First published on WIN Summit: www.winsummit.com Today, less women with disabilities have jobs, but studies show that greater flexibility can aid in furthering equity in the workplace. This is important because women with disabilities’ experiences remain hidden if organizational shifts are not made. If organizations create more accessibility, they have the power to preserve an embodied feminine wisdom of disability.   According to the United States Department of Labor’s and the Office of Disability Employment Policy’s recent report, women with disabilities are the lowest employed in the United States. This report, which gathered data from 2019 to 2022, seeks to identify labor force participation by gender and disability/ability (Rosenblum et. al., 2023). This report adds to past concerns of inequity in the workplace.   When organizations ask themselves how they can be more accessible, the hope is that they open themselves up to the perspectives of employees with disabilities. Yet, many organizations struggle with this question even though the answer is simple. Be even more open to negotiations about accommodations.   Here, I outline some of the primary challenges women with disabilities face in today’s workplace, adding context to a complex issue. And offer tips for organizational leaders on how to open the doors to more women. Challenges: Context Matters “As women with disabilities are uplifted and included, they will close gaps and liberate all as they liberate the disabled body.” Many women with disabilities feel disadvantaged before they even reach the negotiation table.  The lack of work opportunity and situated context hinder accommodation negotiations. This context includes difficulty in getting a job and a greater need for support systems that come with it, like health care. Therefore, there is a high dependency and higher risk if she were to lose the job. Caught in a position of less means or options and higher dependency on the role, her communication may be restricted (Coleman et. al., 2012). This context coupled with societal backlash and repercussions women receive when speaking up for their selves ( Amanatullah et. al., 2010 ) negatively impacts negotiations for accommodations.   Unsupportive organizational structure further complicates the communication for accommodations. In her Towards a Feminist Theory of Disability , Susan Wendell states, “disabled women struggle with both the oppressions of being women in male-dominated societies and the oppressions of being disabled in societies dominated by the able-bodied” (Wendell, 1989, p. 105). This means that when negotiating their needs at work, women with disabilities are facing compounded suppressive structures.   Furthermore, the typical day of a person with a disability likely looks very different than an abled person. Some of this schedule provides hints at where they can fall through corporate cracks. For example, it’s expensive and time-consuming to have a disability: medications, various therapies, regular doctor visits, specialist visits, alternative modalities, surgeries, and more. Travel time to and from, time spent in these services, and fatigue from the upkeep of all of this in addition to navigating spaces that are inaccessible are the norm - and they are also an addition to the expected daily work demands.   If corporate spaces are not identifying ways to specifically mitigate these challenges, they will have limited opportunity for growth. The fact that less women with disabilities are employed means that there is less representation of them. A corporate space may think they are accessible yet without the vital input of these women, they won’t know just how many people they’re leaving out. As women with disabilities fall to the unemployed bucket, their concerns are not heard, and their experiences remain unknown. The system of ableism continues without friction to the status quo.  Negotiating a Path Forward Being More Inclusive As an Organization   While people with disabilities have been excluded or underrepresented in the workforce, due to preconceived notions or stigma about capabilities, we’ve seen an increase in conversation and activism around accessibility.  The learning curve for many business owners and managers is still steep. Fraught with misunderstanding, many employers feel uncertain about how to be more accessible to people with disabilities. Here are a few ways organizations can reframe their conversations around accessibility. 1.              Flexibility At Work Workplace flexibility can support employee’s ambitions, and offers employes the ability to deal with unexpected situations. It’s been shown in study after study that men and women with more flexible work options feel more productive and less burnt out across the board.  Another major benefit is that flexible work options have the power to create more inclusion. From 2020 to 2022, more women with disabilities became employed due to expanded work environments. The report highlights that remote work options have helped bring more these women into the labor force.   2.              The Ripple Effect Updating an organizational system to include more women with disabilities will have a ripple effect by impacting the gender and pay gap as well as ableist and male dominated systems. Equipped with this knowledge, make it a point to spread awareness about disability. Disability aware systems and workplaces are making a difference by impacting the existing disparities. As women with disabilities are uplifted and included, they will close gaps and liberate all as they liberate the disabled body.    3.              Open Lines of Communication Workplaces, remember to create a variety of informal and formal avenues for communication. The situated context and societal repercussions hinder communication even when there are avenues. It is important to bring awareness to this and account for it as you are asking for feedback. Also, it is important to make changes as concerns are raised which demonstrates it is safe to share feedback and the changes your organization makes can pave the way for more people with disabilities to be employed. Be flexible and, overall, embody a growth mind state and desire to learn. Empowering Yourself as A Woman With A Disability “ Self-advocacy is counterintuitive to some of our conditioning as women. One way to shift this is to use Conflict Intelligence.” Unfortunately, women with disabilities are also much more likely than women overall to have considered leaving the workforce or downshifting their careers. With organizations are slowly becoming more open-minded, self-advocacy remains important. Although advocating for yourself can seem daunting, you don’t have to do it alone and becoming confident in your self-advocacy skills can help you express yourself more authentically. 1.              Self-Advocate with Conflict Intelligence Self-advocacy is counterintuitive to some of our conditioning as women. One way to shift this is to use Conflict Intelligence. Conflict Intelligence provides various strategies of engaging with your supervisor depending on the context. This theory divides context by collaborative vs. competitive, high vs low dependency, and the degree to which you care about the relationship (Coleman et. al., 2014). While strategic appeasement or unhappy tolerance may exacerbate a disability, seek for negotiated support and ask for help from external resources if you are in a highly competitive and low power position.     In addition to mapping the context, one way to consider asking for and accepting accommodations is to know yourself. Reflect on your strengths and weaknesses regarding the accepting or requesting accommodation process. Then, identify your needs: what do you want to achieve and what do you need to be successful at it?  Then move toward the intervention that will help you reach your goals. For example, evidence-based instruction to improve skills, accommodations, or modifications. The most important step is to make the ask with both self and other reflection.   2.              Band Together Join affinity groups. When you join with others you may find that you are not alone in some of your experiences. This can lead to a sense of belonging and community thereby creating greater ease and joy in the workplace. If there is not an affinity group within your organization – perhaps you can be the one to start one! Or, look for groups outside of your organization that can help foster a sense of community and offer insights on what others are doing to promote greater accessibility measures within their organizations.   3.              Find External Resources Strong networks have methods of weaving in external resources to allow for a constant flow of new information. A healthy network is one that has bridges between multiple groups within the organization as well as links to external organizations. This allows you to stay in contact with the support systems you need. Conclusion In conclusion, context and systemic structure both matter when considering negotiating for accommodations. There are strategies to use to remain adaptive to the situation. The awareness of this may help you to keep your job or negotiate what you need during the hiring process. As difficult as it may seem, pressuring the organization to meet your needs ensures they aren’t deprived of the unique and amazing wisdom you have to share.    References Amanatullah, E.T. & Morris, M.W. (2010).  Negotiating Gender Roles:  Gender differences in assertive negotiation are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (2), 256-267.   Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Nowak, A., & Vallacher. R. (2012). Getting down to basics: A situated model of conflict in social relations. Negotiation Journal, 28(1), 7-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00324.x   Coleman, P. T., & Ferguson, R. (2014). Making Conflict Work: Harnessing the Power of Disagreement. Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt.   Rosenblum, D., Costa, J., and Ruth, A. (2023). Women with Disabilities and the Labor Market . https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ODEP/pdf/Women_with_Disabilities_and_the_Labor_Market.pdf     Wendell, S. (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability. Hypatia , Vol. 4, No. 2, Feminist Ethics & Medicine, pp. 104-124.

