The user-friendly design approach known as Universal Design is gaining popularity, and for good reason. More inclusive (and often more aesthetically pleasing) than the old approach to accommodation, Universal Design dictates that “products and environments be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without adaptation or specialized design” (Univeral Design Alliance). Examples in physical environments include buttons that can be distinguished by sight and by touch, wide hallways and aisles, and one smooth inclined main entryway to a building instead of a set of stairs in front and a ramp off to the side. I’m grateful to bloggers who provide transcripts for video and audio material. It’s important for people who are hearing impaired to be able to access the material, but it’s also helpful for those of us with a slow internet connection or a fussy computer.
A key difference between Universal Design and other types of accommodation is that the needs of all people have been considered from the beginning and have been integrated into the design to the greatest extent possible. This avoids the stigmatizing effect of modifications that are added on later for the benefit of a certain type of person. Those of us who participate in social justice movements should keep this in mind as we set goals, plan events, and determine where and how to dedicate our resources. Rather than wait until someone points out that they’ve been excluded, we should try to anticipate from the beginning that a variety of people might like to be involved, and seek ways to make this possible. The ”Principles of Universal Design”, which include Flexibility in Use, Simple and Intuitive Use, Perceptible Information, and Tolerance for Error, are instructive for those of us who want to design physical, virtual, and intellectual spaces that are open to all people.
I think the definition of feminism that bell hooks gives in Feminism Is For Everybody fits the principles of Universal Design: “Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” Who’s perpetrating the sexism? Lots of people—men aren’t the enemy. Whose oppression are we trying to end? Everybody’s. By leaving her definition open-ended, hooks includes all people as both potential perpetrators of sexism and as potential beneficiaries of the feminist movement.
I’m arguing that we use Universal Design as inspiration for a variety of changes we want to see in society. I’ve written previously about the need for gender-neutral restrooms in public places. We don’t need to have separate facilities designated “Men” and “Women;” we can have common spaces that are available to anyone regardless of gender. Other areas where I’ve seen this concept gaining ground within feminist movement are the efforts to win maternity/paternity leave and in the recognition that beauty standards for men are increasingly unrealistic and unhealthy. Most feminist spaces are not as inclusive as they should be for trans and genderqueer folks (indeed some, such as the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, are explicitly discriminatory), but I’m seeing progress in this area.
What we might call “Universal Feminism” is the approach to feminist movement I hear young feminists promoting most often, but I think we can be more intentional and more vocal about it. It has plenty of advantages, including its appeal for people of all genders (compare this post) and the inherent recognition of intersectionality among social justice movements. For example, efforts to combat sexual assault that recognize the prevalence of rape among incarcerated males must logically support reform (or abolishment) of the prison system, an issue that has large racial and class components. Of course, individuals within such movements are not obligated to dedicate their resources to combating rape among males in prison, but acknowledging the common problem is the first step to building coalition between individuals and movements dedicated to change.
This approach to social change carries some risks, however. We already have to combat the myth of post-feminism, so some may be hesitant to take steps that could make the movement look less cohesive or less dedicated to women’s issues. The fact is there never was a singular cohesive feminist movement anyway. Part of the power and the success of feminist movement lies in its lack of central leadership, its increasing openness to a variety of perspectives, and the ongoing redefinition of what “women’s issues” actually are.
Some will react by asking, “But why call it ‘feminism’ if it benefits everybody?” The debate over the term “feminist” is understandably contentious but for me the answer is that the term acknowledges the fact that we live in a patriarchal system that disproportionately harms women and anyone else who is not cisgendered-male. Maybe there will come a day when we live in a truly post-feminist society, but it’s not here yet, and in the meantime we can work to make feminist movement more inclusive and more accessible to all people. It’s time to expand feminism further, not lay it to rest. The principles of Universal Design provide an easy analogy for one way to make this happen. -Adrienne
Monday, February 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a supplement to this post, I thought I'd offer another example of how services/products/environments that are developed with a segment of the population in mind can be useful for everyone. Through my work with people with developmental disabilities, I've been a part of a "Circle Group" or "Circle of Support" defined as “people who care about change happening for the focus person and choose to give their time and resources to
working for change. They see themselves as an action oriented group that exists with and for the
person, commit themselves to working alongside the focus person and meeting from time to time for as long as it takes to assure that the person has a secure and interesting community life. The more diverse the group’s skills and connections the more they can get done. The better they are able to listen and see things from the focus person’s point of view, the more the focus person will be strengthened by their support.” (Mount, 2002)
The one in which I participate takes the form of a monthly meeting at which the group gathers at the home of the focus person for dinner and discussion. We also communicate through email between meetings. The first time I attended, what struck me was that I could really use a Circle Group too. This kind of formalized, intentional, semi-structured community could be beneficial for a lot of people, not just those with disabilities (as I have limited experience with the concept I don't know if they are in fact used in other capacities). I would guess that the definition I gave is purposely vague about the focus person for this reason.
Indeed, our Circle Group has become a form of support for all of us, not just the focus person. It's a way to check in once a month about anything important going on in our lives: a new job, applying to school, a new relationship, the loss of a cherished pet, developing a particular social skill. I think our group works this way because it was set up to be inclusive and non-stigmatizing. It's not "let's get together and decide how to run this person's life" but "let's get together and talk about what's important to us, what challenges we're facing, where we all might need extra support."
If this were Facebook, I would have clicked "like."
Post a Comment