Towards a relational geography of disability

Abstract

In this paper we develop linkages between non-representational theory and emerging work by disability scholars in geography. We argue that non-representational thinking has the potential to advance our understanding of the complex and emergent geographies of dis/ability. We first outline key dimensions of non-representational thinking within geography. We then explore how this perspective has begun to, and might further inform, geographical scholarship on disability. Next, we extend our thinking to consider how NRT might provide the basis for a critical geography of the ‘able-body’. We conclude by reflecting on the conceptual, political, methodological and empirical implications of our argument.

The embodied spaces of children with complex care needs: Effects on the social realities and power negotiations of families

“…The parents' feelings about being limited aligns strongly with the position from the relational model of disability, which acknowledges both the body and social discrimination as causes of reduced agency and limitations on how space is constructed and negotiated (Hall and Wilton, 2016). Understanding that it is social realities that are the cause of spatial limitations also strongly connects to a family's ability to move through different types (i.e., work, recreational, familial, etc.)…”

“…This shift away from considering the body as purely physical and towards understanding 'embodied space' has been developed by geographers (Giesbrecht and Crooks, 2016;Hall and Wilton, 2016;Holt, 2008Holt, , 2016Laurier and Parr, 2000;Milligan et al, 2007;Milligan and Wiles, 2010;Power, 2016;Stephens et al, 2015). Several of these scholars ground their work in non-representational theory, which emphasized the relational connections towards making sense of lived experiences of people with disabilities (Hall and Wilton, 2016;Power, 2016;Stephens et al, 2015). Other scholars have grounded embodied space in feminist geographies stressing the importance of considering inequities and intersectionality (Giesbrecht and Crooks, 2016).…”

Disability, special educational needs, class, capitals, and segregation in schools: A population geography perspective

“…In this context, it is arguably unsurprising that young people from poor backgrounds, certain racial and ethnic groups, and boys are more likely to be diagnosed as having SEN(D), because they fall outside these norms of learning and competence (Youdell, ). We have emphasised that, rather than a single homogeneous ableism (Campbell, ), there are intersecting and socio‐spatially shifting ableisms, with potentials for difference to be interpreted in other, more enabling ways (Hall & Wilton, ; Holt, Lea, & Bowlby, ). Therefore, the experiences of young people with SEND, access to capitals, and the subjectivities they embody can vary in time and space.…”

Disability studies and development geography: Empirical connections, theoretical resonances, and future directions

“…These approaches account for “causes of causes,” a public health term that alludes to the set of “underlying social, political and economic conditions that give rise to the link between disability and economic poverty” (Banks et al, , p. 5) while leaving open questions of degree and directionality and avoiding the pitfall of subsuming lived experiences to a universalizing narrative. Future scholarship might more explicitly link relational poverty analysis and either Alison Kafer's () political‐relational model of disability or Hall and Wilton's () nonrepresentational relational model of disability.…”