Coordinated Management of Meaning as a theory with practical application. Template for Daisy Model and LUUUUTTT Model found here Human beings are not fixed, we are emerging and dynamic in the way we formulate, create and grow. Yet, sometimes the narratives we share remain the same. The stories we tell, both to ourselves and to each other, represent the social systems we exist within. These stories also form the basis of what we create together through our communication. As such, the dialogue within our interactions can become an entry point for examining internal and external social constructs. Our stories can change, and when they do, this change indicates that an internal transformation has occurred. This internal transformation then shifts what is created in communication with others. Therefore, communication represents both an internal set of social systems reflecting one’s conditioning and social identity, while also impacting the concrete world that we create together through coordination, or lack thereof, during our interactions. Background Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) is a communications theory that analyzes dialogue to determine various factors. For those having a conversation, embedded in their dialogue is the seed of their internal social identity and external social systems. CMM can bring light to what is being created through interaction and the set of beliefs and values impacting coordination. This communications theory has practical application due to the set of techniques that support applied practice in creating better coordination through investigating internal and social constructs. CMM techniques give space for what is present yet latent to emerge. For people with disabilities, this means that we can exist in a way that both recognizes the current state of needs (accommodations, assistive devices etc) while also realizing a dynamically shifting state of becoming.   Since CMM engages the coordination of what is created through dialogue, it is also a tool to consider the tension between covert and overt aspects of the accessibility movement. For example, in the workplace, the accommodation process and campaigns targeting inclusion of people with disabilities act as formal structures propelling toward access. Yet social pressure, implicit biases and dominant ideology act as informal structures which may stall the movement. Through techniques like the Daisy Model, LUUUUTTT Model, and Hierarchy Model, individuals can bring awareness to internal views and organizational narratives around disability, noticing both what they carry with them and how that impacts what they create with others. Anchoring the Conversation CMM exercises can be useful during mediation and intergroup dialogue. The techniques become an interactive anchor gently shaping the focus of the conversation. As participants engage in completing the exercise, their focus shifts away from deconstructing the other’s worldview and calms the amygdala response. Instead, the participants’ focus moves toward self-expression and openness led by completing a task.  Visual Mapping The exercises also serve as a visual aid so that each participant can see the social systems, or sets of values and beliefs, that the other engages with as a logical force in the moment of conflict. The visual mapping can serve as a way to gently nudge each party toward broadening their perspective to take into account the other person’s while at the same time allowing the individual to bring awareness to their own systems operating within. Therefore, self-discovery and broadening of awareness are fostered through the application of CMM exercises during mediation. In Conclusion, The communications theory Coordinated Management of Meaning deconstructs dialogue to determine how to create better coordination during interactions thus providing a resource to create a better social world. Here I begin this series of Coordinated Management of Meaning. Next week I’ll share what I found by applying the Daisy Model during my research fellowship project!

