- Email: [email protected]
Geographies of Disability
Cities, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 57–58, 2001 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain 0264-2751/01 $ - see front matter
Pergamon www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Book reviews PII: S0264-2751(00)00055-X Geographies of Disability Brendan Gleeson Routledge, London/New York, 1999. ISBN: 0 415 17908 4 (hbk) 0 415 17909 2 (pbk) pp. xii, 243 Although until recently an issue largely ignored within public policy, the built environment presents a multitude of problems to the disabled population. These problems include, but are not limited to, public facilities equipped with very few or very small parking spots for the handicapped, multi-story public buildings with no elevators or ramps, and doorways that are too small to accommodate wheelchairs. Closer home (for the teachers), there are classrooms and other student facilities that make no provision for handicapped students. The implications of the built environment for the mobility and accessibility needs of the handicapped, albeit an important issue, has received only very scant attention from researchers and policy makers. Gleeson’s book is amongst the very few published works that have paid undivided attention to the subject. The book contains ten chapters grouped into three different parts. The first part follows immediately after the introduction and contains two chapters, Chapter 2 and 3. The two chapters specifically seek to “present a socio-spatial model of disability, based upon a critical appraisal of social scientific theories of disability, space and embodiment” (p. 9). The theoretical framework-comprising four well-known social models, namely structuralism, humanism, idealism and normalization-developed in this initial part serves to guide the discussions and especially the case studies presented in the remaining two parts of the book. Part II contains three chapters, Chapters 4, 5, and 6, which deal respectively with ‘historical-geographical materialism and disE-mail: [email protected]
ability,’ ‘the social space of disability in feudal England,’ and ‘the social space of disability in the industrial city.’ The final part of the book contains four chapters, Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, that examine the implications of capitalism for efforts to make the (Western) city more friendly to the disabled population, the issue of the built environment and disability as a question of social justice, and how well thought-out regulatory measures can make the built environment more ‘enabling’ within the framework of what the author calls ‘an enabling geography’ (Chapter 10). The book is at one level, an attack on the activities of spatial design professionals-urban planners, architects, landscape architects, environmental designers, and geographers. In this light, it belongs in the same category as Jane Jacobs’ (1961) classical work on “The Life and Death of Great American Cities,” Oscar Newman’s (1973) “Defensible Space,” Kevin Lynch’s (1986) “The Image of the City” and more recently, James Howard Kunstler’s (1999) “Home from Nowhere.” The conspicuous absence of references to these works, which have as an avowed purpose, criticizing the so-called modern built environment for its inability to address the basic needs of its users is mind-boggling given that Gleeson purports to explore “how social and spatial processes can be used to disable rather than enable people with physical impairments” (p. 1). At another level, the book constitutes a frontal attack on the injustice and prejudice of the state, the powers that be, and society in especially developed capitalist countries. In this regard, the book follows in the tradition of social critics such as Frederick Hayek (e.g., 1979) and John Rawls (e.g. 1971). The tenor of some of the arguments advanced in Part III is anything but novel. As the author is quick to note (p. xii), chapters 8 and 9 are slightly modified versions of articles that had appeared in Progress in Human Geography (see vol. 21, no. 2) and Inter-
57
national Planning Studies (see vol. 2, no. 3), respectively. The most interesting aspects of the book arguably relate to the peculiarities of the specific cases discussed. In this connection, the author employs an amended version of Lefebvre’s threeway typology for investigating social space to analyze the daily historical experience of disabled people. The case study of feudal England, the subject of Chapter 5, draws on several primary and secondary sources, details of which appear in the book’s appendix. Here, the author is particularly concerned with the character of the home, workplace and institutions in everyday peasant life. A good many elements within these settings, the author argues, tend to constrain, rather than facilitate, the activities of especially disabled peasants. Why the focus on feudal England? One reason relates to the author’s prior research, which