By: Fabio Bertoni
The blind live in a world built by and for the sighted (Butler, 1994: 368)
Ruth Butler, in a brief yet immensely important contribution, emphasizes the significance of the spatial dimension in critically rethinking sensory disabilities, particularly visual impairment. The debate emerging in the UK during the 90s is a product of decade-long struggles by disabled individuals and social movements against social inequalities, ableist violence and discrimination, as well as medical, social work, and institutional violences. Additionally, it challenges the capitalist and laborist rationality in defining the so-called ‘able body.’
From this political and cultural ferment, the ‘social model of disability‘ emerges, representing a substantial reversal in the conceptualization of disability. It no longer views disability solely as an individual biological, medical, or genetic condition as in the medical model, but rather as a social condition where impairment or difference leads to stigma and inequality. This turn also affects spatial reasoning: social geography and urban studies transition from being tools for epidemiological studies to becoming critical investigations of how spatiality socially constructs disability and defines ableist norms.
This blog post serves as the initial inspiration for a research project focusing on the construction of a social norm of visual perception and visibility within urban environments, starting from the daily experiences of individuals with visual impairments. The aim is to investigate how this aspect intersects with other social inequalities, such as class, race, gender, and generation, within the urban fabric. The research will employ an ethnographic approach in the cities of Lisbon and Milan.
The choice of these two cities for ethnographic study prompts the reflection posed here: if, as Butler stated, all blind people inhabit a world constructed by and for the sighted, how does this experience vary when transitioning between different contexts? What are the points of continuity and rupture within this “world” of individuals with visual impairments?
Critical disability studies literatures have a history and development closely tied to specific contexts, such as the social model of disability in the UK and cultural disability studies in the USA. These are intricately linked with movements and political sensitivities inherent to well-defined social contexts (for example, note the intertwining of social theory and political activism in figures like Paul Hunt, whose writings have recently been collected and published in OA). As a result of these struggles, there has been a strong emphasis on removing architectural barriers by local institutions in British contexts, although in ways and conceptions that may be widely subject to criticism, and can contribute to the hierarchization of disabilities (based on quantitative criteria of incidence on the population, as well as social visibility and lobbying capacity). This aspect highlights a clear distinction from administrative sensitivities observed in Portugal and Italy, which in turn affects the liveability, walkability, and everyday access to public spaces.
What are the tools (analytical, political, territorial) in empirical research to understand the relationship between cities, vision, and disability? The territorial context holds a central position in this inquiry, as people with a visual impairment have often been overlooked in legislative and normative contexts, primarily confined to national welfare systems and charity laws, while also navigating fragmented healthcare policies. Despite efforts to progress towards integrated guidelines and policies over the past two decades, the institutional structure remains heavily influenced by the social and healthcare policies of States and regions.
At present, rather than offering definitive answers, I aim to raise some questions, shedding light on certain aspects where differences appear substantial. This includes policy analysis and implementation concerning services, social assistance, and structural and urban interventions. Furthermore, it is crucial to approach international literature with caution, recognizing the distinct welfare contexts of Southern Europe compared to others.
Let us delve into a particularly thorny issue: the role of social assistance and the critique of social work as a means of disciplining, controlling bodies, and perpetrating institutional violence against those who differ from the idea of “deserving user.” Such critique cannot be neutrally reproduced without paying attention not only to welfare models but also to practices, forms, and methods of implementation, as well as professional routines and cultures. Concerning disability, this implies translating the connection between social policies, assistance, and personal service territorially. It involves understanding cultural influences, such as pietism (which originated in Catholicism and secularized within the State), and the denial of agency experienced by disabled subjects.
Additionally, welfare models evolve over time and may lack internal coherence, as do practices of allocation, implementation, and control. The absence of well-developed urban welfare systems, coupled with the chronic and progressive reduction of resources, challenges the notion of a “strong welfare system in Southern Europe.” The normalization of austerity during times of poly-crises has not only impacted the quantity and quality of services but has also influenced organizational cultures and common perceptions regarding the universality, solidarity, and gratuity of welfare.
In this context, another complex issue that needs spatial contextualization is the intricate web of connections between self-organized associations of disabled individuals, humanitarian and social volunteering, territorial services, and social assistance. How do we interpret the references, mixtures, and interconnections between these theoretically distinct (and sometimes conflicting) actors, which in practice serve as complementary gears? What avenues are available for critiquing the institutional assimilation of the voluntary and associative sectors, while also advocating for services that are essential and currently under threat, without which the access to basic rights for people with disabilities could be compromised?
From this emerges a dual need. First, the necessity for ethnographic research situated in diverse contexts and perspectives, focusing on the lives of individuals with impairments and the various aspects of social work. This approach aims to spatialize and contextualize disability from a Southern European perspective amidst normalized austerity and poly-crisis. Second, there is a call to reinterpret urban politics through the lens of disabled individuals’ subjectivities, their modes of self-organization, and even the seemingly small acts of daily resistance. This is essential for reinforcing the epistemological foundation of critical disability studies, which underscores that every shift in understanding must be rooted primarily in the struggles and desires of the individuals involved.
Fabio Bertoni é sociólogo e investigador no ICS-ULisboa. Trabalha atualmente no projeto “Visualizing Urban Normativities” sobre deficiências visuais e espaços urbanos. Os seus trabalhos anteriores concentram-se em jovens e cidades, lazer e atividades artísticas, sociologia do corpo. fabio.bertoni@ics.ulisboa.pt
Blogue SHIFT 