An overview of conflict resolution theories as applied to workplace accommodation requests. Although we may want to believe it’s not present, power plays an active role in every interaction. Mary Parker Follet, an early conflict resolution academic, reminds us that power is always part of the equation and that there can be various uses of power; dominating, compromising, or integrating. She is one of the first to establish a win-win (integrative) method of negotiation as opposed to the win-lose methods of dominating or compromising uses of power (Follet, 1925). Image with dark black/pink at the top down, a strip of light pink in the middle, and a more reddish toned pink at the bottom Cooperation or Competition “ Scholars like Morton Deutsch furthered her work by determining challenges to mutual negotiation which include bargaining, coordination, and trust. He defined a spectrum of cooperation and competition which characterized these challenges (Deutsch, 1973)." Scholars like Morton Deutsch furthered her work by determining challenges to mutual negotiation which include bargaining, coordination, and trust. He defined a spectrum of cooperation and competition which characterized these challenges (Deutsch, 1973). Cooperation links to the #integrative method of #negotiating which utilizes open information sharing, higher #trust and coordination, and adaptive techniques to address underlying needs. Often both parties are able to get their needs met. On the other hand, competition links to #distributive negotiation which views resources as fixed and limited, less trust, less coordination and a win-lose outlook. These factors formed what he called a dynamic of cooperation or competition. Dynamical Theory of Conflict Dr. Peter Coleman then further developed this work by adding in two more dynamics all of which form the context of a conflict landscape. These include degree of power and degree of dependency. Combined with the dynamic of competition or cooperation these form the Dynamical Theory of Conflict (Mitchinson et al, 2009). This theory emphasizes the context created by the power, dependency, and dynamic. The conflict landscape, as characterized by degree of power, dependency and dynamic, is determined by organizational culture and climate. Power and Accommodation Requests “ Organizational power greatly impacts disabled employees. ” Organizational power greatly impacts disabled employees. Power can be identified by discerning how much one’s actions impact the other. If my actions impact you greatly but yours don’t have a great impact on me, I have a higher degree of power. In the instance of an accommodation, it is highly needed and greatly felt if not granted. Yet those doing the granting don’t hardly notice if they don’t grant one. In the context of power, a disabled employee requesting an accommodation is in a low power position. Dependency and Power When a disabled employee is asking their organization to make a change to their established systems to accommodate them, they are in the midst of a negotiation for something that is non negotiable. An accommodation is truly not negotiable; it is a physical need due to a condition and may be required just as you are required to breathe air. Yet, that person is there negotiating for air, and may very well be denied. This situates them in a higher dependency and lower power position. Dynamic as Organizational Climate If the organization is in a highly competitive state due to the type of industry or due to an organizational change such as a merger, the disabled employee will find themself in a precarious position amongst the conflict landscape. The context is characterized by high dependency, low power, in a competitive dynamic. Strategy Their tactics of negotiation are limited and to simply appease or use conflict avoidance may prove detrimental to their health. Given what they have to lose - healthcare, salary, connection with society - and their physical need, many disabled employees feel intense emotions including vulnerability, anxiety or fear around requesting accommodations. Leadership It is important for organizational leaders to understand the Dynamical Theory of Conflict which can be used to paint the conflict landscape. Once the conflict landscape is understood, methods of adaptivity can be applied. Next, I’ll outline adaptive techniques that disabled employees may consider during an accommodation negotiation.

In prior blogs, I’ve discussed the importance of understanding power, dependency and group dynamics when negotiating with another party, and especially how this context impacts disabled employees. Now I want to share another perspective - that of a disabled person - which highlights the interplay between identity, loss and the predetermined conflict landscape. The painter and the painted, just as we as individuals enter the conflict landscape and claim a sense of agency. There are specific experiences that relate uniquely to disability, such as loss, courage, and reframing of identity and values, that create a shift in the conflict landscape. The conflict landscape is formed by the degree of power, dependency, and dynamic (collaborative vs. competitive) between parties. Although the conflict landscape from the Dynamical Theory of Conflict provides important implications for the context disabled employees confront in the workplace and the impact it has on their negotiation of accommodations, there’s more to consider. This is the fact that due to strategies in responding to these specific experiences, they might not be defined by the power, dependency and group dynamic characterized in the conflict landscape, as well as the repercussions they will experience for breaking this societal bond. They’ve already experienced great loss and courage. While the conflict landscape still exists, the disabled person may not define themselves by it, thereby both experiencing and being free from it simultaneously.  Identity The profoundness of experience that disabled people go through shifts the conflict landscape while maintaining it at the same time. Humans are complex beings with a multitude of contradicting energies happening in one moment. Here I’ll share an example of this contradiction. The experience of going through surgeries at a young age and through my adult life has left a lasting impression on me. Face to face with the unknown, letting go of all control, laying my life in the hands of another as I step into the darkness of anesthesia where no one could come with me for six hours, ten, fourteen; snip, cut, drill. I try to live my life with the boldness it takes to face these experiences head on. Deep loss can create a shift of hierarchical value associated with maintaining a specific status quo that may not be serving you and this, in turn, changes the meaning of the conflict landscape. Living with boldness means I’m not afraid to speak up for what I believe is true and important no matter someone's role or status; no matter the dependency I have on the job. I have nothing to lose because I already lost my physical movement and through this experience began identifying with my soul. The wholeness of my soul can’t be taken or lost. It also means I’m not as assimilated as others because I can’t be. My body physically won’t allow me to. I can’t move at the rhythm needed to build my career as others do, instead I have to move at my own pace. This means I don’t have as much to lose because I don’t place my identity on earthly things as much as within self and soul. When I lost everything, including movement, I still had my soul and nothing can take that away. Freedom or Dependency, which is it? I experience freedom and I experience dependency due to the recovery from surgeries. Such a foundational loss as movement has created a contradiction within me; two directly opposite emotions happening at the same time from the same phenomenon. These two opposing emotions are the sense and faith that nothing can be taken away from me. And at the same time, when every decision I make is linked to a pain response that could put me down for a week, I intimately feel the repercussions of my actions in creating comfort or pain for myself. In this sense, I do have a lot to lose and therein lies a contradiction. Although I don’t identify with my body, I am in my body. I identify myself with a freedom that can’t be marred by power, dependency or group dynamics. Even still, right alongside this freedom and soul identification, is fear of being left behind, the need to work with established structures, and the great dependency on work for my own quality of life. In conclusion, In conclusion, the individual themself has agency as they enter the dynamic that creates the conflict landscape. At the surface level, the unspoken power contract is present. Yet at a deeper level, there are many varying factors that determine what each person is willing to lose or gain and how they define losses and gains. The fact is that there are real implications to the conflict landscape. Yet, we also choose at every moment what we consider to be a loss and create a hierarchy of values to determine what we are willing to lose.

