Peace, Disability, and the Violence of the Built Environment

IF 0.4 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Topher Endress
{"title":"Peace, Disability, and the Violence of the Built Environment","authors":"Topher Endress","doi":"10.1080/10402659.2022.2023433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“In all wars and disasters people with disabilities are treated as the bottom of the pile. They are the first to die; the first to contract disease and infection; and the last to receive resources and medicines when they are handed out... not only is disability caused by conflict, but conflict and displacement exacerbate existing barriers and challenges experienced by those already affected by disability, such as access to security, information, aid, and other basic needs.” So states Roberta L. Francis in her 2019 article, “Searching for the Voice of People with Disabilities in Peace and Conflict Research and Practice.” Peace studies as a field is intrinsically tied together with disability discourse, a fact sadly unheeded in the vast majority of peace studies literature (with acknowledgement to Peace Studies’ special issue on disabilities (vol. 31 iss. 4) also published in 2019. As Wolbring notes, “disabled people highlight one particular factor in peace and conflict that is omnipresent... conflict based on divergent ability expectations (2011).” Therefore, this article seeks to add to the emerging interplay between peace and disability studies by looking at the ethics of the built environment as a shared medium highlighting the natural connections between the fields. Breaking Francis’ statement into discrete parts, each definition can offer insight into how disability studies and peace studies might begin to coalesce. To begin, how are we to understand the group of people that Francis categorizes as “people with disabilities?” Various fields use a diverse array of definitions to mark boundaries between who is disabled and who isn’t, with broad groupings dividing into a number of divergent","PeriodicalId":51831,"journal":{"name":"Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice","volume":"34 1","pages":"82 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2022.2023433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“In all wars and disasters people with disabilities are treated as the bottom of the pile. They are the first to die; the first to contract disease and infection; and the last to receive resources and medicines when they are handed out... not only is disability caused by conflict, but conflict and displacement exacerbate existing barriers and challenges experienced by those already affected by disability, such as access to security, information, aid, and other basic needs.” So states Roberta L. Francis in her 2019 article, “Searching for the Voice of People with Disabilities in Peace and Conflict Research and Practice.” Peace studies as a field is intrinsically tied together with disability discourse, a fact sadly unheeded in the vast majority of peace studies literature (with acknowledgement to Peace Studies’ special issue on disabilities (vol. 31 iss. 4) also published in 2019. As Wolbring notes, “disabled people highlight one particular factor in peace and conflict that is omnipresent... conflict based on divergent ability expectations (2011).” Therefore, this article seeks to add to the emerging interplay between peace and disability studies by looking at the ethics of the built environment as a shared medium highlighting the natural connections between the fields. Breaking Francis’ statement into discrete parts, each definition can offer insight into how disability studies and peace studies might begin to coalesce. To begin, how are we to understand the group of people that Francis categorizes as “people with disabilities?” Various fields use a diverse array of definitions to mark boundaries between who is disabled and who isn’t, with broad groupings dividing into a number of divergent
和平、残疾和建筑环境的暴力
“在所有战争和灾难中,残疾人都被视为最底层。他们是第一个死亡的人;第一个感染疾病和感染的人;最后一个在分发资源和药品时获得资源和药品的人……残疾不仅是由冲突造成的,而且冲突和流离失所加剧了那些已经受到冲突影响的人所面临的现有障碍和挑战残疾,例如获得安全、信息、援助和其他基本需求。”Roberta L.Francis在她2019年的文章《在和平与冲突研究与实践中寻找残疾人的声音》中如是说。和平研究作为一个领域,与残疾话语有着内在的联系,令人遗憾的是,这一事实在绝大多数和平研究文献中都被忽视了(《和平研究》关于残疾的特刊(第31卷,第4页)也于2019年出版。正如Wolbring所指出的,“残疾人强调了和平与冲突中无处不在的一个特殊因素……基于不同能力期望的冲突(2011年)。”因此,这篇文章试图通过将建筑环境的伦理作为一种共享媒介来强调这两个领域之间的自然联系,从而增加和平与残疾研究之间正在出现的相互作用。将弗朗西斯的陈述分解为不同的部分,每一个定义都可以深入了解残疾研究和和平研究如何开始融合。首先,我们如何理解弗朗西斯将其归类为“残疾人”的群体?各个领域使用不同的定义来标记谁是残疾人和谁不是残疾人之间的界限,广泛的分组分为许多不同的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice
Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信