revealed that “many feudal peasants were physically impaired” and that the middle ages “were full of the maimed, hunchbacks, people with goitres, the lame and the paralyzed” (p. 95). Chapter 6, “The social space of disability in the industrial city” is a case study of the social space of impairment in Melbourne, Australia. The author’s rationale for choosing Melbourne is twofold. Apart from the fact that the author has considerable empirical familiarity with this city, Melbourne “is a worthy exemplar of the industrial city” (p. 99, citing Davison, 1978). The concept of ‘social space impairment’ in any society can best be understood in terms of “a bounded set of possibilities and restrictions, rather than an ensemble of predetermined compulsions, emerging from the material qualities of peasant life” (p. 97). Gleeson accomplishes so much in these two largely historical chapters (5 and 6). Most notably in this connection are the painful accounts of the lives of disabled peasants in both the feudal and industrial Western cities of the past. These lives, which in large part were
Book reviews ‘uneventful’ and “passed quietly, though never passively” (p. 126), were characterized by struggle and abjection. In the last part of the book, the author turns to more contemporary issues of the man-made environment and the mobility and accessibility problems of the disabled. Chapter 7, the first chapter of this part is concerned with “disability in the capitalist city.” The author sees the capitalist city as largely oppressive in its relationship with the disabled. Borrowing from others before him (e.g. Harvey, 1993; Young, 1990), he develops a fiveway typology of this genre of oppression. The typology asserts in no uncertain terms that the disabled are, exploited, marginalized, disempowered, (culturally) stereotyped, and physically abused (through e.g., random and unprovoked attacks). Violence against the disabled is not always physical and overt. Sometimes it is covert and subtle. This latter brand of violence has been known to stand in the way of public policy designed to redress the plight of the disabled in a rather hostile built environment. In the United States and other Western capitalist societies, institutions designed to ‘care’ for the disabled are finding it increasingly difficult to locate their facilities thanks to the NIMBY (‘Not-in-MyBackyard’) syndrome. Gleeson characterizes this pervasive opposition to such facilities as “a critical social dynamic [which] has limited the ability of deinstitutionalisation to secure justice for disabled people” (p. 156, Ch. 8). Although there is opposition to care facilities for the disabled, especially by property owners and developers concerned respectively with property values, and the costs of complying with accessibility laws, Gleeson seems to underestimate the power and resolve of the state in capitalist society. For instance, in Chapter 9, he fails to acknowledge the success record of accessibility laws (e.g. the Americans with Disability Act) in the United States. Although providing handicapped parking spaces, access ramps, elevators and wider corridors and doorways, are obviously costly, developers are aware of, and revere, the conse-
58
quences of failing to make these provisions in (new) public facilities. This obvious gap or oversight in Gleeson’s analysis is probably a function of his almost exclusive focus on the Dunedin case study. The last chapter of the book, Chapter 10, deals with the issue of “an enabling geography.” The author’s conclusion in which he states that it is the “capacity to direct empowering knowledge against disabling practices and ideologies that will define enabling Geography” (p. 205) aptly sums his major concerns Notwithstanding the few oversights alluded to, this book provides a very badly needed historical, critical and analytical perspective on the timely and noteworthy issue of the built environment and the disabled. The book would make a valuable addition to the libraries of social policy analysts, policy makers, social historians and social activists, as well as anyone genuinely interested in resolving the mobility and accessibility problems of the disabled in the not-soenabling built environment of capitalist societies. Ambe J. Njoh University of South Florida, 140 7th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Fl 33701, USA