Part Four of How Much Are You Worth?: Toward an Economic Theory of Disability Eugenics “ Those who aren’t able to operate well within the construct of society do not have “top” genes. " Upon taking a deeper look at the motivations of society in response to those who are impaired, one can see that the second framework that is tied to unconscious ranking of valuation is the concept of eugenics. This concept states that there is a top human specimen. Supporters believe that some genes are stronger than others. This human operates profitably and richly within the bounds and norms of society. Since they operate well, they are considered to have top genes. Those who are handsome, healthy, fit, and fit into society should continue their genetic line. However, “t reating health and vigor as moral virtues for everyone harms people with disabilities and illnesses” (Wendell, 2020). This treatment harms people with disabilities because it classifies them as unfit and demoralized.  For example, by creating a best of the breed category, eugenics then creates another category; those who are not operating well within the bounds of society. They don’t have good genes.These are people who are not adding profit to society, they’re not fit and they’re not successful. Therefore, those who aren’t able to operate well within the construct of society do not have “top” genes. Threat to Society Eugenics then goes on to say that those with “bad” genes pose a threat to the rest of society. “Eugenics sought to improve the body politic and to relieve it of the economic and social burdens of disease and degeneracy" (Rose, 2007). It stated that those who were defective were an active weight on society. That they held society back, posed a burden, and even a threat to the rest of the population. Here we see that eugenics has placed value on human life. The greater the ability to be a productive member of society, the more one was worth.  Eugenics believed that the genetic line of the defective should be ended. Doctors practiced this through sterilization, abortion, euthanization, or the death penalty. As stated by Nikolas Rose, eugenics practiced “...the prevention of those who are members of defective or inferior sub-populations from reproducing through sterilization or extermination" (Rose, 2007). There is no space for flexibility or inclusion here. Those who are not effectively creating profit and working well within society must die, as stated within the Eugenics movement.  Exemplary Humans “T he greater the ability to be a productive member of society, the more one was worth. ” On the flip side, the genetic line of those with the top genes should be continued and exemplified through artificial insemination and reward systems. This desire is not always overt. It can happen in such delicate ways as “parental desires for a perfect child in an age of manipulated consumerism and reproductive choice” (Rose, 2007). The desire for population purification can happen on the most inherent and unconscious level, as we see with parents. One of the main defining points of rank is one’s health and one’s job. An impaired person faces a bodily barrier which then leads to social, educational, and workplace barriers. If a person is successful, they’re considered a prosperous value creator. Once again, a human’s worth is tied to their work, more specifically tied to how much profit they’re creating.  We Don't Want to Be Reminded, In addition to this, much of society doesn’t want to see ill health. It reminds the population of death and pain. Things many don’t want to think about. “Suffering caused by the body, and the inability to control the body, are despised, pitied, and above all, feared. This fear, experienced individually, is also deeply embedded in our culture" (Wendell, 2020). We are taught to fear not having control, and to fear pain. Our culture does not recognize that at some point in everyone’s life, they will be impaired and reliant on others' assistance. So, instead of valuing reciprocity and various body abilities, we turn our cheek, create a divide, and exclude the impaired.  The danger here is that the population is following a ranking system of and valuation of a human soul. This ranking system tells the population, some people are worth more than others. Those who are worth less, don’t need our attention, effort, money or care. They don’t need to be included. “The public world is the word of strength, the positive (valued) body, performance, and production, the able-bodied youth. Weakness, illness, rest and recovery, pain, death, and the negative (de-valued) body are private, generally hidden, and often neglected. Coming into the public world with illness, pain, or a de-valued body, we encounter resistance to mixing the two worlds; the split is vividly revealed" (Wendell, 2020). Therefore, the public doesn’t want to see illness because it reminds them of their own mortality.    In Conclusion, If frameworks like this are not changed, those with limited mobility remain unable to participate in life and create profit thereby raising themselves up within this valuation system. Therefore, the structure of the system itself ensures that those with impairments will remain in the category of value takers, burdens on society, and excluded.  Much of the conversation within the disabled rights community is in regard to changing structures: playgrounds, classrooms, work places, conference rooms, etc. in order to make them more accessible. The first thing that needs to be addressed is the ranking, rating, and valuation system that all are unconsciously participating in. When this is realized, underlying motivations can be changed. When underlying motivations change from work hard profit first to comfort first human life equality, then we will see greater flexibility in public and private spaces since architecture is an extension of the human mindstate.

Part Three of How Much Are You Worth?: Toward an Economic Theory of Disability With innovation and technology that we have, with the social activists and widespread communication that we have, why is exclusion of those with limited mobility disabilities still so prevalent? Something is happening on a deeper, internal level. An inner ranking system. There are two main theoretical frameworks that lend a hand to delving deeper and fully understanding why exclusion is happening in relation to a ranking system. These two frameworks are the Protestant work ethic and eugenics. Therefore, by understanding these two theoretical constructions one can understand a ranking system that is taking place subconsciously which acts as a barrier to embracing those with limited mobility.  Work Ethic: Work Hard or Go to Hell “ The worker who was more efficiently producing products was considered closer to God than a worker who was not. ” The workplace has adopted ideologies. What once was God’s law, has now become secularized and omnipresent. According to a variety of religions, God gave a commandment to work. This work was linked to divine glory, and was a religious duty. It held with it such high stakes as being allowed into heaven or not. Improvement in production served the common good and was considered Godly. Therefore, the worker who was more efficiently producing products was considered closer to God than a worker who was not. These ideologies are so deeply intertwined into our thoughts and internal ranking system. Therefore, since these ideologies are intertwined in this way they happen on their own at a level that we are largely unaware of.  No Pain, No Gain The idea that work needs to be hard; “no pain, no gain” is also related to this framework. “Loss of time through sociability...is worthy of absolute moral condemnation” (Weber, 2013). Enjoying work, or working comfortably then wasn’t work at all but something that would send you to hell. The thought then follows, if you are in an alternate physical position putting your comfort first, then you are not working hard enough. Therefore you are immoral and not worth God’s grace; morally condemned.  Idle Time, “ Each and every minute you devote to work, brings you closer to God. ” The idea that work must be constant is also related to this framework. In regard to work, Max Weber states, “it is infinitely valuable because every hour lost is lost to labour for the glory of God” (Weber, 2013). Each and every minute you devote to work, brings you closer to God. All time must be devoted to hard work and hard labor. This statement implies that if you take even a minute off, you have lost God for that amount of time.  In Conclusion, This framework has huge psychological implications. This way of understanding work is deeply ingrained in all of us. So deeply ingrained, that we don’t realize when we are creating value judgements with such voracity as moral condemnation. Therefore, the piece of the iceberg that is visible above the surface may say “I want inclusivity”, but the grand piece of the iceberg below the surface is saying “labor must be constant and hard, labor must come as first priority not you and not your comfort.” This presents a barrier to embracing those who need unique structures in order to work productively. This barrier thereby creates poverty and a disabling society.

