Odağı Engelliliğe Değil Yapabilirliğe Yöneltmek

Öz

Bu makale, engelli bireylerin sosyal içerme ve dışlama dinamiklerini incelerken, aynı zamanda normallik, öznellik ve eşitliğin değişen anlamlarını yapabilirlik ve erişilebilirlik kavramlarına odaklanarak sorgulamaktadır. Çalışma bir yandan mutlu bir yaşama erişmeye çalışan engelli bireylerin beklentilerine ve karşılaştıkları zorluklara ışık tutarken, diğer yandan da engelli bireyleri kucaklayan daha eşitlikçi bir toplumun koşullarını irdelemektedir. Dünya genelinde, yaklaşık bir milyardan fazla insanın bir engellilik deneyimi yaşadığı tahmin edilmektedir. Bu anlamda engelli bir çok birey sosyal, fiziksel ve ekonomik alanlara erişimlerinde birçok engel, dışlanma ve damgalanma ile karşı karşıya kalmaktadırlar. Engellilik bir insan hakları meselesidir çünkü engelli bireyler temel haklarını kullanırken ihlallerle karşılaşmaktadırlar. Çalışma, çağdaş engellilik paradigmasına uygun olarak, engelliliğin bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla ele alınması gereken ilişkisel bir mesele olduğunu, çünkü engelliliğin yalnızca fiziksel bir mesele değil, aynı zamanda insanların etkileşimlerinin yanı sıra toplumsal ve kurumsal algılar nedeniyle deneyimledikleri sosyokültürel bir olgudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disability
• accessibility
• normality
• stigma
• equality

SHIFTING THE FOCUS TO ABILITY, NOT DISABILITY

Öz

This study examines the dynamics of social inclusion and exclusion of people with disabilities while also interrogating the changing meanings of normality, subjectivity, and equality with a focus on the concepts of capability and accessibility. The study, sheds light on the expectations of and challenges faced by disabled people trying to achieve a content life while examining the conditions for a more egalitarian society that embraces disabled people. According to current estimates, there are more than a billion disabled people around the globe. In this sense, many people with disability face multiple barriers, exclusion and stigmatization while accessing social, physical and economic fields throughout their lives. Disability is a human rights concern because people with disabilities experience violations while exercising their fundamental rights. This qualitative study was conducted in Izmir, in 2015 through in-depth interviews with 12 participants with orthopedic disabilities. The study, in line with the contemporary paradigm of disability, reveals that disability is a relational issue that requires a holistic approach as it is not only a physical issue but also a sociocultural phenomenon that people experience due to their interactions as well as social and institutional perceptions of disability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disability
• accessibility
• normality
• stigma
• equality

Kaynakça

1. ALTINDAL, Y. (2020). Yeryüzündeki “Çirkin Ördek Yavru” larının Hapşırık/Öksürük ile İmtihanı: Sosyolojik Bir Açımlama. F. Çakı (Ed.) in, Maskeli, Mesafeli ve Kırılgan: Modernitenin Pandemik Halleri, (pp.131-160). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
2. ALTUNTAŞ DUMAN, N. & DOĞANAY, G. (2017). Toplumsal Dışlanma Pratikleri Üzerinden Trabzon’da Engelli Kadınlar. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 20 (2), 1-48.
3. BEAUDRY, J. S. (2016). Beyond (Models of) Disability?. J Med Philos., 41(2), 210-228.
4. BERNBURG, J.G. (2009). Labeling Theory. M. D. Krohn, A. Lizotte & G.P. Hall (Eds.) in, Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp.187-207). London and New York, NY: Springer.
5. BEZMEZ, D. & YARDIMCI, S. (2010). In Search of Disability Rights: Citizenship and Turkish Disability Organizations. Disability & Society, 25 (5), 603-615.
6. BICKMAN, L. & ROG, D. J. (1998). Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
7. BURCHARDT, T. (2004). Capabilities and Disability: The Capabilities Framework and The Social Model of Disability. Disability & Society, 19 (1), 735-751.
8. BURCHARDT, T. & VIZARD, P. (2014). Using The Capability Approach to Evaluate Health and Care For Individuals and Groups In England. S. Ibrahim, & M. Tiwari (Eds.) in, The Capability Approach (pp.148-170). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

