Access. Access is a central issue for disability since we live in a society that only creates space for able bodies. It assumes a singular bodily ontology and our physical spaces are moulded to conform to that single body. Those who don’t fit the mould are expected to make our bodies fit, to modify our bodies, movements, interactions to fit with a singular interpretation of space.
In this construction, we are made exiles in our own homes, in our own cities, towns, and villages. We are expected to accept our position of non-belonging in our own spaces, assumed to be comfortable with all of the responsibilities of citizenship, but without the basics of belonging that citizenship claims to offer. We are imagined to be content on the fringes, margins, and edges, those few spaces that accommodate our bodies and provide us with access.
So what does this mean for our notions of home? How do we disabled bodies fit in to a nation state that has geographic boundaries but makes these geographies inaccessible to us? How do we gain access?
Perhaps the disabled body provides us with a space for re-thinking belonging, for critically questioning how we can occupy and take up space.
Our bodies are perceived as awkwardly occupying space. We notice this through the states we evoke, the way that we are both hypervisible (stared at) in public spaces and simultaneously invisible (particularly when we need help or when city planners develop architecture). Yet, maybe this positions us as bodies that are able to CHALLENGE ideas of belonging that exclude, maybe this positions is as radical bodies in a space that seeks to pacify through the rhetoric of normalcy (that is constructed only to make bodies and identities not belong).
Maybe we need to consider belonging and citizenship trough the lens of access. Maybe we need to think about exclusion and barriers to belonging when we think about how we occupy or are made unable to occupy our spaces.