Befähigung, Care und persönliche Assistenz: Beziehungen herstellen

Schlagworte: Befähigungsansatz, Care, Vertrag, Behinderung, Ethik


Der Capability-Ansatz/die Capability-Theorie (CA/T) erhebt den normativen Anspruch, dass die Freiheit, Wohlbefinden zu erreichen, von primärer moralischer Bedeutung ist. Er hat in seinem ursprünglichen Anwendungsbereich, den Development Studies, bedeutende Beiträge geleistet und wurde auch in anderen Bereichen als Rahmen für die Bewertung der Beziehung zwischen Wohlbefinden und sozioökonomischen Kontexten verwendet, um politische Maßnahmen für den sozialen Wandel zu untermauern. Die Abkehr des CA/T von einer ausschließlichen Fokussierung auf Ressourcen (Umverteilung) offenbart, wie die Beziehung zwischen den Elementen Partizipation und Freiheit bei der Erreichung von Wohlbefinden strittig wird. In diesem Beitrag wird anhand von zwei Beispielen aus der empirischen Forschung, die mit behinderten bzw. pflegebedürftigen Menschen, ihren persönlichen Assistenten und Pflegekräften durchgeführt wurde, untersucht, wie die Aufmerksamkeit für Teilhabe, Beziehung und Zugehörigkeit CA/T weiterentwickeln kann.


Bridget Anderson, University of Bristol

Bridget Anderson ist die Direktorin von Migration Mobilities Bristol und Professorin für Migration, Mobilitäten und Citizenship. Ihre Stelle ist zwischen der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften und Recht und der School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies aufgeteilt.


Anderson, Bridget (Ed.) (2020): Methodological Note to Accompany D5.3 national case studies. (04.09.2020).

Aubrecht, Katie/Kelly, Christine/Rice, Carla (2020): The Aging-Disability Nexus. Columbia: The University of British Columbia.

Boyle, Geraldine (2008): Autonomy in long‐term care: a need, a right or a luxury?. In: Disability & Society, 23 (4), 299–310. doi:

Brito, Laura (2018): Being Paid to Care For or Care About? Ethnographies of Home Care, National Report, Portugal. (04.09.2020).

Fields, Deborah/Kafai, Yasmin (2009): A Connective Ethnography of Peer Knowledge Sharing and Diffusion in a Tween Virtual World. In: International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 4 (1), 47–68. doi:

Fraser, Nancy (2005): Mapping the Feminist Imagination. From Redistribution to Recognition to Representation. In: Constellations 12 (3), 295–307. doi:

Fraser, Nancy (1998): From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a „post-socialist“ age. In: Willett, Cynthia (Ed.): Theorizing Multiculturalism. A Guide to the Current Debate. Malden, Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons, 19–49.

Fraser, Nancy/Honneth, Axel (2003): Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. New York: Verso.

Gellert, Paul/Feldman, Shelley (2006): The Seductive Quality of Central Human Capabilities. Sociological Insights into Nussbaum’s and Sen’s Disagreement. In: Economy and Society 35 (3), 423–452. doi:

Guess, Doug/Benson, Holly Anne/Siegel-Causey, Ellin/Agran, Martin (2008): Concepts and Issues Related to Choice Making and Autonomy among Persons with Severe Disabilities. In: Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 33 (1–2), 75–81. doi:

Kittay, Eva (1999): Love’s labor: essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.

Khader, Serene/Kosko, Stacey (2019): “Reason to Value”: Process, Opportunity, and Perfectionism in the Capability Approach. In: Keleher, Lori/Kosko, Stacy J. (Ed.): Agency and Democracy in Development Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 178–204. doi:

Kröger, Teppo (2009): Care Research and Disability Studies: Nothing in common?. In: Critical Social Policy 29 (3), 398–420. doi:

Leahy, Ann (2018): Too Many “False Dichotomies”? Investigating the division between ageing and disability in social care services in Ireland: a study with statutory and non-statutory organisations. In: Journal of Aging Studies 44 (1), 34–44. doi:

Meier, Isabelle (2018): “You really need to hold back – you are only the surrogate eye”. Personal Assistance in Austria. (11.05.2021).

