Post updated: Below is the recording of the talk, Whose Standpoint Matters: Imagining Disability Justice. from May 13th 2024. I met with the ERC project ACCESSTECH at TU Wien, and afterwards give this talk on using standpoint theory to imagine and pursue disability justice.
Accessibility:
The recording has closed captions in English and sign language interpretation in Austrian sign language (OeGS). The interpreter is clearly visible for most of the video; unfortunately her screen is minimized towards the end. Powerpoint slides are visible. Everything on the slides is spoken in the talk. References and full transcript are at the bottom of this post.
Citation:
Flynn, Ruadhán James. “Whose Standpoint Matters? Imagining Disability Justice”. YouTube, uploaded by Ruadhán J. Flynn, 17 May 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXSyeWO8Xic .
Abstract:
Disability Justice is an “intersectional, multisystemic” way of thinking about disability and accessibility (Lazard, 2019). In this talk, I will give a brief outline of standpoint theory, and use it to argue that disability justice can only be imagined and achieved when disabled people’s individual and collective knowledge dominates in accessibility design and implementation.
References:
Crasnow, Sharon. “Feminist Standpoint Theory”. In Philosophy of Social Science: A New Introduction. 2014.
Toole, Brianna. “From Standpoint Epistemology to Epistemic Oppression”. Hypatia, Vol. 34, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12496
Lazard, Carolyn. Accessibility in the Arts: A Promise and A Practice. 2019. https://promiseandpractice.art/
Moore, Leroy F. (Jr.). Krip-Hop Nation YouTube Channel ( https://www.youtube.com/@krip-hopnation925/videos ) and Krip-Hop Institute website ( https://kriphopinstitute.com/ )
Piepzna-Samarasinha, Leah Lakshmi. “Disability Justice: An Audit Tool”. 2020. https://www.northwesthealth.org/djaudittool
Piepzna-Samarasinha, Leah Lakshmi. The Future Is Disabled: Prophesies, Love Notes, and Mourning Songs. 2022.
Sins Invalid. “What is Disability Justice?” https://www.sinsinvalid.org/news-1/2020/6/16/what-is-disability-justice
Shew, Ashley. “From a Figment of Your Imagination: Disabled Marginal Cases and Underthought Experiments”. Human Affairs, Vol.30. 2020. DOI: 10.1515/humaff-2020-0054
Shew, Ashley. Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement. 2024.
TRANSCRIPT:
Okay so I’m Ruadhán, I’m the PHD candidate on a research project called “The Limits of Imagination” which is based at the University of Innsbruck, but I’m a PhD candidate at University of Vienna, and I’m a research fellow at the Messerli Research Institute here in Vienna as well. So I think what I’m going to talk to you about today is stuff that most of you will sort of be familiar with. I don’t think I have to sell anything to this audience in terms of Disability Justice or accessibility but there might be resources in this that you would find useful for your own, for your own work – could I ask if we could close that door or is that too much yet? Obviously if anyone needs to move around or anything while I’m talking feel free. I’ll probably talk for about 20 minutes, I’m very interested to hear your feedback on it so that’s what I get out of doing this.
So the session plan is an overview first of all, which is – I’m going to introduce two theories. One is Standpoint Theory and the second is Disability Justice, which is more of a movement than a theory, and I’m going to put these two together to basically argue that the the knowledge and experience of disabled people is in some way special and should should be privileged in the design of disability technologies. And when I say disability technologies I’m including the things we might think of as material technologies but I’m also including social and behavioral technologies, how we organize spaces, how we engage with one another, how we organize um societies. So those are all included within the kind of umbrella of of disability technologies. The two I will talk about in terms of at the end – which is bringing together ideas of imagination with Standpoint Theory and Disability Justice – I’ll look at designing individual accessible technologies and I’ll look at accessibility in general as a principle, in terms of how we imagine that. Yeah that’s kind of really it.
