Parallels and problems of normalization in rehabilitation and universal design: enabling connectivities

Universal design (UD) is oriented to creating products, buildings, outdoor spaces and services for use by all people to the fullest extent possible according to principles of enabling equal citizenship. Nevertheless its theoretical basis has been under-explored, a critique that has also been leveled at rehabilitation. This commentary explores parallels between UD and dominant rehabilitation discourses that risk privileging or discrediting particular ways of being and doing.

Commentary.

Drawing from examples that explore the intersection of bodies, places and technologies with disabled people, I examined how practices of normalization risk reproducing the universalized body and legitimated forms of mobility, and in so doing perpetuates the "othering" of difference. To address these limitations, I explored the postmodern notion of multiple creative "assemblages" that are continually made and broken over time and space. Assemblages resist normalization tendencies by acknowledging and fostering multiple productive dependencies between human and non-human elements that include diverse bodies, not just those labeled disabled.

In exploring the potential of enhancing creative assemblages and multiple dependencies, space opens up in UD and rehabilitation for acknowledging, developing, and promoting a multiplicity of bodily forms and modes of mobility. Implications for Rehabilitation Universal design and rehabilitation both risk perpetuating particular ideas about what disabled people should be, do, and value, that privilege a limited range of particular bodily forms. The notion of "assemblages" provides a conceptual tool for rethinking negative views of dependence and taken for granted independence goals. In exploring the potential of enhancing various dependencies, space opens up for reconsidering disability, mobility and multiple ways of "doing-in-the-world".