Asymmetric Recognition II: Humans with Reduced Person-Making Capacities

  • Heikki IkäheimoEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Geisteswissenschaften book series (SPREFGEIST)


People whose person-making capacities or status are diminished or who lack them altogether are mostly ignored in mainstream theories of recognition. This entry clarifies the conceptual landscape around and some of the key questions about recognition in relation to these people. The concept of personhood is analyzed into three different sub-concepts – juridical, moral and psychological – and the connection of these to recognition on relevant concepts of recognition is discussed.


Cognitive disablities Legal personhood Moral personhood Psychological personhood Mutuality 


  1. Baker, Lynne Rudder. 2005. When does a person begin? Social Philosophy and Policy 22(2): 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Felder, Franziska. 2019. Recognition in special needs education, inclusive education and disability studies. In this volume.Google Scholar
  3. Ikäheimo, Heikki. 2009. Personhood and the social inclusion of people with disabilitiesA recognition-theoretical approach. In Arguing about disability—Philosophical perspectives, ed. Kristjana Kristiansen, Simo Vehmas, and Tom Shakespeare, 77–92. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Laitinen, Arto. 2007. Sorting out aspects of personhood: Capacities, normativity and recognition. In Dimensions of personhood, ed. Heikki Ikäheimo and Arto Laitinen, 248–270. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Laitinen, Arto. 2010. On the scope of “Recognition”: The role of adequate regard and mutuality. In The philosophy of recognition—Historical and contemporary perspectives, ed. Christopher Schmidt am Busch and Christopher Zurn, 319–342. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  6. Quante, Michael. 2017. Pragmatistic anthropology. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  7. Quante, Michael, and David Schweikard. 2012. Person. In Ethik der Behindertenpädagogik, ed. V. Moser and D. Horster, 90–104. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  8. Tooley, Michael. 1972. Abortion and infanticide. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2(1): 37–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralien

Personalised recommendations