I find thinking of these verbs in pairs interesting given the possible relations between them. The "destigmatize / celebrate" pair, for example, are somewhat in tension, as miniaturization efforts are designed to hide the need for assistance while hearing-aid jewelry strives to normalize the need for assistance. Other pairs, "automate / accompany" e.g., seem less in tension. Just an observation.
In any event, these pairs (and thoughts of universal design in general) bring me back to how we balance the fact that each one of us will need assistance at times in our lives with the fact that some of us live with disability in profound ways. Respecting both sides of that balance is a true challenge.
It’s true. Lennard Davis says “it’s cheap to say ‘we’re all disabled,’” and I agree. Rather it’s yet another call to be specific, I think, with our design brief and plans. Is the universalizing impulse called for and operative? Great, show us. Or is it a targeted and carefully attentive address of a particular condition? Also needed! I think the biggest pitfalls are just in the temptation to over-claim the impact of one’s work, rather than seeing it in a panoply of options and goods.
I think a lot about word usage and how we implicitly center or exclude with word choices. With your word pairs I appreciate the acknowledgement that we have many paths to solutions that work differently for different people.
I'm trying to think of something more optimistic or positive than "accommodate" to pair with "mitigate", though. Accommodation, from the ADA regulatory word, still somehow feels begrudging to me, as if the design solution is being squeezed in alongside the "real" thing and it's being done in response to a mandate, not as a starting point for design thinking. It feels pretty adjacent to "mitigate." "We'll accommodate your needs" for me doesn't capture the Gallaudet design that is absolutely grounded in the people in that building and what works first and best for them. Maybe "center" is the word I'm seeking.
Agree that centering is critical — but isn't that what's happening in all six of these instances, and many more? I think of centering disabled experience (and disabled designers) as the big high-level ethic here, and then one level down, some sharper language to compare and contrast what's happening in more specific terms. I take your point, though, about the still "half-empty" disposition of accommodation. I used it here to get good contrast with mitigation (to try to indicate the a medically-adjacent model is actually useful sometimes). But maybe DeafSpace would be closer to celebrate?? Agree that it's an incredible work of cultural affirmation.
In the Prison Yoga teaching discipline, often the word "Yoga" is replaced with "Centering" for reasons of inclusion, and the wonderful three pairings in their specificity (with texture) could indeed all be under a "centering" umbrella. However, @bikewalkbarb makes a great point that "accommodate" has a patina of 'tolerance' - something divided - instead of a holistic, more galvanizing term which says "consider," "empower" and "include." If a fancy wordsmith here has something for us, can you also advise on a term for a triplet of pairs? There's got to be a fun gorgeous word for 3x2.
Yes, agree that it’s not really capturing the precise meaning! Still looking. “Consider” and “include” also feel like high-level values to me (and good ones!); the task here is to drill down to a subgenre of specific action, and in the pairings, one that usefully contrasts with “mitigate” as for a degenerative disease. Thanks to both of you. (And agree that there should be some word for the 3/2 relationship, given how many interesting three-ish words there are: hat trick, triptych, trinitarian...)
I find thinking of these verbs in pairs interesting given the possible relations between them. The "destigmatize / celebrate" pair, for example, are somewhat in tension, as miniaturization efforts are designed to hide the need for assistance while hearing-aid jewelry strives to normalize the need for assistance. Other pairs, "automate / accompany" e.g., seem less in tension. Just an observation.
In any event, these pairs (and thoughts of universal design in general) bring me back to how we balance the fact that each one of us will need assistance at times in our lives with the fact that some of us live with disability in profound ways. Respecting both sides of that balance is a true challenge.
It’s true. Lennard Davis says “it’s cheap to say ‘we’re all disabled,’” and I agree. Rather it’s yet another call to be specific, I think, with our design brief and plans. Is the universalizing impulse called for and operative? Great, show us. Or is it a targeted and carefully attentive address of a particular condition? Also needed! I think the biggest pitfalls are just in the temptation to over-claim the impact of one’s work, rather than seeing it in a panoply of options and goods.
I think a lot about word usage and how we implicitly center or exclude with word choices. With your word pairs I appreciate the acknowledgement that we have many paths to solutions that work differently for different people.
I'm trying to think of something more optimistic or positive than "accommodate" to pair with "mitigate", though. Accommodation, from the ADA regulatory word, still somehow feels begrudging to me, as if the design solution is being squeezed in alongside the "real" thing and it's being done in response to a mandate, not as a starting point for design thinking. It feels pretty adjacent to "mitigate." "We'll accommodate your needs" for me doesn't capture the Gallaudet design that is absolutely grounded in the people in that building and what works first and best for them. Maybe "center" is the word I'm seeking.
Agree that centering is critical — but isn't that what's happening in all six of these instances, and many more? I think of centering disabled experience (and disabled designers) as the big high-level ethic here, and then one level down, some sharper language to compare and contrast what's happening in more specific terms. I take your point, though, about the still "half-empty" disposition of accommodation. I used it here to get good contrast with mitigation (to try to indicate the a medically-adjacent model is actually useful sometimes). But maybe DeafSpace would be closer to celebrate?? Agree that it's an incredible work of cultural affirmation.
In the Prison Yoga teaching discipline, often the word "Yoga" is replaced with "Centering" for reasons of inclusion, and the wonderful three pairings in their specificity (with texture) could indeed all be under a "centering" umbrella. However, @bikewalkbarb makes a great point that "accommodate" has a patina of 'tolerance' - something divided - instead of a holistic, more galvanizing term which says "consider," "empower" and "include." If a fancy wordsmith here has something for us, can you also advise on a term for a triplet of pairs? There's got to be a fun gorgeous word for 3x2.
Yes, agree that it’s not really capturing the precise meaning! Still looking. “Consider” and “include” also feel like high-level values to me (and good ones!); the task here is to drill down to a subgenre of specific action, and in the pairings, one that usefully contrasts with “mitigate” as for a degenerative disease. Thanks to both of you. (And agree that there should be some word for the 3/2 relationship, given how many interesting three-ish words there are: hat trick, triptych, trinitarian...)
I love these pairs and examples...brilliant!
This is helpful, thank you!
Always thoughtful and meaningful to read