking democracy in terms of belonging, intimacy, and interdependence rather than capacity and independence).
No comments:
Post a Comment