Suzanne - along with Barry, I also think your message about language
and terminology was really thoughtful. As part of a dissertation I
am writing on the understanding of disability (and ability) within the
architectural profession, I am exploring architects' and design
students' use of language with referrence to disability. I have surveyed a
good number of students of architecture and found that many still
perceive disabled people generally within the classic - and hugely
negative - stereotype of a person who is 'wheelchair-bound' or 'confined to
a wheelchair' ... STUDENTS of architecture - who will invariably, as
they develop in their careers, express to a greater or lesser extent these
ingrained perceptions through the buildings they design.
Disabling terminology embedded in the profession (in journals, books and
regulations etc.) - such as 'disabled design', 'disabled access', 'disabled
toilet', 'the disabled' - all seem to me to be so significant in sub-consciously
fuelling people's (especially architects') negative perceptions of disabled people:
terms which are all about not being able to do things, and which reinforce ideas
of separation, segregation and being different. It is no wonder that negotiating
the built environment presents so many problems to so many people, where
architects are being fed so much negative information about
disability. I think that to many architects, 'disabled design' is all about
tacking on unsatisfactory 'disabled provisions' to a design idea,
simply to meet mundane, restrictive regulations. Negative terminology and
attitudes do not encourage architects to perceive disabled people
positively or inclusively, or to desperately want to include them fully,
equally and humanistically in a design scheme. Even though this is their job ...
In all the bumf I have read about disability and architecture, I have
spotted only a tiny handful of mentions of terms such as 'enabling
architecture' and 'inclusive design'. I totally agree with Suzanne
on the power of words. If architects, throughout their training,
were encouraged to recognise their role as *architectural* disablers
(a term which has never formally cropped up in my own architectural
training; the medical model prevails ...), and were introduced fully
to generic terms - and the ideas they promote - such as 'inclusive design'
(and not 'disabled design'); 'universal access' (and not
'disabled access') ... I think attitudes WOULD be different; that
disabled people, able-bodied people and ANY/ALL people would all be
considered more equally and non-separately; and that buildings would
quite possibly be far more accessible to everyone.
Best wishes,
Zoe Holland
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|