Abstract

As a starting point, Clegg, Murphy, and Almack contend that frameworks of policy fail both to engage with ethical theory and to fit with the complex realities of how services are delivered. Both of these points are well-supported both in their engagement with literature and in the research presented. Their Deleuzoguattarian analysis and Deleuzean ethical alternatives provide fresh and challenging insights. The key question in this rejoinder is whether their critique goes too far, or not far enough. To begin, however, it is worth making a comment on terminology. Clegg et al. begin with a passing comment to the effect that ‘intellectual disability’ was ‘formerly learning disability in the UK and...