Technological Ableism

By Amanda K. Booher | Guest Columnist

This column features ethics scenarios and issues that may affect technical communicators in the many aspects of their jobs. If you have a possible solution to a scenario, your own case, or feedback in general, please contact Derek G. Ross at dgr0003@auburn.ed.

In the past month, I noticed new reports of a couple wheelchair-related technologies making social media rounds. One was an article from the Huffington Post titled, “Thanks To Mind-Controlled Technology, A Paralyzed Teen May Make The First Kick At The 2014 World Cup” (4 January 2014). The other was a video posted on wimp.com for the for the TEK Robotic Mobilization Device, which initially made the news in 2012, but was recently re-discovered. Both technologies assist people with paralysis to perform actions not possible alone or in a wheelchair. They maneuver and support users in(to) an upright position, “freeing” the upper body for motion (in the latter) or physically moving any part of the body (the former).

These sorts of announcements—disability-related or not—are not unusual. If you are plugged in to the technological (the focus of this issue), you likely see these announcements on nearly a daily basis, from general news sources (Huffington Post, New York Times), specialized sources (Wired, gizmodo), YouTube searching, and social media sharing. You may, in fact, be writing some yourself. They are usually rhetorically enthusiastic, foretelling futures of greater ease, physical enhancement, and abilities beyond our imagining; they are optimistic about potentials and effectiveness; they tout the technology (and its results) as exciting, amazing, miraculous.

Such announcements and reports also, often, include claims like these (emphases mine):

About the Tek Robotic Mobilization Device:

The makers of Tek RMD says it’s the most compact device of its kind, which allows Yusuf to navigate crowded grocery aisles, libraries, and who knows, Coachella, maybe? All without knocking into the people and things around him. Users still need ramps in place of stairs, but the device eliminates the need for special bathroom stalls and other facilities that allow space for bulky wheelchairs. (Philipkoski, 2012)

About the mind-controlled exoskeleton:

“With enough political will and investment, we could make wheelchairs obsolete.” (“Thanks,” 2014)

Devices plugged directly into the brain seem capable of restoring some self-reliance to stroke victims, car crash survivors, injured soldiers and others hampered by incapacitated or missing limbs. (Powell, 2013)

With the world watching, Nicolelis hopes not only that his bionic teenager will be able to feel the ball but also that disabled people everywhere will feel a sense of hope. (Powell, 2013)

While optimism and enthusiasm are quite lovely, extending that optimism and enthusiasm uncritically to particular groups of people is not. What the italicized phrases demonstrate is a rhetoric of ableism. As part of STC’s ethical principle of fairness, it is imperative that we work against ableist language and practices. And to do that, we must understand them.

Ableism

Fiona Kumari Campbell argues that ableism “characterises impairment or disability … as inherently negative,” with ableism focused always on amelioration, cure, or elimination of disability. Ableism is:

A network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then is cast as a diminished state of being human. (Campbell, 2009, p. 5)

Ableism, then, is not one particular action, but a “network” that privileges the able body over any body that deviates from that norm. This links to what are commonly considered the two models of disability, the medical and the social. The medical aims to fix what is wrong with a body, usually through medical intervention. It locates disability in the body that does not conform to expectations of wellness and mobility. The social model instead locates disability in that surrounding the body—in a social that is constructed in ways that disable people from performing what are considered “normal” interactions with the world (e.g., stairs cause problems for people in wheelchairs, people pushing strollers, people with sore knees, etc.; ramps would alleviate these problems). The concept of ableism pushes beyond that to flip the script of critique from the disabled to the networks and systems that reinforce the problematic notion of an “abled” body. This is akin to considering “gender studies” instead of “women’s studies”—focusing on the systems that create gender norms instead of on women and their bodies, choices, and behaviors. (This is not to say that women’s studies does not focus on gender, but to point out the rhetorical difference in the two terms.)

