‘Technology is a preoccupation of contemporary life. It provides ways of doing things, makes work, creates material goods and services, and defines ways of life’ (Goggin’s & Newell 2003, p. 3)
What if everyone was in some way disabled? Would society be any different? Would this be considered normal? The answer is yes. Yes, society would be most certainly different and yes, this would absolutely be considered normal. In any society, there are social norms, ‘informal rules that govern behavior in groups and societies’ (Stanford 2011, p. 1), or the idea of what is considered ‘normal’. The idea of normality is inherently exclusionary. Those who do not fit its mould are ‘different’, or, as society has concluded, ‘disabled’, and are given special care, or, on the other end of the spectrum, ignored, left alone to fend for themselves in society. Although, in more recent times, this idea of normality has risen to new heights of exclusivity, with belief systems such as Ableism reinforcing today’s social inequity, using, as Goggin’s in the above quote explains, the online tools of the digital age to ‘define ways of life’ (Goggin’s & Newell 2003, p. 3)
These notions are addressed by Ellis and Goggin’s (2015), who assert that ‘disability is very much a social phenomenon, with key social determinants, contexts and dynamics, rather than something to be categorised as a medical or health phenomenon’ (Ellis and Goggins 2015, p. 78). One may be impaired in some way, but be ‘disabled’ or ‘enabled’ by social arrangements’ (Ellis and Goggins 2015, p. 78). Thus, at its core, disability is simply the product of cultural beliefs and mechanisms that ultimately invoke the ideal of normality and social acceptability.
Although, as Ellis and Goggins go on to explain, whilst disability is largely the victim of exclusion, the ever evolving digital space is offering more opportunities for inclusion for those who may be deemed ‘disabled’:
‘Participatory digital media is increasing [the] potential for marginalised audiences to engage with media across the spectrum of commercial, public, community and alternative media.’ (Ellis and Goggins 2015, p. 80).
This form of digital media is the bridge between those ‘able’ and ‘disabled’. Audio blogs by blind people, video blogging by deaf people and the ABC’s participatory media space ‘Ramp Up’, are all agents active in the fight against social exclusion, offering a space for both the less engaged ‘abled’ as well as the less politicised ‘disabled’, and all that falls in between, to coincide together in contemporary life. Let’s hope this momentum continues, because obliviousness is privileges form of deprivation.
References
Ellis, K & Goggin, G 2015, ‘Disability Media Participation: Opportunities, Obstacles and Politics’, Media International Australia, vol. 154, no.1, pp 178-88.
Goggin, G., Newell, G., Newell, C. 2003, ‘Digital Disability; The Social Construction of Disability In New Media’, 1st edn, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, United Kingdom
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2011, Social Norms, The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, accessed 23 August 2019, <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/>
13542117 