So a very brief introduction to Standpoint Theory. Standpoint Theory has either a 50 or 100 year intellectual history depending how you want to count. This quote from Brianna Toole I think is helpful. She says “of primary concern… is the relationship between one’s position of marginalization or dominance in a social system and what one can know or fail to know given that social positioning”. So there’s there’s quite a few things in that. One is that we’re assuming that we have social systems that involve positions of dominance and marginalization. The original Standpoint Theory came from Marxism so the assumption was that we have a ruling class in capitalism and we have a working class in capitalism. One group is in a dominant position, the other is in a marginalized or repressed position. The more recent formulations have been around Feminist Standpoint Theory which assumes that we live in a patriarchal society, largely, where men have a dominant position and women have a subordinate position. So those are the sorts of dominant-subordinate social systems we’re talking about. And the the kind of the knowledge claim is that this non-epistemic fact – as in, where you are situated in society doesn’t seem to be immediately about knowledge, that’s what it means by non-epistemic fact – has epistemic consequences. So your position in society to a large extent decides what you are able to know or not know about that society. So these aren’t knowledge claims about whether we agree on like the planet Venus or how tall a mountain is. They’re knowledge claims about the system in which you’re situated. So the argument is that the working class in capitalism have a special view of capitalism, of working relations, because they’re disadvantaged within it. So that’s the kind of strong epistemic claim in in Standpoint Theory.
There’s there’s three core claims. The first is “situated knowledge” which I’ve already sort of touched on, which is when we talk about situatedness it’s where you’re positioned within a social system. But it’s important like straight off to point out that none of us live within a single social system, so your social situatedness is not something that’s fixed and isolated. This is something that’s especially obvious to disabled people. The majority of disabled people acquire disabilities in the course of their lifetime, um at which point your social position shifts dramatically within a a system, a social system, organized according to ableism. Trans people know this, you know you move from being one gender in society to being another gender in society, you change social position in a fairly dramatic way and that has effects on how you can understand uh that particular social system. So situatedness is very important um in terms of the epistemic claim but it’s really important to understand it as something that isn’t essentialized or fixed. There isn’t one kind of woman, there isn’t one kind of disabled person, there isn’t one kind of anything. So the situatedness claim needs to be held in tension with all of those different systems. The second claim is the “thesis of epistemic privilege”, it’s sometimes called the “inversion thesis”. I’ve already kind of pointed out that the the strong claim in Standpoint Theory is that when you’re in a position of marginalization within a system, you have access to a sort of privileged or special kind to knowledge about that system, because of your your situation, and like this, there’s you know endless amounts of uh discussion on why that should be the case. I mean a lot of it comes down to motivation, you know capitalism looks great if you’re in the ruling class, um if you’re in the exploited classes you see it from a very different perspective and you’re motivated to see it from a different perspective because you need to understand it as part of your survival and your liberation. It’s called the inversion thesis because when we talk about marginalized groups we’re talking about people who are typically seen to have less claim to epistemic authority. So women in patriarchy are taken less seriously, their knowledge is diminished, historically you know not allowed to vote, not allowed to be educated. Disabled people are frequently seen as not being authorities on their own lives and experience and certainly not being authorities on how uh the world should treat them. So the it’s called an inversion thesis because it flips that social assumption. Rather than being assumed to have less epistemic authority because of your marginal position, you’re assumed to have more epistemic authority. That’s that’s the inversion part of it. And this bit’s really important – and this is like, that’s pretty much your history of Standpoint Theory. I’m going to spend the next couple of slides on on this thesis.