References Davison, G (1978) The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Harvey, D (1993) Class Relations, Social Justice and the Politics of Difference. In Place and the Politics of Identity, eds M Keith and S Pile. Routledge, London. Hayek, F (1979) Social Justice, Socialism and Democracy: Three Australian Lectures. Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York. Kunstler, J H (1999) Home from Nowhere. Touchstone Books, New York. Lynch, K (1986) The Image of the City. The M.I.T. Press, Boston. Newman, O (1973) Defensible Space. Collier Books, New York. Rawls, J (1971) A theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Young, I M (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Pergamon www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Book reviews PII: S0264-2751(00)00055-X Geographies of Disability Brendan Gleeson Routledge, London/New York, 1999. ISBN: 0 415 17908 4 (hbk) 0 415 17909 2 (pbk) pp. xii, 243 Although until recently an issue largely ignored within public policy, the built environment presents a multitude of problems to the disabled population. These problems include, but are not limited to, public facilities equipped with very few or very small parking spots for the handicapped, multi-story public buildings with no elevators or ramps, and doorways that are too small to accommodate wheelchairs. Closer home (for the teachers), there are classrooms and other student facilities that make no provision for handicapped students. The implications of the built environment for the mobility and accessibility needs of the handicapped, albeit an important issue, has received only very scant attention from researchers and policy makers. Gleeson’s book is amongst the very few published works that have paid undivided attention to the subject. The book contains ten chapters grouped into three different parts. The first part follows immediately after the introduction and contains two chapters, Chapter 2 and 3. The two chapters specifically seek to “present a socio-spatial model of disability, based upon a critical appraisal of social scientific theories of disability, space and embodiment” (p. 9). The theoretical framework-comprising four well-known social models, namely structuralism, humanism, idealism and normalization-developed in this initial part serves to guide the discussions and especially the case studies presented in the remaining two parts of the book. Part II contains three chapters, Chapters 4, 5, and 6, which deal respectively with ‘historical-geographical materialism and disE-mail: [email protected]
ability,’ ‘the social space of disability in feudal England,’ and ‘the social space of disability in the industrial city.’ The final part of the book contains four chapters, Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, that examine the implications of capitalism for efforts to make the (Western) city more friendly to the disabled population, the issue of the built environment and disability as a question of social justice, and how well thought-out regulatory measures can make the built environment more ‘enabling’ within the framework of what the author calls ‘an enabling geography’ (Chapter 10). The book is at one level, an attack on the activities of spatial design professionals-urban planners, architects, landscape architects, environmental designers, and geographers. In this light, it belongs in the same category as Jane Jacobs’ (1961) classical work on “The Life and Death of Great American Cities,” Oscar Newman’s (1973) “Defensible Space,” Kevin Lynch’s (1986) “The Image of the City” and more recently, James Howard Kunstler’s (1999) “Home from Nowhere.” The conspicuous absence of references to these works, which have as an avowed purpose, criticizing the so-called modern built environment for its inability to address the basic needs of its users is mind-boggling given that Gleeson purports to explore “how social and spatial processes can be used to disable rather than enable people with physical impairments” (p. 1). At another level, the book constitutes a frontal attack on the injustice and prejudice of the state, the powers that be, and society in especially developed capitalist countries. In this regard, the book follows in the tradition of social critics such as Frederick Hayek (e.g., 1979) and John Rawls (e.g. 1971). The tenor of some of the arguments advanced in Part III is anything but novel. As the author is quick to note (p. xii), chapters 8 and 9 are slightly modified versions of articles that had appeared in Progress in Human Geography (see vol. 21, no. 2) and Inter-
57
national Planning Studies (see vol. 2, no. 3), respectively. The most interesting aspects of the book arguably relate to the peculiarities of the specific cases discussed. In this connection, the author employs an amended version of Lefebvre’s threeway typology for investigating social space to analyze the daily historical experience of disabled people. The case study of feudal England, the subject of Chapter 5, draws on several primary and secondary sources, details of which appear in the book’s appendix. Here, the author is particularly concerned with the character of the home, workplace and institutions in everyday peasant life. A good many elements within these settings, the author argues, tend to constrain, rather than facilitate, the activities of especially disabled peasants. Why the focus on feudal England? One reason relates to the author’s prior research, which revealed that “many feudal peasants were physically impaired” and that the middle ages “were full of the