Mitra, Sophie (2006): The Capability Approach and Disability. In: Journal of Disability Policy Studies 16 (4), 237–247. doi:

Norwich, Brahm (2014): How does the Capability Approach Address Current Issues in Special Educational Needs, Disability and Inclusive Education Field?’. In: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 14 (1), 16–21. doi:

Nussbaum, Martha (2003): Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements. Sen and Social Justice. In: Feminist Economics 9 (2/3), 33–59. doi:

Oldman, Christin (2002): Later Life and the Social Model of Disability: A Comfortable Partnership? In: Ageing and Society 22 (6), 791–806. doi:

Oliver, Mike (2013): The Social Model of Disability: thirty years on. In: Disability and Society 28 (7), 1024–1026. doi:

Oliver, Mike (1983): Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Priestley, Mark (1999): Disability Politics and Community Care. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Rippon, Simon/Theuns, Thomas/de Maagt, Sem/Zala, Mikos/van den Brink, Bert (2018): Report on the European Heritage of Philosophical Theorizing about Justice. (18.12.2018).

Robeyns, Isabelle (2003): Is Nancy Fraser’s Critique of Theories of Distributive Justice Justified? In: Constellations 10 (4), 538–554. doi:

Saxton, Marsha/Powers, Laurie/Eckels, Karyl/Curry, Mary-Ann/Maley, Susan/Gross, Jacqueline (2001): ”Bring me my scooter so I can leave you”. A Study of Disabled Women Handling Abuse By Personal Assistance Providers. In: Violence Against Women 7 (4), 393–417.

Sen, Amartya (2004): Capabilities, Lists and Public Reasons: Continuing the Conversation. In: Feminist Economics 10 (3), 77–80. doi:

Sen, Amartya (1999): Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.

Sen, Amartya (1993): Capability and Well-being. In: Nussbaum, Martha/Sen, Amartya (Ed.): The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 30–53.

Sen, Amartya (1985): Well-being, Agency and Freedom. The Dewey Lectures 1984. In: Journal of Philosophy 82 (4), 169–221.

Sen, Amartya (1984): Resources, Values and Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Silvers, Anita (1997): Disability Rights. In: Chadwick, Ruth (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, ed. Ruth Chadwick. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

Terzi, Lorella (2010): Justice and Equality in Education. A Capability Perspective on Disability and Special Educational Needs. London: Bloomsbury.

Terzi, Lorella (2005): Beyond the Dilemma of Difference. The Capability Approach to Disability and Special Educational Needs. In: Journal of Philosophy of Education 39 (3), 443–459. doi:

Thomas, Carol (2004): How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches. In: Disability & Society 19 (6), 569–583. doi:

Trani, Jean-Francois/Bakshi, Parul/Bellanca, Nicolò/Biggeri, Mario/Marchetta, Francesca (2011): Disabilities through the Capability Approach Lens. Implications for Public Policies. In ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap 5 (3), 143–157. doi:

Tronto, Joan (1993): Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York, Routledge.

van den Brink, Bert/Rippon, Simon/Theuns, Thomas/Zala, Mikos (2018): Report on the workshop ‘’Ideal and Non-Ideal theories of Justice’’: Towards a Non-Ideal Theory of Justice in Europe. (18.12.2018).

Wehmeyer, Michael (2005): Self-Determination and Individuals with Severe Disabilities: Re-examining meanings and misinterpretations. In: Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 30 (3), 113–120. doi:

Winance, Myriam/Damamme, Aurélie/Fillion, Emmanuelle (2015): Thinking the Aid and Care Relationship from the Standpoint of Disability: stakes and ambiguities. In: Alter 9 (3), 163–168. doi:

Conference Poster with Pink Background and soapy bubbles, Text: International Conference Care Migration Gender. Ambivalent Interdependencies
Anderson, B. (2021). Befähigung, Care und persönliche Assistenz: Beziehungen herstellen. Open Gender Journal, 5.
Care - Migration - Gender, HU Berlin (2019)