Part Two of How Much Are You Worth?: Towards an Economic Disability Theory Each economy throughout history has had its way of placing value on each laborer. Society has then assigned a hierarchy that is based on one’s career. The fact that the ranking system taking place is based on careers demonstrates how closely linked worth and work are.  “ The fact that the ranking system taking place is based on careers demonstrates how closely linked worth and work are. ” Early Agricultural In early agricultural societies we find an example of the type of situation wherein a person can be assigned value directly based upon their production. The laborers, here, represent those members of society who are able bodied, strong and fit. These civilizations were set up around the most profitable industry. The most productive class was considered to be the farmers, then down to proprietors such as merchants. The sterile class was considered those who charged a fee for land; landlords (Mazzucato, 2016). Tools were used  for the purpose of producing as much as possible. The value of each laborer was in how much they could produce. The value of the business as a whole, lied in how much crop they could produce. In this model, each person’s worth lies in the amount of their production, thus quantifying the worth of a human soul. With such an intricate tie of self worth to production thus the race to production followed, of course, because who doesn’t want to be valued?  Industrial Revolution In the 1800’s, the industrial revolution changed the value definition of a laborer. Hints of that change show us that the “price of labor is revealing their value” (Mazzucato, 2016). If the laborer is paid more, they are perceived as worth more. During this time, there is a rise of technology being used for production. The inventions were used to increase efficiency of production and maximize profit. At this time there are variances made between value creators and value takers. The labor theory of value focus is on reproduction.  Neo-Liberalism The rise of neo-liberalism of the 1970’s to now has led to great innovations in technology and also an update on the way we view profit. There is a focus on how individuals make decisions with the advent of opportunity cost and profit (Mazzucato, 2016). Only now is economics beginning to factor in underlying motivations of choices through opportunity costs, but it is still multiplying that factor by the financial profit created in order to identify the laborer’s worth.  Underlying Principles Beginning from a principle like this will always be limited. It is not coming from a human first model allowing all following operating systems to mimic the human body or allowing for the whole within many wholes of the human body to be the most valuable factor and point to begin from. Not only is defining civilization in this way, as a capitalist economy, limited, but it’s also dangerous. The danger lies in assigning worth and value to humans based on how well they can operate within the capitalist system.  When we define value in this way, a large portion of humans are left out; are devalued. When people are devalued they will be left out even more. Thus that cycle compounds on itself. “Once each life has a value which may be calculated, and some lives have less value than others, such a politics has the obligation to exercise this judgment in the name of the race or the nation" (Rose, 2007). When people are devalued, their human rights are at risk. When people are devalued, they are not able to fully participate in society. They are not able to fully enjoy and embrace life and be embraced and enjoyed in return.  As the person could not participate in profiting the society, they were seen as an outlier. As they were not bringing profit, they were not valued. Theoretical frameworks were established in order to support the ranking system. Two examples of such are the theory of eugenics and the Protestant workplace ideology. The rise of sterilization based on eugenics in the 1920’s and 30’s displayed how effective this theory is. Eugenics argued that there were those who were fit and healthy, balanced individuals. And that there were deformed, unable to participate, outliers who should be sterilized.  However, The irony of this is that when we create human first systems, more profit is generated. When employees feel embraced, they create more. A survey study done and written about in the Harvard Business Review states that, “employees who feel welcome to express their authentic selves at work exhibit higher levels of organizational commitment, individual performance, and propensity to help others" ( Goffee et. al. , 2013). The research in this study showed how embracing the unique selves of your employees actually creates more profit for one’s company. Citations Goffee, R and Jones, G. (2000). Why Should Anyone Be Led By You?. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2000/09/why-should-anyone-be-led-by-you Mazzucato , M. “What is economic value and, who creates it.” Ted Talk Summit Conference. Published on July,  2019. Ted Talk video, 18:47. https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_what_is_economic_value_and_who_creates_it . Rose, N. 2007. Politics of life itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Colonialist Profit Driven Systems: Towards an Economic Disability Theory Society, and the population as a whole, enact a ranking system every day, all the time. This ranking system is a valuation system that ranks humans by their corresponding value. Their value is derived from how well they participate in society. How well they participate in society is derived by how much profit they produce.  However, the profit produced is not how much profit they produce within an infinite amount of system possibilities. The system is set. The profit is produced within this set system. This set system is a capitalist economy which establishes profit first; profit to drive every other factor. Therefore, the system we are judged by is a system that was formed by profit first, then unfolds all other functions from this underlying principle.  “ Does the structure of our profit driven economy create the basis for the exclusion that those with limited mobility experience within society? ” This type of ranking system did not begin with mankind. It began with colonization. In order to conquer over a person, colonizers had to establish a disconnect from the human and a constant refocusing to profit-first systems. Set systems were put into place all over the world. Beforehand, systems were alive, adaptable, and flexible given the geographic location and specific population. All contributions were accepted and honored as value. People were placed in roles that were supportive to them and their bodies.   Afterward, systems were concrete and set, a generic one size fits all. This type of system is what rules today. It is this ranking system that is the reason why those with limited mobility are excluded. It is the reason why society has ranked and assigned value based on how much profit one contributes. Colonization established many profit centric systems that valued profit over human life and systems that we still follow today. In this series... I’m studying those with limited mobility in relation to the profit driven economy because I want to find out whether the design of the market creates social isolation and a devaluation, in economic terms, of those with limited mobility in society as a whole. Does the structure of our profit driven economy create the basis for the exclusion that those with limited mobility experience within society? Assigning value to people began within the workplace, the value assigned was based on how much they produced. That value judgment then became justified with the argument that some genes are stronger than others and the weaker genes should die off. All of this goes into society's preconceived notions about those with disabilities.  In this series, I will provide a brief history of types of economies and review the literature within disability studies and economics.

