The Silent Architecture of Exclusion: How Design and Norms Marginalize Disability

Imagine stepping into a room where something feels slightly off—the arrangement of chairs, the narrow pathways, or doorways that seem too tight. There is a subtle sense that the space wasn’t designed with everyone in mind.

For many individuals with disabilities, this is a daily reality. Beyond obvious obstacles like stairs or inaccessible doorways, numerous smaller, often unnoticed barriers make a place feel unwelcoming or difficult to navigate. While some people move through these environments without a second thought, others—especially those with disabilities—may find themselves struggling to fit in or feeling marginalized (Garland-Thomson, 2019). These barriers, both large and small, highlight a deeper issue in how disability is perceived and accommodated.

Disability refers to a wide range of physical, sensory, cognitive, and emotional differences that affect how individuals interact with the world around them. Often, it is viewed as something outside of the “norm”, which shapes public attitudes and reinforces marginalization—the process by which certain groups are pushed to the edges of social or physical spaces, making them less visible or included (Davis, 2017).

This marginalization extends beyond physical barriers, encompassing how disability is understood, how environments are designed, and how societal systems function (Scully, 2021). Exploring these dynamics reveals why exclusion happens and offers insight into how it can be rethought.

The “Othered Other” and Marginalization

The concept of the “othered other” sheds light on this experience of exclusion. It describes how people with disabilities are not only seen as different but also as fundamentally separate from societal norms (Kafer, 2017).

Lennard J. Davis (2017) suggests that society holds tightly to a rigid idea of what constitutes a “normal” body. Anyone who does not fit this narrow standard is labeled as deficient, creating a divide between those who meet the ideal and those who do not.

This form of marginalization goes deeper than simply being seen as different. It involves being treated as though one does not belong in the same spaces or share the same expectations. For instance, consider a student with a hearing impairment attending a lecture without captioning or sign language interpretation.

While other students easily follow the lecture, this student struggles—not because of the hearing impairment itself, but due to the lack of accommodations that would enable full participation (Kittay, 2019). Many in the room may assume the environment works for everyone, but for this student, their needs have been overlooked, reinforcing their sense of exclusion (Shakespeare, 2018).

How Spaces Reinforce the “Othered Other”

Marginalization is often closely tied to how spaces are designed and how systems operate. Tom Shakespeare (2018) argues that many barriers faced by people with disabilities stem not from their disabilities, but from the environments they navigate. Public spaces, workplaces, and transportation systems are frequently built with a limited range of abilities in mind, implying that these spaces were not intended for use by everyone.

Public transportation offers a clear example. Despite efforts to improve accessibility, many subways and buses still lack ramps, elevators, or clear visual and audio aids for people with mobility or sensory impairments. Even in cities working to become more accessible, these accommodations are often poorly maintained or inadequately implemented. This suggests that accessibility is an afterthought rather than a priority. For individuals with disabilities, these barriers serve as constant reminders that their needs were not fully considered in the design of these spaces (Garland-Thomson, 2019).

Exclusion is not only physical but it is also shaped by attitudes. When the needs of people with disabilities are treated as secondary, or when they are perceived as less capable, feelings of isolation increase.

For example, a person who is deaf may attend a meeting without captions or interpreters, leaving them out of both the conversation and the social dynamic. Even when these exclusions are unintentional, they can have a lasting impact on how individuals feel about their place in the world (Davis, 2017).

Everyday Barriers to Inclusion

Barriers to inclusion do not only occur in public spaces. They are also present in everyday interactions, where people with disabilities encounter both visible and invisible challenges.

Invisible disabilities refer to impairments that are not immediately apparent to others, such as chronic pain, learning disabilities, or sensory processing issues. These disabilities are harder for others to recognize, often making it difficult for individuals to get the accommodations they need.

For example, someone with sensory processing challenges may require a quieter workspace or specific lighting to feel comfortable. An employee with dyslexia may need extra time to complete tasks or access to assistive technology. Unfortunately, when these disabilities are not visible, requests for support are often met with skepticism or reluctance, leaving individuals feeling further isolated and less understood (Kittay, 2019).

