Abstract

This paper focuses on rehabilitation technology, more specifically robotic gait training conducted with a device called 'Lokomat' and its impact on the reproduction of bodily normality within the Turkish context. It draws upon an ethnographic study carried out in a major Turkish rehabilitation hospital and the analysis of the Lokomat's media representation in a health-related television programme. Interviews were conducted with 42 persons (11 medical staff, 2 non-medical staff, and 20 current and 9 former patients). The paper argues that the use of technology is shaped by the relevant sociocultural background. This background comprises both the specificities of the Turkish context more generallysuch as its especially unwelcoming environment to the disabled bodyand the discourses on the Lokomat more specifically, which create a miracle image of this device as facilitating walking. Thus, the Lokomat's presence deepens the normal/abnormal divide and reproduces it as walking/non-walking.

No abstract

Rehabilitation is a controversial subject in disability studies, often discussed in terms of oppression, normalisation, and unwanted intrusion. While there may be good reasons for positioning rehabilitation in this way, this has also meant that, as a lived experience, it is under-researched and neglected in disabilities literature, as we show by surveying leading disability studies journals. With some notable exceptions, rehabilitation research has remained the preserve of the rehabilitation sciences, and such studies have rarely included the voices of disabled people themselves, as we also demonstrate by surveying a cross-section of rehabilitation science literature. Next, drawing on new research, we argue for reframing access to rehabilitation as a disability equality issue. Through in-depth discussion of two case studies, we demonstrate that rehabilitation can be a tool for inclusion and for supporting an equal life. Indeed, we contend that rehabilitation merits disability researchers’ sustained engagement, precisely to ensure that a ‘right-based rehabilitation’ policy and practice can be developed, which is <em>not</em> oppressive, but reflects the views and experiences of the disabled people who rehabilitation should serve.

Since the late 1990s, the 'urban citizenship' literature has accentuated the burgeoning potential of the city as host to more democratic interpretations of citizenship. A more recent literature highlighted the 'local trap' in such assumptions, arguing that the local cannot exist outside of neoliberalization. This article examines some of the recent institutional transformations in Istanbul's local government and seeks to understand where these might be situated in this discussion. Three institutions dealing with disability are scrutinized with regard to their power dynamics, discourses and practices. The argument is that, although superficially such developments seem to represent some of the tendencies highlighted by the urban citizenship literature (in terms of their scale, timing and appeal to a group previously excluded from modern citizenship), deeper analysis shows that these often promote charity-rather than rights-based approaches. This is because the push factors in the emergence of these institutions are not the urban struggles on the part of the disability community, but rather the ruling party's populism, the impact of supranational agencies and the demands of non-disabled residents at district level. Each of the three institutions examined is shaped primarily by one factor, leading to differing degrees of charity-and rights-based practices. Arguments concerning the prospects of more democratic interpretations of citizenship at local level need to consider experiences in diverse settings.