More people than you think have a disability. The name of this blog Disability is Everywhere , means different things to different people. Let's start with the word 'disability'. Some within the movement for disability rights have taken ownership of the word with a sense of proudness recreating it as a superpower. Others find the word offensive as a word that makes it sound like the issue is within us; a word that carries a story of sickness, wrongness, less than, deviant. Those who support the social model of disability would in fact state that the impairment is the condition the person may be struggling with, but the disability is created by barriers preventing a person from participating in the life of their society, or by what I call "institutional ableism". Nancy Willis Self Portrait 1 Purchase here I use the word 'disability' because it is the word most recognized at this moment. Although I recognize that many are now using the description 'differently abled' or 'lived experience'. Now, on to 'Everywhere' In every topic, every discipline, every construct, there exists a link to people with a disability. There is no industry which does not impact people with a disability. There are no social functions which don't affect people with a disability. We exist in all intersections and multidisciplinary approaches. Everything is relevant to a person with a disability because we are everywhere; in all walks of life and in all parts of life. In Closing, Disability is Everywhere seeks to find the link between any topic and disability. Leave a comment below about what disability means to you, people want to know! Read on to discover the intersections I've found thus far.

Allen McNair Exit 47 (2022) Purchase here Defining 'disability' Current debates within the Disability Studies community on how to define 'disability'. Through the years, scholars have refined past conceptual theories of the definition of disability. The purpose of refining the definition is to create a more accurate description that best supports receiving any needed support systems to have accessibility and to most efficiently describe the phenomena of disability. At times, past definitions have served as a foundation for discriminatory behavior and segregation. Due to potential implications, such as those, of the definition of disability, it serves an extremely important purpose. Below is a synopsis of the debate within the disability studies scholarly community. Choose for yourself what you feel most aligned with after learning a bit about each. These descriptions can then become a basis for doing your own research. Defining the term 'disability' can be just as complex as the wide range of conditions that qualify as disabilities. Many have pointed out the difference between the medical, social and human rights models. In addition to these, Essentialism, Post-structuralism, and Deleuzianism are three more theoretical models which elaborate past theories. ADA definition: "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (ADA)" Here we see that the ADA definition of disability is focused on a medical condition, an impairment. Implications of defining disability in this way are that the focus is on an issue within an individual, not on society’s contribution to inaccessible spaces. This frame of thinking is linked to a Medical Model and Essentialist theories. Essentialism states that there is a normal body and body which is other than normal, different. The condition of the not-normal body is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. There will always be an outcast in this framing who needs to adjust to be part of the ‘right’ way of being. “Essentialism states that there is a normal body and body which is other than normal, different.” Following this line of thinking, the only thing that needs to be changed is the individual. They are not appreciated for their gift or strengths gained by performing in different manners. No one else, no other systems, take responsibility for outcasting the individual. Instead of honoring their way of existing, the focus is on the sickness, illness, or abnormality. Therefore, this definition does not allow for much room to create an accessible society. Disability Studies scholars responded to Essentialism... Scholars such as Judith Butler responded to Essentialism with Post-structuralist theories.  Michele Foucault and Judith Butler believe that the language we use constructs our daily lives and our entire reality. They argue against the term 'disability' and seek to deconstruct labels.  “It is easier to imagine blindness as the end of sight than it is to imagine it as a different way of being, as a different world” (Michalko, p. 50, 2017) . Here the focus is on living with different senses and strengths that arise from a different perception of the world. The fluidity of not labeling it as a medical condition or an impairment allows one to live without a sense of loss and instead embracing what their body, mind, and perception have to offer. Disability Studies scholars responded to Post-structuralist Theories... However, labels can serve an important purpose. One of the main purposes is to communicate and express so that others can understand what we're living through every minute of every day. Scholars such as Tom Shakespeare remind us that disability does not mean that someone is sick. Additionally, that disability is not just a product of discourse or labels, there is a real, embodied experience that impacts that person’s life that will need to be honored with a form of language. Some implications of Post-structuralist ways of thinking generate conclusions about using assistive devices. Using any support such as medication or hearing aids, can be a way of stating that the body needs to be fixed. A Post-structuralist states one can exist just as one is, the body doesn’t need to be fixed. However, this view doesn’t take into account the positive benefits gained by that individual who uses support in being able to participate to a greater degree in society. Another issue with deconstructing labels... Scholars like Aimi Hamraie remind that not owning the label can be related to some of the same issues brought up by the phenomena 'color blindness' where one may say they don't see race. Disability 'blindness' ignores the history of dehumanization, oppression, segregation, isolation, advocacy, and activism, as well as the current state of institutional ableism. In response to Universal Design, Hamraie states that: “Because they do not begin from an analysis of oppression, disability neutral discourses fail to capture the relational ethics of disability culture (Hamraie, p. 17, 2016).” Therefore, it's important to remember that there hasn't been an equal playing field for a very long time. Due to that inequality, people turned to advocacy and activism to educate, provide access, and lessen discrimination. If spaces are made to be accessible, this past and the embodied experience of their condition will still need to be honored. Interestingly enough, the category ‘disability’ has both othered us and, at the same time, provided the mechanics needed to get needs met in society. Deleuzian Deleuzian Disability Studies theories seek to take one out of a fixed state and into a constant state of becoming by analyzing the relationship between structures related to disability. This way of thinking allows for one to receive the support they need at the moment while allowing that to change and morph in time. These are the first theories that begin to apply systems thinking through applying the image of the rhizome from philosophers Gilles Deleuze's and Felix Guattari's theories and applying them to disability. The image of a rhizome becomes a way to map the network of structures impacting and impacted by disability. This form of dynamical systems mapping allows one to consider space for intervention and how that intervention will impact the system as a whole (Feely, 2016). The Take Away... The definition of disability has been updated and refined as scholars have discovered the gap in the past description. There is still room for growth. As we alter the definition of disability, the intersectionality of the experience becomes more apparent and so too does the political and social implications of the word. References Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 Berghs M, Atkin K, Graham H, et al. Implications for public health research of models and theories of disability: a scoping study and evidence synthesis. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2016 Jul. (Public Health Research, No. 4.8.) Chapter 3, Scoping models and theories of disability. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK378951/ Feely M (2016) Disability studies after the ontological turn: a return to the material world and material bodies without a return to essentialism. Disability & Society . 31:7, 863-883. Hamraie A (2016) Universal Design and the Problem of “Post-Disability” Ideology. Design and Culture 8:3, 285-309. New York: Routledge. Michalko R (2017) Blinding the Power of Sight. In Boys J (ed), Disability, Space, Architecture: A Reader (1st ed.). New York: Routledge, pp. 48-50.

