Nem “deficiente”, nem “cyborg”
Para um olhar pluridisciplinar sobre o design inclusivo
Palavras-chave:
Disability studies, tecnologias de assistência, design inclusivo, design universal, prótese, co-construção (concepção centrada no paciente/usuário)Resumo
Para as pessoas com deficiência, a técnica forma um campo de inovação cheio de promessas. As tecnologias de assistência sustentam, com efeito, as funções do corpo ao longo das atividades quotidianas e do trabalho de reeducação, e contribuem a favorecer a autonomia e a participação social. As “próteses” podem ainda melhorar consideravelmente as performances, a tal ponto que os que eram chamados ontem de “deficientes” parecem agora novos cyborgs, com um design futurista. Isso é documentado pelas investigações de ciências sociais feitas em colaboração com os laboratórios de engenharia e os serviços de medicina física. Durante projetos comuns de inovação tecnológica, tanto os ums como os outros se encontram no mesmo ponto, critico, que parece um paradoxo: mesmo se a intenção é de tomar as necessidade dos usuários e a singularidade do paciente em conta, é ao final a tecnologia de engenharia pura que domina. Assim a tensão, dentro do progresso do design das tecnologias de assistência, entre o foco sobre a singularidade da pessoa com deficiência e a tendência inevitável à estandardização industrial, vira um posto de observação privilegiado da dinâmica em curso de co-construção dos saberes científicos, tecnológicos, e do “retorno da experiencia”.
Downloads
Referências
Akrich M., Latour B. (1992) A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies, in W. Bijker, J. Law Shaping Technology. Building Society Studies in Sociotecnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, pp.259-264
Alami R., Albu-Schaeffer A., Bicchi A., Bischoff R., Chatila R., et al. (2006) « Safe and depend-able physical human-robot interaction in anthropic domains: State of the art and challenges », Proc. IROS, vol. 6, no. 1
Audetat M., ed (2015) Sciences et technologies émergentes : pourquoi tant de promesses ?, Paris Hermann
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., Van Lente, H. (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology, in «Technology Analysis and Strategic Management», 18, 3-4, pp. 285-298.
Breen, J. S. (2015) The exoskeleton generation-disability redux, in «Disability and Society», 30, 10, pp. 1568-1572
Brown, N., Michael, M. (2003) A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects, in «Technology Analysis and Strategic Management», 15, 1, pp. 3-18
CERNA (Commission de réflexion sur l’éthique de la recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique d’Allistene), 2014, Ethique de la recherche en robotique, Rapport n° 1
Cerqui D., Maestrutti M. (2015) Les apprentissages du "corps augmenté" par la technologie : le cas du cyborg, in M. Durand, D. Hauw, G. Poizat, eds (2015) L’apprentissage des techniques corporelles, PUF, Paris, pp. 127-141
Clarke A. E., Mamo L., Fosket J. R., Fishman J. R., Shim J. K., eds (2010) Biomedicalization. Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U. S., Durham, London, Duke University Press
Conrad, P. (2007) The medicalization of society, on the transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Crawford C. S. (2014) Phantom Limb: Amputation, Embodiment, and Prosthetic Technology, NYU Press, New York
Delvecchio Good, M. - J., Brodwin, P. E., Good, B. J., & Kleinman, A. (1992). Pain As Human Experience: An Anthropological Perspective, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press
Finkelstein V. (1980) Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for Discussion, New York, World Rehabilitation Fund
Foucault M. (1963) Naissance de la clinique. Une archéologie du regard médical, PUF, Paris
Gardien E. (2008) L’apprentissage du corps après l’accident. Sociologie de la production du corps, Grenoble, PUG
Gourinat V., Groud P-F., Jarrassé N. (2020) Corps et prothèses, Grenoble, PUG
Gourinat, V. (2015) Le corps prothétique : un corps augmenté?, in «Revue d’éthique et de théologie morale», 4, pp. 75-88
Guffey E. (2017) Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society, London, Bloomsbury Academic
Haraway D. (1991) “A cyborg manifesto cyborg. Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century” in D, Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York, Routledge, pp.149-181
Harris J. (2010) The use, role and application of advanced technology in the lives of disables people in the UK, in «Disability and Society», 25, 4, pp. 427-439
Howe, P. D. (2011) Cyborg and supercrip: Th e Paralympics technology and the (dis)empowerment of disabled athletes, in «Sociology», 45, 5, pp. 868”“882.