Even spaces designed with accessibility in mind may not fully address everyone’s needs. An accessible restroom might exist, but if it is located far away or used for storage, it signals that accessibility was not a primary concern. These seemingly small inconveniences add up, creating a subtle but powerful sense of exclusion, even in spaces intended to be inclusive (Shakespeare, 2018).

Personhood and Value in a Culture That Prioritizes Independence

At the core of many of these barriers is a cultural belief about what determines a person’s value. Independence and self-sufficiency are frequently viewed as essential indicators of worth, with the concept of personhood—qualities that define individual value—often tied to the ability to function autonomously. This viewpoint can marginalize individuals with disabilities, who may need various forms of support, whether physical, emotional, or social (Kittay, 2019).

A potential need for assistance is often misinterpreted as a weakness. For example, someone with limited mobility who depends on a caregiver for daily tasks might be seen as lacking something essential in a culture that prizes self-sufficiency.

However, as Kittay (2019) explains, reliance on others is a universal human experience. Everyone, at some point, will need help, whether due to illness, aging, or unforeseen circumstances. Recognizing this shared reality could pave the way for more inclusive environments where people are valued not for their independence, but for their contributions within a supportive community.

A Shift in Perspective

Moving beyond the view of disability as something outside the norm requires rethinking how spaces are designed and how value is understood. Shelley Tremain (2020) calls for a shift in perspective, suggesting that disability is not inherently “different” or “lesser.” The barriers faced by people with disabilities are not inevitable; they exist because environments have historically been designed with a narrow range of users in mind.

This shift requires more than just physical modifications. It calls for a deeper commitment to inclusive design. This means designing environments from the start to accommodate people of all abilities. Instead of treating ramps, elevators, or communication aids as afterthoughts, these elements should be part of the initial design process. By integrating them early on, spaces can be inclusive and welcoming for everyone from the outset (Davis, 2017).

This approach also challenges conventional ideas about value. As Kittay (2019) argues, reliance on others is part of the human condition. Acknowledging this interdependence encourages the creation of environments where people are valued for their ability to thrive in a community, not just for their capacity to function independently.

Conclusion: Rethinking Disability and Access

The barriers faced by people with disabilities go beyond the physical; they are deeply embedded in societal norms and cultural beliefs. These barriers arise from long-held assumptions about what is “normal” and who fits within that standard.

The design of spaces—whether public or private—plays a crucial role in shaping how people with disabilities experience inclusion. Physical obstacles like stairs, along with less obvious forms of exclusion, often push individuals to the margins, reinforcing a sense of being separate from the norm (Kafer, 2017).

Rethinking disability and access involves addressing more than just physical obstacles; it requires challenging long-standing norms that shape perceptions of what is considered “normal.” These norms influence how spaces are designed, often unintentionally excluding individuals with disabilities and reinforcing their marginalization. Physical barriers, though the most visible, are only one aspect of a larger issue rooted in attitudes and cultural perceptions.

Achieving true inclusion calls for a fundamental shift in both mindset and practice. It means recognizing that disability is not a deviation from the norm but a natural variation in how people experience and navigate the world. The focus should be on creating spaces that are inclusive from the outset, rather than expecting individuals to adapt to environments that were not designed with them in mind. By embracing this approach, barriers—whether physical, social, or cultural—can begin to be dismantled, allowing for greater inclusion and participation.

In this way, disability is re-framed not as a limitation but as a perspective through which spaces can be redesigned to better serve a wider range of needs and abilities. The ultimate aim is not just to accommodate but to foster environments that respect individual differences and ensure that no one is left out.

The question remains: How can we reshape designs, systems, and values to ensure inclusion becomes the foundation, not an afterthought?

References

• Davis, L. J. (2017). The end of normal: Identity in a biocultural era. University of Michigan Press.
• Garland-Thomson, R. (2019). Staring: How we look. Oxford University Press.
• Kittay, E. F. (2019). Learning from my daughter: The value and care of disabled minds. Oxford University Press.
• Shakespeare, T. (2018). Disability: The basics. Routledge.
• Tremain, S. (2020). Foucault and the government of disability. University of Michigan Press.
• Scully, J. L. (2021). Disability bioethics: Moral bodies, moral difference. Lexington Books.
• Kafer, A. (2017). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.