So the “attainment thesis” or the “achievement thesis” is what gets us from this being something about your personal perspective to being something we might call a standpoint. So this privileged epistemic position is not given. It’s not something you have purely by virtue of your social position. It has to be attained, it has to be earned. And it’s assumed that this attainment or achievement of a standpoint comes about through collective political consciousness raising. So women do not by virtue of being women have a feminist standpoint. You attain a feminist standpoint when, in conversation with other people who have the experience of being women, you come to recognize your political and social marginalization that is in virtue of your gender. So you’re not born with a standpoint um and some people never acquire a standpoint. So the achievement or attainment thesis is what makes makes this a collective political claim rather than a claim about individual people’s knowledge. Individual people’s knowledge is very important to developing standpoints but it’s important to understand the difference between the two. So, like, the standpoint in in common speech is generally conflated with terms like perspective or view or opinion. That’s not what we mean in Standpoint Theory when we say standpoint, that you have a standpoint. “A standpoint is not merely a perspective held by an individual from a particular social group it is a critical perspective on a particular social system developed collectively by those oppressed by that system”. So it’s important to understand this difference between personal perspective or opinion um or your personal knowledge from your position or your situation, to the attainment of collective political consciousness with people who share that social position. This is going to be important as I go on, talking about Disability Justice, so that’s why I’m sort of emphasizing it here. So it is a standpoint and this is Sharon Crasnow now it’s a standpoint “not because it reflects every detail of what members of the group actually believe but because it presents issues of concern to them” – that term I will return to repeatedly – “in ways that allow their objective interests to be
revealed”. So there is this tension between the individual experiences and knowledge of people in any social group, um and the attainment of a political consciousness on the form of oppression they live within, that has some sort of political and epistemic power. And it’s also, like, it’s really important again, just as individual situatedness is not essentialized, internal disagreement within social groups is actually really important to the attainment of collective standpoints. I think there’s a a misunderstanding sometimes that for example internal disagreement among feminists somehow weakens the idea of a feminist standpoint. Whereas it’s it’s quite the opposite. The claim of objective, uh – the claim that we get to knowledge of objective interests of a group is strongest when there is more internal disagreement, because the more perspectives we have contributing to a single standpoint the more likely it is that we’re going to understand this social system that we’re in all the better. If feminism is only understood through middle class white women’s experience, we have a very very thin weak understanding of patriarchy. It’s only with the contributions of multiple types of women, multiply situated women, that we end up with a feminist standpoint that can actually tell us something good about patriarchy and women’s place within it. I’m repeatedly using feminism and patriarchy as an example because most of the theory comes from that, and also in most, in most environments it’s harder to make a case for ableism and disabled people as an equivalent social situation to women and patriarchy. So I’m I’m explicitly like encouraging that comparison. So who has a standpoint? – How we doing, we’re alright –
So like I just said there’s this idea that a standpoint has to be collectively attained. So obviously a question is, well at what point has a has a standpoint been attained, or when do we say that somebody has a standpoint or some group has a standpoint? So like there isn’t a hard line obviously but these are I think a couple, three kind of ways that we can gauge that a standpoint has been attained, or that there is some sort of group standpoint we should pay attention to. So the first is that the group understands itself as being in an oppressed position relative to a dominant group within some articulated social system. So um, oh, I’ve immediately forgotten her name – I’ve forgotten the name of the theorist, but a good explanation of this is uh, the quote is “thinking of difference as mere diversity is is a profound misunderstanding of social relations” [Sandra Harding]. So it’s not just that we have different groups. What’s really important in the claim is that we have a relative positioning between oppressed and marginalized groups. So a group has to understand itself as being in a marginalized position relative to some position of dominance for it to count as a standpoint. The second is that it has come to this political consciousness through a collective process of drawing out, naming, and understanding the experiences of people belonging to that group. So that that ties together the individual experiences and perspectives of people within the group with the attempt to come to a collective understanding that we do not just have these experiences of marginalization individually by accident, that we have these experiences because we are within a social system that marginalizes and oppresses us for some specific reason. So the group, that’s the group consciousness that you kind of have to get to. And the third is that the group claims to have knowledge of the relevant social system which has been obscured by, or is unrecognized by, the dominant group. So that’s the epistemic claim. In terms of the three theses then so you have uh essentially the situatedness, the epistemic privilege, and the attainment in that, in that description. So the the knowledge claim and the claim towards political power for the group is that we understand this social system system in a way that you cannot because you are not situated the way that we are. Hopefully that’s reasonably clear.
So the question is whether or not there is a disability standpoint or a disabled standpoint. This isn’t something that’s really well fleshed out in the literature, there are disability theorists who have used Standpoint Theory to talk about disability, Rosemarie Garland-Thompson is a very obvious example, um my second supervisor Rob Wilson. But in terms of articulating what a disabled standpoint or a disability standpoint is, I feel like there’s not a lot of um fleshing out done in terms of the actual theory. So if we think about feminist, the feminist standpoint as moving the understanding of women in society from one of subordinance to a claim of equality, um my, I would argue that the disability standpoint is moving social conceptions of disability from an attitude of charity to an attitude of justice. I think if you look historically um at disability rights and civil rights and disability justice movements for the last 50, 60 years, this is the overarching political claim. That we do not want charity, we are asking for justice. And that requires a profound shift in how disability is thought of and treated in society. So the the kind of, I would say the kind of standard discourse around disability historically is that disability is a tragedy, it should evoke pity, and that should motivate you to be charitable. So it should be… it’s a tragedy, so you should pity us, so you should give us charity. Whereas I think the disability standpoint that has been articulated broadly over the last 50 years is that disability as a social structure is an injustice based on historically discriminatory practices. Therefore what we ask for is not pity but solidarity, and what we want you to be motivated to do is to look for justice or reform rather than thinking of this as a situation of charity. So that’s very broadly what I think the overarching shift is in terms of a disability standpoint. So the idea is that the standpoint presents actual issues of concern – I said I’d come back to this – to members of a group, not what other people think should be issues of concern to that group. And there’s abundant like decades of research at this point on what the feminist standpoint has shown, about what things that are relevant to women’s lives and society, versus what had been previously assumed to be relevant to women’s lives in society. In areas from, uh you know, street lighting to incarceration to childcare, you know it it… once you have this political claim you can apply it in pretty much any uh level of society. So that’s the kind of basics of Standpoint Theory, um that’s about 100 years in, what, five slides. So um we’ll try and do the next bit a little bit quicker.
