Materialita pohybu: vztah mezi nevidomostí a městským prostorem

Hana Porkertová

Abstrakt

This article thematizes relations between visual impairment and urban space, drawing from the analytical perspective of actor-network theory (ANT). It traces the ways in which visually impaired people create specific connections with space and how they transform it. Urban space is configured for use by able-bodied persons, for whom movement within it is easy and seems to be disembodied. However, for those who defy the standardization of space, the materiality of movement is constantly present and visible, because the passages are difficult to make and are not ready in advance. These materialities, as well as the strategies that people use to make connections with urban space, differ according to the assemblages that visually impaired people create. A route is different with a cane, a human companion, a guide dog, or the use of a combination of such assistance; the visually impaired person pays attention to different clues, follows specific lines, and other information is important and available. Each configuration makes it possible or impossible to do something; this shows disability as dynamic, and demonstrates the collective nature of action, which is more visible and palpable in the case of a disabled person.

Klíčová slova

visual impairment; urban space; materiality; disability; ANT; route

Plný Text:

mobi EPUB

Reference

Zobrazit literaturu Skrýt literaturu

ADAM, Tas a Arthur TATNALL. 2010. „Use of ICT to Assist Students with Learning Difficulties: An actor-network Analysis.“ IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 324: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15378-5_1

ADAMS, Rachel. 2013. „Disability Studies Now.“ American Literary History 25(2): 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajt014

BLUME, Stuart, Vasilis GALIS, Andrés Valderrama PINEDA. 2013. „Introduction: STS and Disability.“ Science, Technology & Human Values 39(1): 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913513643

BOHAN, Danial Bin a Chan Tuck Wah JAMES. 2015. „Mobility of a Guide Dog Team in Singapore: A Case Study.“ British Journal of Visual Impairment 33(1): 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619614561691

BRADLEY, Robert, Teresa HOPKINS a J. M. BAILEY. 2000. „A Study of the Influence of Visual Impairment on the Purchase of Clothing.“ The British Journal of Visual Impairment 18: 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/026461960001800209

CAMPBELL, Fiona Kumari. 2009. Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245181

CASEY, Hilary, Brady NUALA, Suzanne GUERIN. 2013. „‚Is Seeing Perceiving?‘ Exploring Issues Concerning Access to Public Transport For People With Sight Loss.“ British Journal of Visual Impairment 31(3): 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619613495023

CERTEAU, Michel de. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

CORKER, Mairian. 1999. „Differences, Conflations and Foundations: The Limits to ‚Accurate‘ Theoretical Representation of Disabled People’s Experience?“ Disability & Society 14(5): 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925984

FOURIE, Robert James. 2007. „A Qualitative Self-study of Retinitis Pigmentosa.“ The British Journal of Visual Impairment 25(3): 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619607079794

FRYER, Louise, Jonathan FREEMAN a Linda PRING. 2013. „What Verbal Orientation Information Do Blind and Partially Sighted People Need to Find Their Way Around? A Study of Everyday Navigation Strategies in People with Impaired Vision.“ British Journal of Visual Impairment 31(2): 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619613485079

FUCHS, Thomas. 2013. „The Phenomenology of Body Memory.“ Pp. 9–22 in Sabine C. KOCH, Thomas FUCHS, Michela SUMMA a Cornelia MÜLLER (eds.). Body Memory, Metaphor and Movement. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.84.03fuc

GALIS, Vasilis. 2011. „Enacting Disability: How Can Science and Technology Studies Inform Disability Studies?“ Disability & Society. 26(7): 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.618737

GOODLEY, Dan. 2011. Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage Pub.

GOODLEY, Dan, Rebecca LAWTHOM, Katherine RUNSWICK-COLE. 2014. „Posthuman Disability Studies.“ Subjectivity 7(4): 342–361. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2014.15

GREENHOUGH, Beth. 2010. „Vitalist Geogprahies: Life and the More-Than-Human.“ Pp. 37–55 in Ben ANDERSON a Paul HARRISON (eds.). Taking-Place: Non-Representational theories and Geography. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate.

HASLAM, Nick. 2006. „Dehumanization: An Integrative Review.“ Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 10(3): 252–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

HOWE, P. David. 2011. „Cyborg and Supercrip: The Paralympics Technology and the (Dis)empowerment of Disabled Athletes.“ Sociology 45(5): 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413421

KOLÁŘOVÁ, Kateřina. 2012. „Tělesná jinakost, ne/způsobilost, ‚postižení‘, hendikep… K politice překladu a teoretickému vymezení pojmů.“ Pp. 41–63 in Kateřina KOLÁŘOVÁ (ed.). Jinakost – postižení – kritika: společenské konstrukty nezpůsobilosti a hendikepu: antologie textů z oboru disability studies. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON).