Social movements and activism as a method to reach for power in a world content with sidelining us. Untitled, 2023 Alex Becerra, Arts of Life Circle Contemporary Purchase here Non violent social movements can and have shaped policy. People with disabilities’, for example, right to work is a result of strategic, organized, collective public disobedience. Through actions like marches - even crawls - sit-ins, and social demonstrations advocates fought for the right to work. Restricting non violent protests and these acts from civil society would then also restrict some of the main ways policy has been propelled forward. Social movement theorists have stated the importance of networks such as colleges, social media, work, unions or more. The disability rights movement has risen and settled in waves that span across time. The first disability rights organization was formed in 1880 and movements have continued to mobilize to the present day. Access and the right to work were key themes in each movement. Structures were built for one type of body only, making them inaccessible to others with limited mobility automatically segregating them from the richness of participation; participation, whether it be in education, playground fun, or the workforce. Richness was lost in both a figurative and a literal sense. Those with disabilities couldn’t work in the structure as it was. The rise of capitalism further conflated social life and job status. The fusion of wage labor, productivity, and independence further segregated disabled workers. In this paper, I will briefly describe some of the networks, tactics and goals of the disability rights movement. I will then briefly describe the longest sit-in; the Section 504 sit-in. Because there are so many different types of disabilities and because each organization defined itself based off of a single disability, early on there wasn’t much cross-network communication between organizations. In fact, some groups even discriminated against certain disabilities in order to prop themselves up and reach their ultimate goal of participation in society. For example, in 1880 the National Association of the Deaf overturned a civil service commission ban on hiring deaf workers. One of the tactics used in protesting equal employment was to exemplify their physical ability, citing language as the only difference between them and the majority of the population. This focus on physical ability created division between them and others who had mobility disabilities. The organization dwindled out after reaching their goal of overturning the ban. Yet their accomplishments shifted it from being illegal to legal to hire deaf workers. Nothing was given easily, we had to continuously apply pressure to be seen and heard and for systems of society to change. The 1930’s brought another wave of disability rights movements. Several organizations were formed at the local and national level. The National Association of the Blind, formed in the 1930’s, was the second to work the tactic of separating themselves from those with mobility issues. They focused on the fact that they were physically able to work and should be allowed to. Thus, within this singular movement for disability rights, they created divisions between themselves and other organizations to distinguish themselves. Yet at the same moment in history, polio had just spread rampantly for a decade prior and was still not eradicated. The President himself had a mobility disability due to polio and was a wheelchair user. This greatly paved the way for those with mobility disabilities to begin to gather and organize. The president founded Warm Springs Polio Rehabilitation Center, which provided a very important gathering place for others with polio. The group Polio Crusaders formed from attendees of the rehabilitation center. The demographic was largely middle class and white. Before 1964, black disabled citizens' segregation was compounded which has lasting impacts today. I will expand on this more in future blogs. The 1970’s gave rise to yet another wave of the disability rights movement. The legislation Rehabilitation Act was signed into existence in 1973 and there was an awareness of cognitive liberation; the feeling that things could really change. However, by 1977 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act had still not been promulgated. The sit-in for Section 504 promulgation paved the way for future legislation to be passed supporting those with disabilities. Lastly, the successes of the 1970’s paved the way for the Americans with Disabilities Act to pass in 1990. Main Goals In one sense, there can be an analysis of the waves of protest through time. In another sense, there can be an analysis of the goals of the various movements. There were three main mobilizing factors of the disability rights movement. One main focus was the ability to work. The second was on deinstitutionalization. Prior to the 1970’s, parents were strongly encouraged to place disabled children into an institution. There they lived separate from society. However, most of the people there could get their needs met at home, with some additional assistance. Advocates mobilized to take people out of the institutions and provide better care for them at home, focusing on at home care and benefits. There was also a focus for better services within state run institutions. The third mobilizing factor was independent living. The focus was on providing assistance for disabled individuals so that they could live as independently as possible. Access to education, employment, and public transport were all key aspects of independent living. The third mobilizing factor was civil rights activism. Here, the focus was on anti discrimination and equal opportunity. This gave rise to something called full citizenship; political participation, physical access, and social and economic citizenship (Patterson, 2018). Longest Sit-In In 1977, the sit-in at the Department of Housing, Education and Welfare (HEW) began. Nixon’s administration had failed to promulgate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This Act was the first general disability rights legislation in the United States and was directly modeled after Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 504 was the anti discrimination portion of the Rehabilitation Act. On April 5, 1977, Judith Heumann and the organization Disabled in Action, led a march from the capital building to the HEW office. Demonstrations were held outside HEW offices in 9 different cities, but the San Francisco sit-in lasted the longest. Advocates left two days after HEW Secretary Califano signed regulations for Section 504, on April 30. They sat in for a total 25 days. Within this time frame the city cut off the power to the building. The Section 504 sit-in is an important event in history. It illustrates perseverance. Perseverance was nothing new for this group of people. Each day they persevered through a different lived experiene. In addition to this, they also faced the burden of a disabling society. Even still, that burden didn’t stop them from persevering through the discomfort and through the barriers; both physical and ideological. They were successful in promulgating the Section 504 legislation which laid the foundation for the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Conclusion, In general, the disability rights movement is rich, with organizations forming throughout almost every decade since 1880. These movements have used traditional forms of lobbying as well as focused marches, protests and even public displays of protest such as sit-ins and the ADAPT’s “Capitol Crawl”. Each one of these mobilizations was simply a call for participation in the life of one’s society. Anyone with a disability knows how important community, social life, and the ability to be a part of it is because they know what it means to be segregated from it. The successes of these movements are many, and yet there is still work to do. Bibliography Barnartt, S., and Scotch, R.K. (2001) Disability Protest: Contentious Politics 1970–1990. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC. Brown LD. Civil rights and regulatory wrongs: the Reagan administration and the medical treatment of handicapped infants. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1986 Summer;11(2):231-54. doi: 10.1215/03616878-11-2-231. PMID: 3745838. Greene, Kyra R. Disability Rights Movement (United States). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2013. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management. “Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973”. US Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/section-504-rehabilitation-act-of-1973. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021. Patterson, Lindsey. The Disability Rights Movement in the United States. The Oxford Handbook of Disability History. 2018. Percy, Stephen L. Disability, civil rights, and public policy : the politics of implementation / Stephen L. Percy University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa 1989 Scotch, Richard K. “Politics and Policy in the History of the Disability Rights Movement.” The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 67, 1989, pp. 380–400. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3350150. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021.