So most of you I think are familiar with some sort of discourse around disability, socially in activism or in academia. Disability Studies was sort of the original sort of branch of academia, then we sort of developed multiple offshoots to this. I am roughly positioned in sort of critical disability studies, critical disability theory, um but there’s there’s a number of different ways obviously that you can approach talking about disability. I’m going to use uh Disability Justice as the as the framework to tie these two things together. I don’t know how much of um how much experience people have with Disability Justice or how aware people are, so I’ll do like a brief overview first as well. The – before I even get to that – the most important thing is that Disability Justice as a movement and as a framework uh comes from and was developed by Black and Indigenous queer and trans disabled people, and it centers those experiences. So any attempt to do Disability Justice work that tries to strip away the central contributions of of that beginning of the movement is really not Disability Justice work. So this is a a Black-led, explicitly anti-capitalist approach to disability. Leroy Moore, one of the original founders, has been rightly very critical about a kind of white co-optation of Disability Justice, where everyone wants to stick Justice on the end of conversations because it sounds like we’re doing something interesting, but we strip away the really structural elements of the theory. So I want to be very clear from the start that I I do not want to participate in that stripping away um and that anyone who is interested in Disability Justice needs to remember that that’s what should be central to the work, um it’s not a peripheral extra when we talk about the the theory. So anyway, under Disability Justice the – these first three quotes are from Lazard, I sent Katta the references, I can send them again afterwards – um from a document called “Accessibility: a Practice and a Promise” which is aimed at accessibility in the arts but is really uh very broadly applicable, so she says under Disability Justice “disability is an economic, cultural and/or social exclusion based on a physical, psychological, sensory or cognitive difference”. That I think most of you will recognize that as being very broadly in line with sort of social theories of disability, critical disability theory, you know – it.. there’s no attempt to deny that there is bodily, sensory or cognitive difference, but the point is how we ascribe meaning to difference. And the argument being that in the case of disability the exclusion is based on the negative meaning applied to these differences. “Disability is unevenly distributed”. So this is one of.. this is probably one of the core core points of Disability Justice. Disability is not something we can discuss as being uh the same in all societies or in all cultures or in all cities or all neighborhoods. It “primarily affects Black and Indigenous communities, queer and trans communities and low income communities and Disability Justice therefore centers the leadership of those communities”. Now there’s no explicit reference in these documents to Standpoint Theory but centering the leadership of specific parts of the community hopefully you can see the obvious sort of application in terms of how we would think about a disabled standpoint. So I mean, “unevenly distributed”, again there’s just like any amount of social scientific research on this, um, while the disability rights movement has traditionally been dominated by white Euro-American perspectives, with a focus on legislation, uh, law, rights, um accessibility in professional and educational environments, the vast majority of disabled people in the world are not part of that social category. Since October alone probably 130 to 140,000 people have been disabled in Gaza, um multiple amputations in most cases. People are disproportionately disabled through things like domestic labor, the meat market, uh, industrial farming, the vast majority of people in the prison system are disabled. And the vast majority of domestic workers, labor workers, and people in the prison system are Black, indigenous and people of color, so when we talk about Disability Justice, uh those considerations have to be fundamental. Just as I said if we had a feminist standpoint that only represented the perspectives of middle class white women, we would have a very shitty feminist standpoint, if we have a disability standpoint that is centered on the minority of disabled people, that is white Euro-American disabled people with access to education and employment, we have a really shitty disability standpoint that can’t really tell us very much about how disability and ableism function in the wider world. So, final quote from Lazard, “Disability is structurally reinforced by ableism, a system rooted in the supremacy of non-disabled people and the enfranchisement of disabled people through the denial of access”. So when we talk about access, it’s important to see that under Disability Justice denial of access is not accidental, it is part of the continued disenfranchisement of disabled people. It maintains a structural system whereby certain people are kept out of positions of power. And the last quote is from Piepzna-Samarasinha in “The Future Is..” – actually no, sorry, that’s from “The Disability Justice Audit Tool”. She says “disability just” – they say “Disability Justice is a movement building framework, ie. a way of envisaging the ways people can organize around and think about disability”. I think that’s like a really good clear description of of what we’re aiming for with Disability Justice work.