LATOUR, Bruno. 1999. „On Recalling ANT.“ The Sociological Review 47(1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03480.x

LATOUR, Bruno. 2002. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

LATOUR, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LESTEL, Dominique a Florence BRUNOIS a Florence GAUNET. 2006. „Etho-ethnology and Ethno-ethology.“ Social Science Information 45(2): 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406063633

MAGNUS, Riin. 2014. „The Role of Trust in Binding the Perspectives of Guide Dogs and Their Visually Impaired Handlers.“ Sign Systems Studies 42(2–3): 376–398. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2014.42.2-3.10

MALINS, Peta. 2004. „Machinic Assemblages: Deleuze, Guattari and an Ethico-Aesthetics of Drug Use.“ Janus Head 7(1): 84–104.

MAULDIN, Laura. 2017. „A Feminist Technoscientific Approach to Disability and Caregiving in the Family.“ Pp. 139–161 in Michael REMBIS (ed.). Disabling Domesticity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48769-8_6

MICHALKO, Rod. 1999. The Two-in-One Walking with Smokie, Walking with Blindness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

MOSER, Ingunn. 2005. „On Becoming Disabled and Articulating Alternatives.“ Cultural Studies 19(6): 667–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380500365648

MOSER, Ingunn. 2006. „Disability and the Promises of Technology: Technology, Subjectivity and Embodiment Within an Order of the Normal.“ Information, Communication and Society 9(3): 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180600751348

MOSER, Ingunn a John LAW. 1998. „Přechody snadné, přechody nesnadné.“ Biograf 15–16. Retrieved June 26, 2017 (http://www.biograf.org/clanek.php?clanek=1502).

MURDOCH, Jonathan. 1997. „Towards a Geography of Heterogeneous Associations.“ Progress in Human Geography 21(3): 321–37. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913297668007261

OLIVER, Mike. 1983. Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-86058-6

OSMAN, Robert a Lucie POSPÍŠILOVÁ. 2016. „Zkušenost bez zraku: Příležitost pro reflexi prostorového normativu.“ Gender, Rovné Příležitosti, Výzkum 17(1): 63–76. https://doi.org/10.13060/12130028.2016.17.1.256

OSMAN, Robert a Lucie POSPÍŠILOVÁ. 2017. „Po paměti/geografie nevidomých.“ in Robert OSMAN a Lucie POSPÍŠILOVÁ (eds.). Geografie Okrajem. Praha: Karolinum. V tisku.

RASMUSSEN, Claire E. 2011. The Autonomous Animal: Self–Governance and the Modern Subject. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816669561.001.0001

SCHILLMEIER, Michael. 2008. „Time-spaces of In/dependence and Dis/ability.“ Time & Society 17: 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X08093423

SHAKESPEARE, Tom. 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640098

SHILDRICK, Margrit. 2009. Dangerous Discourses of Disability, Subjectivity and Sexuality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244641

SHORES, Corry. 2012. „Body and World in Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze.“ Studia Phaenomenologica 12: 181–209. https://doi.org/10.7761/SP.12.181

SMITH, Richard. 2007. „Poststructuralism, Power and the Global City.“ Pp. 249–260 in P. J. TAYLOR (ed.). Cities in Globalization: Practices, Policies and Theories. London: Routledge.

STÖCKELOVÁ, Tereza. 2016. „Předmluva. Latourova společenskovědní laboratoř.“ Pp. 7–11 in Tereza STÖCKELOVÁ (ed.). Stopovat a skládat světy s Brunem Latourem. Výbor z textů 1998–2013. Praha: Tranzit.cz.

STRICKFADEN, Megan. DEVLIEGER, Patrick. 2012. „Reversing the (Im)material Sense of a Nonplace: The Impact of Blindness on the Brussels Metro.“ Space and Culture 15(3): 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331212445951

SYNEK, Michal. 2018. „Perfect Etiquette. On Diplomatically Arguing with Members.“ Medicine Anthropology Theory 5(1). https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.5.1.500

SYNEK, Michal a Radek CARBOCH. 2014. „Profesní slepota a režimy spěchu: Podpora soběstačnosti při jídle v institucionální péči o lidi s mentálním znevýhodněním.“ Biograf (60): 59 odst. Citováno 20. dubna, 2018 (http://www.biograf.org/clanek.html?clanek=6001).

SYNEK, Michal, Dana HRADCOVÁ, Dita JAHODOVÁ a Radek CARBOCH. 2017. „O (ne)soudržnosti pečování: Mnohočetné ontologie života s demencí.“ Biograf 65–66: 5–51.

TAYLOR, Nik. 2013. Humans, Animals, and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies. New York: Lantern Books.

TREMAIN, Shelley. 2006. „Reproductive Freedom, Self-Regulation, and the Government of Impairment in Utero.“ Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 21(1): 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006.tb00963.x

WHITMARSH, Lorraine. 2005. „The Benefits of Guide Dog Ownership.“ Visual Impairment Research 7(1): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13882350590956439

WILLIAMS, Caroline. 2005. Contemporary French Philosophy: Modernity and the Persistence of the Subject. London: Continuum.

https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2019-1-13