Hugues B., Patterson K. (1997) The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a Sociology of Impairment, in «Disability & Society» 12, 3, pp. 325-340
Ingstad B., Whyte S., 1995, Disability and Culture, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press
Jain S. S. (1999) The Prosthetic Imagination: Enabling and Disabling the Prosthesis Trope, in «Science, Technology, & Human Values», 24, 1, pp. 31-54
Jarrasse N., Maestrutti M., Morel G., Roby-Brami A. (2015) Robotic prosthetics: beyond the technical performance. A study of socio-anthropological and cultural phenomena influencing the appropriation of technical objects interacting with the body, in «IEEE Technology and Society Magazine», pp. 69-77
Karpin, I., & Mykitiuk, R. (2008) Going out on a limb: Prosthetics, normalcy and disputing the therapy/enhancement distinction, in «Medical Law Review», 16, 3, pp. 413”“443.
Karpin, I., & Mykitiuk, R. (2008) Going out on a limb: Prosthetics, normalcy and disputing the therapy/enhancement distinction, in «Medical Law Review», 16, 3, pp. 413”“443.
Kurzman S. (2002) “There’s no language for this”. Communication and alignment in contemporary prosthetics, in K. Ott, D. Serlin, S. Mihm (2002), pp. 227-246
Law J. (1999) Political philosophy and disabled specificities, Lancaster, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/law-political-philosophy-and-disabilities.pdf
Law J. (2006) Networks, relations, cyborgs: On the social study of technology, in S. Read, C. Pinilla, eds Visualizing the Invisible: Towards an Urban Space, Amsterdam, Techne Press, pp. 84”“97
Long L. A. (2004) Rehabilitating Bodies. Health, History, and the American Civil War, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Maestrutti M (2011) Techno-imaginaires du corps à l’ère des technosciences. Art contemporain et utopie de la transformation, in « Cahiers de Recherche Sociologique», 50, pp. 77-95
Marcellini A (2005) Des vies en fauteuil : usages du sport dans le processus de déstigmatisation et d’intégration sociale, Paris, CTNERHI
Martin J. J. (2018) Handbook of Disability Sport and Exercise Psychology, New York, Oxford University Press
Mauss M. (2012) Les techniques du corps, in M. Mauss, Techniques, technologie et civilisation, Paris, PUF
Meyer A., Rose D. H. (2000) Universal design for individual differences, in «Educational Leadership», 58, 3, pp. 39-43
Mialet H. (2012) Hawking Incorporated. Stephen Hawking and the Anthropology of the Knowing Subject, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press
Mihm S. (2002) “A Limb Which Shall Be Presentable in Polite Society”. Prosthetic Technologies in the Nineteenth Century, in K. Ott, D. Serlin, S. Mihm (2002), pp. 282-299
Morris J. (1995) Creating a Space for Absent Voices: Disabled Women's Experience of Receiving Assistance with Daily Living Activities, in «Feminist Review», 51, 1, pp. 68-93
Moser I. (2006) Disability and the promises of technology. Technology, subjectivity and embodiment within an order of the normal, in «Information, Communication & Society», 9, 3, pp. 373-395
Murphy R. F. (2001) The Body Silent: The Different World of the Disabled, New York, Ww Norton & Co
Norton K. (2007) A brief history of prosthetics, in «Motion Magazine», 17, 7, pp. 11-13
Oliver M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement: A Sociological Approach, London, Palgrave Macmillan
Oliver, M. (1993) What’s so wonderful about walking. Inaugural professional lecture, London, University of Greenwich
Ott K., Serlin D., Mihm S. (2002) Artificial Parts, Pratical Lives. Modern Histories of Prosthetics, New York, London, NYU Press
Oudshoorn N. E. J., Pinch T. (2003) How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press
Papadimitriou C. (2008) Becoming en”wheeled: the situated accomplishment of re”embodiment as a wheelchair user after spinal cord injury, in «Disability & Society», 23, 7, pp. 691-704