Okay so you saw there that Piepzna-Samarasinha specifically talked about envisioning and it’s funny how often in the Disability Justice literature we talk about things like imagination, radical imagination, futurism, science fiction. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it comes up in in this kind of body of literature all that much because it comes from communities who have been frequently, and continue to be assumed to be not present in the future. Communities who were multiply the targets of eugenic practices. So, kind of – this radical futurism like black futurism and crip futurism is a really important uh methodological tool in reexamining the kind of practices we have in the present. So like I said at the start, my my research group is concerned with the limits of imagination as well, so I have a particular interest in this, but just for the next few minutes I’m just going to tie these sort of considerations of standpoint and Disability Justice together with these two examples. One is the design of individual assistive technologies, which I know some of you are interested in. And the second is collective approaches to accessibility, which I think we’re all interested in. So if we look at the invid.. sort of individual assistive technology design, here are some of the problems [laughing]. So assistive tech – sorry, assistive tech often comes from, and therefore reflects, the imaginations of non-disabled usually white male middle or upper class designers. Imaginations which are socially rooted in ableism. So the social situatedness of those designers has a profound effect on the kinds of questions they ask and the ways that their imaginations are able to engage with their topic. Tech is often therefore aimed at the normalization of abnormal bodies. We can maybe discuss this afterwards but I I mean I think we can all think of millions of examples of behavioral, social and material technologies whose aim is to make disabled people as normal as possible. And questions addressed from that standpoint would be: how can these bodies be made to behave like normal bodies?
( uh my.. sorry my computer just..crashed.. just had a, sorry, crash and restart – I’ll try to keep going. So, yes, so the questions from those perspectives – how can these bodies be made to behave like normal bodies, or how can we give disabled people freedom from their tragic abnormalities?… um sorry, I’m just going to have to take a second to get this back online because otherwise we’re going to lose the whole… apologies to people online as well. I don’t understand why the PowerPoint is still sharing because my computer crashed… [other voice]: Do you have.. um did you change a lot from what you sent me? [Ruadhán] No. [other voice] Should I just share? [Ruadhán] Please, because I’ll have to get back into Zoom as well…
[other voice] it’s a PDF, I’ll just share it as that… [Ruadhán] oh right okay, well you can just scroll through for me… so we’re on page 10, 11..
[other voice] 12 actually. [Ruadhán] Really? maybe I did change something. [other voice] oh no it’s going to be exciting. Somebody’s suggesting an incantation [laughter]
[Ruadhán] Great…okay yeah great, so this is where I was about to move on to, that’s that’s that’s good, so – oh wait actually, could you go back one page? I think we missed one – yeah okay so what if uh so. )
What if assistive technologies were designed from a disabled standpoint? Or what we have discussed as a disabled standpoint. So I… perhaps should have clarified, I was presenting Disability Justice as what I think should qualify as a coherent uh suitably inclusive disability standpoint. So if assistive technologies were designed from that standpoint, what kind of questions and priorities would there be? I mean the first question for most disabled people is, what does it cost? Which is rarely the first question for any designer. Is it available on health insurance? Vast majority of disabled people are low income. Being able to afford a, you know, prosthetic leg that costs 18,000 and has to be updated every two years is not something that the majority of disabled people can engage with. But in terms of the Disability Justice framework, what does it cost also has to be thought of in far broader terms. So like 6 million people in the Congo have been killed in the last 20 years uh because we need all that cobalt for our technologies, um that needs to be part of a Disability Justice discussion of assistive technologies. And it fits very well with what the other considerations are, that we don’t want to have to update every six months, we don’t want to have to replace everything. We want to be able to share technologies, um so that’s the second point – is it modifiable? is it updatable? is it hackable? can I sell it on Willhaben? can I pass it on to somebody else? And the third one is, is it necessary? Like, the amount of times this should be the first freaking question in a design lab is just.. like, you know… Would a change to the environment be more effective? You know, tech bros would rather see one person walk up a stairs in a billion dollar exoskeleton than provide a billion dollars to put ramps in every building in their district. That’s what the disability standpoint should rearrange in terms of imaginations and individual technologies.