In my Honors Thesis research paper, I wrote about how institutional ableism is taught at a young age and then reproduced throughout one’s life mainly due to lack of lived experience and lack of educational experience of disability. I identify this conditioning is because of covert processes, such as messaging in the spatial layout and absence of disability studies in education. The classroom is a place where the young learn world views. There they develop a sense of self and a support system to succeed in life. It is one of the most impactful spaces for early development and socialization. In school, familiar processes such as interacting only with abled children, are learned and reproduced throughout the rest of the child’s life. Children with (dis)abilities are divided from other students. They are taught separately and socialize separately. How do power dynamics implicit in built space impact children with and without (dis)abilities? “An understanding of how disabled people have become marginalized and excluded within society cannot be understood without an appreciation of the sociospatial processes that reproduce social relations (Kitchen, 1998).” Architecture & Ideology Due to the fact that ideology cannot be separated from built space and that the structures we create will always be a reflection of the ideology, when buildings are inaccessible that demonstrates that the ideology is exclusionary. I have found that exclusionary ideology is taught at a young age. Built space exemplifies power. But it doesn’t have to, as Dinulovic reminds. When “function of” architecture becomes inclusion, then built space is also a pathway for a transformation. Yet this requires architects to have both lived (secondary is fine) and academic experience of disability. Power in Built Space: Disability Studies Scholars Disability Studies scholars like Paul Hunt have identified disability as a result of our ideology, for example the social model that he created with others states that disabling structures segregate the person from participating fully in society and if those structures are changed, people with disabilities can participate more fully. Therefore, the ideology of institutional ableism represented through built space is a disabling factor. Other scholars focus on that having a condition of some sort is not an ending but a beginning of a new way of living, not a loss but a different way of living (Michalko, 2017). Other scholars remind us that built structures tell us what's appropriate and what’s not appropriate in terms of how to hold our body (Crowe, 2017). Or that in building and in the process of design, we make an assumption about what is to be valued and noticed, and what is to be marginalized and forgotten (Boys, 2017). Classroom This ideology is learned in the classroom through division into separate classrooms and many times separate school that have no joint activities, as well as different recess times, is reflective of sequestration into institutions. The children learn and socialize in divided spaces. “An understanding of how disabled people have become marginalized and excluded within society cannot be understood without an appreciation of the sociospatial processes that reproduce social relations (Kitchen, 1998).” Children of different abilities learn and socialize in a separate space divided from other children. Scholars have found that a development and emotional intelligence gained by doing things together, abled children develop understanding of diversity, unique abilities, empathy,  disabled children develop to a greater degree ( as would any child) when they can socialize with peers. Interview The expert interview demonstrates the importance of creating more opportunities that build a lived or educational experience of disability so that architects are not attempting to design something that they only have formal knowledge of, if any at all. Existing Data Burke is advocating for playgrounds that use Universal Design, she argues that the division that occurs when children have to use different equipment depending on their ability is the cause of a negative emotion linked to disability. Burke’s research can be applied to the ideal, typical elementary school classroom by understanding that playing together is more important to children than differences of capabilities. Accessible technology or structures must be coupled with education about the history of disability advocacy. Steps toward inclusion could include playing games that are accessible to everyone during recess, after/before school, or for physical education. Correspondingly, that not being able to play together can create a negative connotation with (dis)abilities (Burke, 2006). Deleuzoguattarian assemblage analysis takes into account each component of the whole system and does not assign full responsibility to one part but instead looks to improve the relationship between the parts these include discursive conversation of the issue, biological, discursive, technological, and economic. Built structures send spatial messages about who is in and out of place. When we keep children with (dis)abilities separated it teaches “abled” children that their world functions without people with (dis)abilities. These are covert conditionings that stall the movement toward accessibility. In this movement, architecture becomes an incredibly powerful tool as both a way to examine the dominant ideology, and also, as an opportunity to shape an ideological shift. When teaching methods and use of space are updated, the classroom becomes a space for transformation. Due to the beautiful and intricate relationship of architecture and ideology, the elementary school classroom can change the future. Now in my Master's degree in my program at Columbia University, we’re taught to practice conflict mapping using systems theory. When we place Institutional Ableism at the center of the map, accessibility movements and all the past advocacy inhibit it, while ignorance due to lack of education and experience enable this intractable conflict.