I'm happy to see that the word "handicapped" has evolved to "disability" and now "accessibility." The concern I have with this "International Symbol of Accessibility" language is that without the image, I would assume this means a space is accessible for all people when, in reality, a parking space marked with the International Symbol of Accessibility is exclusively available for people with disabilities. I think using "accessible" is appropriate for describing walkways and buildings that have features that make them accessible to people using wheelchairs, crutches, leg braces, or other devices that assist in mobility. Using this term to describe seating or parking spaces that are only available for people with disabilities, however, can be unclear.
I am really intrigued by the fact that while the "International Symbol of Accessibility" language is universal, the images are not. Compare these two images. The symbol on the right is the one we are familiar with in the states, the symbol on the left is from Canada. The simple adjustment of putting the person's arms in a moving position and allowing the person to lean forward puts that person in motion. The wheelchair is a device assisting in mobility. In comparison, the image on the right is the stagnant figure we are all familiar with. Tell me if you disagree, but this traditional image looks "wheelchair bound" to me. Canada's image looks active and in control. As we make an effort to update our language, I think its time we also update our image.

I never thought about the US image (on the right) possibly signifying "bound"--until I looked at the Canadian image (on the left). Doing so really puts this image into perspective. I certainly appreciate the Canadian image more. Good observation, Nicole.
ReplyDeleteThis idea goes along, of course, with anything that we have comparisons to. Foucault said that we have no idea what "normal" means until something "abnormal" comes into the picture. "Normality" is invisible: it's always there and so it just disappears and we have no need to see it or even question it. It takes difference (or, in Foucualt's terms, "abnormality") to make the invisible visible and dismantle what we know as "truth".