Preiser W. F., Ostroff E. (2001) Universal design handbook, New York, McGraw Hill Professional
Pullin G. (2009) Design Meets Disability, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, The MIT Press
Reeve D. (2012) Cyborgs, Cripples and iCrip: Reflections on the Contribution of Haraway to Disability Studies, in D.Goodley, B. Hughes, L. Davis, eds (2012) Disability and Social Theory, London, Palgrave Macmillan,
Reeve D. (2012) Cyborgs, Cripples and iCrip: Reflections on the Contribution of Haraway to Disability Studies, in D.Goodley, B. Hughes, L. Davis, eds (2012) Disability and Social Theory, London, Palgrave Macmillan
Reid-Cunningham, A. R. (2009) Anthropological Theories of Disability, in «Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment», 19, pp. 99-111
Reznick J. S. (2008) Beyond war and military medicine: social factors in the development of prosthetics, in «Archives of Physical Medicine of Rehabilitation», 89, 1, pp. 188-93
Rose N. (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton
Roulstone A. (2016) Disability and Technology. An interdisciplinary and International Approach, London, Palgrave Macmillan
Roulstone, A. (1998) Enabling technology: Disabled people, work and new technology, Buckingham, Open University Press
Schillmeier M., Domènech M., eds (2010) New Technologies and Emerging Spaces of Care, Farnham (UK), Burlington (USA), Ashgate
Seelman K. D. (2005) Universal design and orphan technology. Do we need both?, in «Disability Studies Quarterly», 25, 3
Serlin D. (2004) Replaceable You. Engineering the Body in Postwar America, Chicago, London, University of Chicago Press,
Shakespeare T. (2014) Disability Rights and Wrongs revisited, London, Routledge
Siebers, T. (2008) Disability Theory, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press
Sobchack V. (2007) A lag to stand on. Prosthetics, metaphor, and materiality, in M. Smith, J. Morra, eds (2007) The Prosthetic Impulse: From a Posthuman Present to a Biocultural Future, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, pp. 17-41
Stiker H.-J., 2005, Corps infirmes et société. Essai d’anthropologie historique, Paris, Dunod
Story M. F., Mueller J. L., Mace R. L. (1998) The universal design file. Designing for people of all ages and abilities, Washington, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Tondo C. (2015), Il corpo performante dell’atleta, in Furlanetto C, Tondo C, Le voci del corpo, Milano-Udine, Mimesis, pp. 47-75
Tzafestas S. G., 2016, Sociorobot World: A Guided Tour for All (Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering), Springer
Van Dijck J. (2005) The Transparent Body. A Cultural Analysis of Medical Imaging, Seattle, London, University of Washington Press
Winance M. (2003) La double expérience des personnes atteintes d'une maladie neuromusculaire rétraction et extension, in «Sciences Sociales et Santé», 21, 2 pp. 5-31
Winance M. (2016) Rethinking disability: Lessons from the past, questions for the future. Contributions and limits of the social model, the sociology of science and technology, and the ethics of care, in «Alter- European Journal of Disability Research», 10, 2, pp. e1”“e13
Woods B., Watson N. (2003) A short history of powered wheelchairs, in «Assistive Technology», 15, 2, pp. 164-180
Wyatt S. (2003) Non-Users also matter: the construction of users and non -users of the internet, in Oudshoorn N. E. J., Pinch T. (2003), pp. 67-79
Zola, I. K. (1989) Toward the necessary universalizing of a disability policy, in «The Milbank Quarterly», 67, pp. 401-428
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Design, Tecnologia e Sociedade
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Declaração de Direito Autoral
Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