So in terms of the like individual assistive technologies, the problem is that non-disabled designers struggle to imagine the actual issues of concern to disabled people and disabled communities. They imagine what they think will be issues of concern to disabled people and disabled communities. And without the deep, complex, rich and creative knowledge of disabled people, even well-intentioned designers – and some designers do want to know more about this – they will still produce irrelevant, elitist and ironically unaccessible assistive technologies destined for rapid obsolescence. So a disability standpoint reconfigures design imagination. It focuses it on communities rather than individual bodies, and on justice rather than charity.
So I don’t want to go on too long so let’s talk about – next page please Katta – so collective approaches to accessibility. So an ableist standpoint approach to accessibility — next one? yeah — um so I’m talking about accessibility as a social technology. And the way that accessibility is approached is generally like this: access is framed as special needs. Like being able to get into buildings, use bathrooms and get an education was something special. Those requiring access are abnormal because they cannot operate smoothly in the environment. So this completely ignores the fact that our environments were built on the assumption that disabled people had no business being there. That historically the idea was that anyone who was physically or cognitively deemed abnormal should be institutionalized, removed from the community or prevented from coming into existence, so our institutions aren’t like the way they are by accident, but the assumption is that if you need some sort of special accommodation it’s on you. So this means that providing access is optional. It’s it’s always an extra, it’s always an add-on, it’s always if we have the budget, if somebody thought of it ahead of time. Access is piecemeal and partial, so you will have wheelchair access only, if you have it, you’ll have sign language now then. But it’s thought of in these atomized, individualistic little add-ons. And access fundamentally, including all of the things I just mentioned, is an issue of charity. It’s a way of doing something nice for individual people with static isolated personal incapacities. I think that, unfortunately, after years of engaging with accessibility offices, is really the overarching assumption when we’re doing work, especially at an institutional level, around access.
Next page please Katta… so, a disability standpoint might might approach access in a very different way. So we might say that environments have been built on the assumed exclusion of subnormal people, like I just said, so if we assume that, if we acknowledge that historical fact, then providing access is an ethical obligation and access is fundamentally an issue of social justice. As well as that, disabilities overlap, so access has to be comprehensive and modifiable. We have to stop thinking about disabilities as individual features of individual bodies. The majority of disabled people have multiple uh access needs, not just one simple one, and they change over the course of a lifetime. Some of us go in and out of being disabled, some people acquire a disability later in life. So the the the needs and the access has to be modified in accordance. And finally as as I’ve emphasized with the Disability Justice framework, disabilities concentrate in disenfranchised communities so access resources should be concentrated there. Access resources on a Disability Justice framework should not be concentrated uh on people who already have the greatest access to power, it should be put where there is the most amount of disability and the least amount of resources.
Okay so last slide please Katta… so to finish with, and just to motivate us for the discussion because this has gone on longer than I intended. In terms of imagining Disability Justice, how we imagine general accessibility depends largely on our own situatedness. So I’m I’m finishing with questions rather than uh suggested answers. If I ask you to imagine a disabled person what do you see? Now in this room, with this group, I appreciate that’s not as much of a contentious question as it is in most environments. In most environments, people imagine a white person in a wheelchair. That’s the first thing that people think of. That’s not representative of the vast majority of disabled people. Do you think of accessibility as providing special accommodations to individual people because of something they can’t do? Again, wrong crowd for that question, but I think it’s a relevant question in terms of broader attitudes to accessibility. And even though those two first questions I think are like things that everyone here has thought about, I’m not sure how much contact people have had with Disability Justice, so I would be interested to hear what you think a Disability Justice approach to accessibility would prioritize. What are… like if we take a disabled standpoint to include the actual number of disabled people in the world, what are the actual issues of concern for that standpoint. I’ll leave it at that, let’s see what we can get out of the rest of the hour. Thank you.