A particularly tricky aspect of ableism (or any other kind of discrimination) is when it is located in good intensions. It is perhaps easy to see a progression related to our sense of “normal,” or “better,” for bodies. When we have the flu, we want to be well/normal; when we break a bone, we want to be well/normal; the jump to “when we have a disability, we want to be well/normal/abled,” is not far. But it is substantial. This sense of progression is easily extended when technological developments are involved. We expect technology to improve our lives in particular ways; if we assume, consciously or not, that disabled bodies need improvement, technological innovation presents an obvious—and very positive!—answer. But again, technological enthusiasm must be balanced with awareness of our ableist assumptions.

James L. Cherney (2011) argues for three rhetorical problems in ableism:

1. ableist culture sustains and perpetuates itself via rhetoric; the ways of interpreting disability and assumptions about bodies that produce ableism are learned.
2. viewing ableism as rhetoric … reveal[s] how it thrives [and] suggests ways of curtailing its growth and promoting its demise.
3. any means of challenging ableism must eventually encounter its rhetorical power…. Ableism is that most insidious form of rhetoric that has become reified and so widely accepted as common sense that it denies its own rhetoricity.

We can see evidence of these rhetorical problems in the claims I noted and italicized above regarding mobility technology:

• Two quotes suggest the obliteration of other technologies important to disabled people: wheelchairs and facilities. The ableist assumptions here are: 1) that wheelchairs are undesirable; 2) that technology can “fix” people (so we don’t need to “fix” our surroundings); 3) that these technologies will be accessible to and desired by everyone in a wheelchair (despite this technology only working for people with paralysis), regardless of economics, gender, race, or other factors; and 4) that this technology will not cause its own problems (like losing power).
• Two emphasize independence, suggesting the technologies will make disabled people less of a problem (by not knocking into things or needing assistance): The premise that independence is preferable (or even possible) is inherently ableist.
• Three tell us that being disabled is clearly less-than being abled: using the terms “hampered” and “restored” (implying a condition of lack), stating that the technology will give disabled people “a sense of hope” (implying that they have none now), and oddly suggesting the possibility of attending Coachella (because that is a privilege for only abled people, I suppose?).

These examples demonstrate differing levels of ableism, not all as egregious as representing disabled people as, on the whole, lacking hope. We can also fix them relatively easily with careful word choice and deletion of condescending ideologies.

As ethically focused, conscientious communicators, we are already aware of discriminatory language in terms of gender, ethnicity/race, sexuality, and disability. But ableism is not simply an issue of derogatory word choice. We must continue to be self-aware and challenge our unarticulated assumptions, particularly in light of technological developments. Technology is, of course, never in a vacuum, but always situated historically, culturally, and socially, subject to issues including gender, class, race/ethnicity, and dis/ability. It is our job to help communicate that to our audiences in any context.

References

Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Campbell, F. K. (2012). Stalking Ableism: Using Disability to Expose ‘Abled’ Narcissism. In D. Goodley, B. Hughes, and L. Davis, eds. Disability and Social Theory: New Developments and Directions. (pp. 212-232) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cherney, J. L. (2011). The rhetoric of ableism. Disability Studies Quarterly 31 (3): Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1665/1606

Dombrowski, P. (2000). Ethics in technical communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Philipkoski, K. (2012, 19 Mar). This amazing device just made wheelchairs obsolete for paraplegics. Gizmodo. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/5894489/segway+style-device-for-paraplegics-puts-wheelchairs-to-shame.

New device makes wheelchairs obsolete. (2013). Retrieved from www.wimp.com/newdevice/.

MATIA Robotics. (2013). Retrieved from www.matiarobotics.com/index.html.

Powell, D. (2013, 6 May). Mind-controlled prostheses offer hope for disabled. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/mind-controlled-prostheses-offer-hope-for-disabled/2013/05/03/fbc1018a-8778-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html.

Thanks to mind-controlled technology, a paralyzed teen may make the first kick at the 2014 World Cup. (2014, 23 Jan). The Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/04/world-cup-kickoff-paralyzed-teen_n_4539099.html?ir=Parents.