maimed, hunchbacks, people with goitres, the lame and the paralyzed” (p. 95). Chapter 6, “The social space of disability in the industrial city” is a case study of the social space of impairment in Melbourne, Australia. The author’s rationale for choosing Melbourne is twofold. Apart from the fact that the author has considerable empirical familiarity with this city, Melbourne “is a worthy exemplar of the industrial city” (p. 99, citing Davison, 1978). The concept of ‘social space impairment’ in any society can best be understood in terms of “a bounded set of possibilities and restrictions, rather than an ensemble of predetermined compulsions, emerging from the material qualities of peasant life” (p. 97). Gleeson accomplishes so much in these two largely historical chapters (5 and 6). Most notably in this connection are the painful accounts of the lives of disabled peasants in both the feudal and industrial Western cities of the past. These lives, which in large part were
Book reviews ‘uneventful’ and “passed quietly, though never passively” (p. 126), were characterized by struggle and abjection. In the last part of the book, the author turns to more contemporary issues of the man-made environment and the mobility and accessibility problems of the disabled. Chapter 7, the first chapter of this part is concerned with “disability in the capitalist city.” The author sees the capitalist city as largely oppressive in its relationship with the disabled. Borrowing from others before him (e.g. Harvey, 1993; Young, 1990), he develops a fiveway typology of this genre of oppression. The typology asserts in no uncertain terms that the disabled are, exploited, marginalized, disempowered, (culturally) stereotyped, and physically abused (through e.g., random and unprovoked attacks). Violence against the disabled is not always physical and overt. Sometimes it is covert and subtle. This latter brand of violence has been known to stand in the way of public policy designed to redress the plight of the disabled in a rather hostile built environment. In the United States and other Western capitalist societies, institutions designed to ‘care’ for the disabled are finding it increasingly difficult to locate their facilities thanks to the NIMBY (‘Not-in-MyBackyard’) syndrome. Gleeson characterizes this pervasive opposition to such facilities as “a critical social dynamic [which] has limited the ability of deinstitutionalisation to secure justice for disabled people” (p. 156, Ch. 8). Although there is opposition to care facilities for the disabled, especially by property owners and developers concerned respectively with property values, and the costs of complying with accessibility laws, Gleeson seems to underestimate the power and resolve of the state in capitalist society. For instance, in Chapter 9, he fails to acknowledge the success record of accessibility laws (e.g. the Americans with Disability Act) in the United States. Although providing handicapped parking spaces, access ramps, elevators and wider corridors and doorways, are obviously costly, developers are aware of, and revere, the conse-
58
quences of failing to make these provisions in (new) public facilities. This obvious gap or oversight in Gleeson’s analysis is probably a function of his almost exclusive focus on the Dunedin case study. The last chapter of the book, Chapter 10, deals with the issue of “an enabling geography.” The author’s conclusion in which he states that it is the “capacity to direct empowering knowledge against disabling practices and ideologies that will define enabling Geography” (p. 205) aptly sums his major concerns Notwithstanding the few oversights alluded to, this book provides a very badly needed historical, critical and analytical perspective on the timely and noteworthy issue of the built environment and the disabled. The book would make a valuable addition to the libraries of social policy analysts, policy makers, social historians and social activists, as well as anyone genuinely interested in resolving the mobility and accessibility problems of the disabled in the not-soenabling built environment of capitalist societies. Ambe J. Njoh University of South Florida, 140 7th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Fl 33701, USA
References Davison, G (1978) The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Harvey, D (1993) Class Relations, Social Justice and the Politics of Difference. In Place and the Politics of Identity, eds M Keith and S Pile. Routledge, London. Hayek, F (1979) Social Justice, Socialism and Democracy: Three Australian Lectures. Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York. Kunstler, J H (1999) Home from Nowhere. Touchstone Books, New York. Lynch, K (1986) The Image of the City. The M.I.T. Press, Boston. Newman, O (1973) Defensible Space. Collier Books, New York. Rawls, J (1971) A theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Young, I M (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.