9. BURCU, E. (2011). Türkiye’deki Engelli Bireylere İlişkin Kültürel Tanımlamalar: Ankara Örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (1), 35-54.
10. BURCU, E. (2015). Engellilik Sosyolojisi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
11. CAMPBELL, F.K. (2008). Legislating Disability: Negative Ontologies and the Government of Legal Identities. S. Tremain (Ed.) in, Foucault and the Government of Disability (pp.108-133). Ann Arbor: Michigan press.
12. CAMPBELL, F. K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. CROWTHER, N. (2011). From SEN to Sen: Could the ‘Capabilities’ Approach Transform the Educational Opportunities of Disabled Children?. S. Haines and D. Ruebain (Eds.) in, Education, Disability and Social Policy (pp.47-64). Policy Press.
14. ÇAKI, F. (2020). Afetler Sosyolojisi Bağlamında Pandemiye Bakış. F. Çakı (Ed.) in, Maskeli, Mesafeli ve Kırılgan: Modernitenin Pandemik Halleri (pp.23-56). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
15. DREGER, A. D. (2008). ‘Introduction’ From One of Us: Conjoined Twins and The Future of Normal. C. Malacrida & J. Low (Eds.) in, Sociology of the Body: A Reader (pp.127-133). Oxford University Press.
16. ENGELLILER.BIZ (2014). https://www.engelliler.biz/forum/ayrimcilik-haberleri-ve-yorumlar/139266-veliler-engelli-ogrenciyi-sinifta-istemedi.html [Erişim Tarihi 25 Aralık 2022].
17. ERGÜDEN, D. (2018). Sosyal Dışlanma Açısından Bedensel Engelli Bireylerin Yaşantılarının İncelenmesi (Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
18. ERYAR ÜNLÜ (2018). Toplumsal Yaşama Erişim Bir Demokrasi Sorunu, Dünya Gazetesi, 19 Ekim 2018 Cuma, https://www.dunya.com/kose-yazisi/toplumsal-yasama-erisim-bir-demokrasi-sorunu/430322 [Erişim Tarihi 25 Aralık 2022].
19. FINKELSTEIN, V. (1980). Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for Discussion (No. 5). New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
20. GENÇ, Y., & ÇAT, G. (2013). Employment of Disabled People and Social Inclusion Relationship. Journal of Academic Inquiries, 8 (1), 363-393.
21. GERSCHICK, T. J. & MILLER, A. S. (1995). Coming to Terms: Masculinity and Physical Disability. D. F. Sabo & D. F. Gordon (Eds.) in, Men's Health and Ilness: Gender, Power, and the Body (pp.183-204). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
22. GOFFMAN, E. (1963). Stigma. London: Penguin.
23. HANNA, W. J. & ROGOVSKY, B. (1991). Women with Disabilities: Two Handicaps Plus. Disability, Handicap & Society 6(1), 49-63.
24. HARPUR, P. D. (2019). Ableism at Work: Disablement and Hierarchies of Impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. HAWKING, Wikipedia. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking [Erişim Tarihi 25 Aralık 2022].
26. KITCHIN, R. (1998). 'Out of Place','Knowing One's Place': Space, Power and the Exclusion of Disabled People. Disability & society, 13(3), 343-356.
27. KOTTAK, C. P. (2010). Anthropology Appreciating Human Diversity. (14th Edition) New York: McGraw Hill
28. MERRIAM, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. MITCHELL, W.J.T. (2001). Seeing Disability. Public Culture, 13, 391-97.
29. MITRA, S. (2006). The Capability Approach and Disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16 (4), 236-247.
30. NICKERSON, C. (2021). Labeling theory. Simply psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/labeling-theory.html [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
31. OLIVER, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: Palgrave.
32. OLIVER, M. (1999). Capitalism, Disability and Ideology: A Materialist Critique of The Normalization Principle. R.J. Flynn & R. A. Lemay (Eds.) in, A Quarter-Century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and Impact, http://www.independentliving.org/docs3/oliver99.pdf.
33. PALMER, M. (2011). Disability and Poverty: A Conceptual Review. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4), 210-218.
34. PUNCH, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
35. SEN, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. SEN, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. SHAKESPEARE, T. & WATSON, N. (2002). The Social Model of Disability: An Outdated Ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9-28.
37. SHAKESPEARE, T. (2010). The Social Model of Disability. L. J. Davis (Ed.) in, The Disability Studies Reader (pp.266-73). New York: Routledge. URL: http://thedigitalcommons.org/docs/shakespeare_social-model-of-disability.pdf
38. SIEBERS, T. (2008). Disability Theory. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. SIRI, A., LEONE, C.,
39. BENCIVENGA, R., ZAVIRSKEK, D. and BEZJAK, S. (2020). Women, Disability, and Culture. New York: Nova Science Pub Inc.
40. SMART, J. F & SMART, D. W. (2006). Models of Disability: Implications for The Counseling Profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, Winter, 84, 29-40.
41. ŞİŞMAN, Y. (2014). Engellilerler Açısından Eşitlik, Ayrımcılık ve Eğitim Hakkı. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 0(32), 57-85.
42. TURNER, B.S. (2001). Disability and the Sociology of the Body. G.L. Albrecht, K. Seelman, and M. BURY (Eds.) in, Handbook of Disability Studies (pp.252-267). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
43. TÜİK (2019). Engelli İstatistikleri. Engelli Bireylerin Eğitim Durumu, Okuryazarlık Durumu ve Cinsiyete Göre Dağılımı, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Search/Search?text=engelli&dil=1 [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
44. UNa Turkish Disabiliy Act, https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/11/Turkey_Turkish-Disability-Act-TDA-No.-5378-of-2005.pdf [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
45. UNb Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Disability, https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/about-us/frequently-asked-questions-faqs.html [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
46. UNc United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities/or Persons with Disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/standard-rules-equalization-opportunities-persons-disabilities [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
47. VAN LAAR, C. & LEVIN, S. (2006). The Experience Of Stigma: Individual, İnterpersonal, And Situational İnfluences. C. Van Laar and S. Levin (Eds.) in, Stigma and Group Inequality (pp.15-32).
48. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. WHOa (2021). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
49. WHOb (2007). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43737/9789241547321_eng.pdf [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
50. WHOc (2022). Disability, World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/ [Erişim Tarihi 15 Ocak 2022].
51. ZITZELSBERGER, H. (2008). (In)visibility: Accounts of Embodiment of Women with Physical Disabilities and Differences. C. Malacrida and J. Low (Eds.) in, Sociology of the Body: A Reader (pp.252-57). Oxford University Press.