Home > Journal > Issue Ten > Architects disable: A challenge to transform

Architects disable: A challenge to transform - Rob Kitchin
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6

Egalitarian theory argues for equality in terms of distribution of wealth and power across all members of a society regardless of ability and inheritance. Egalitarians would see the lack of disabled access as an affront to their principles of equality across all people regardless of impairment and demand that the building or space be modified.

Utilitarianism seeks the greater good for the greatest number. Utilitarians would treat the lack of disabled access as a public problem that ought to be resolved for the greater good as it imposes long term access problems for occupants and other costs to society (e.g. welfare payments).

Libertarianism prioritises the value of the individual over the state and society and suggests that the free-market is inherently just. It is essentially modelled on the notion of 'survival of the fittest'. Libertarians would put the rights of apartment builders at a premium and what happens between the parties involved is a private matter. If the developer wants to build an inaccessible building that is their prerogative. If a disabled person cannot access that building tough - that is the 'natural law' of the market.

Contractarianism seeks to find a distributional arrangement of resources that all involved consider just (not necessarily equal). Contractarians would look at the lack of access from all sides, arguing that if the non-disabled people are not willing to live in such differentiated conditions then disabled people should not have to either and all buildings should be made accessible.

While these descriptions are caricatures, it should hopefully be clear that each of these visions of social justice views disabled access to buildings and public space differently. With the exception of libertarianism - which in its pure form would reject all forms of social or moral aid including charity and welfare (it is the logic of the far right) - they all suggest that there are strong moral reasons to make universal design a core component in the rationale and lexicon of architectural practice. At the very least, I think there are good reasons as to why architects should engage with theories of social justice, if only to be able to justify the dominant ethos of practice of architecture rather than taking it as read.