What do you think?
Rate this book
Norton Shorts
Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement
When Ashley Shew became a self-described "hard-of-hearing chemobrained amputee with Crohn's disease and tinnitus," there was no returning to "normal." Suddenly well-meaning people called her an "inspiration" while grocery shopping or viewed her as a needy recipient of technological wizardry. Most disabled people don't want what the abled assume they want—nor are they generally asked.
In vibrant prose, Shew shows how we can create better narratives and more accessible futures by drawing from the insights of the cross-disability community. To forge a more equitable world, Shew argues that we must eliminate "technoableism"—the harmful belief that technology is a "solution" for disability; that the disabled simply await being "fixed" by technological wizardry; that making society more accessible and equitable is somehow a lesser priority.
This badly needed introduction to disability expertise considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the relationship between disability and race. The future, Shew points out, is surely disabled—whether through changing climate, new diseases, or even through space travel. It's time we looked closely at how we all think about disability technologies and learn to envision disabilities not as liabilities, but as skill sets enabling all of us to navigate a challenging world.
In vibrant prose, Shew shows how we can create better narratives and more accessible futures by drawing from the insights of the cross-disability community. To forge a more equitable world, Shew argues that we must eliminate "technoableism"—the harmful belief that technology is a "solution" for disability; that the disabled simply await being "fixed" by technological wizardry; that making society more accessible and equitable is somehow a lesser priority.
This badly needed introduction to disability expertise considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the relationship between disability and race. The future, Shew points out, is surely disabled—whether through changing climate, new diseases, or even through space travel. It's time we looked closely at how we all think about disability technologies and learn to envision disabilities not as liabilities, but as skill sets enabling all of us to navigate a challenging world.
5 pages, Audible Audio
First published September 19, 2023
220 people are currently reading
9417 people want to read
About the author
Ashley Shew
8 books30 followersAshley Shew is an associate professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech, and specializes in disability studies and technology ethics. Her books include Against Technoableism, Animal Constructions, and Technological Knowledge and Spaces for the Future (coedited). She lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 515 reviews
Read
December 22, 2024a solid introduction to what technoableism is and why we should eliminate it. i wish it went more in-depth, but i think it's meant to just be an introduction and that's ok! this is a very quick read, the audiobook was only 4 hours.
June 8, 2023
As a paraplegic/double amputee with spina bifida who is now also dealing with bladder cancer, I found myself captivated by Ashley Shew's passionate and well informed disability manifesto "Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement."
Just today, I was having a conversation with my supervisor about internalized ableism and my tendency, especially since my cancer diagnosis, to apologize for my disability within the work setting.
Ugh.
At less than 200 pages, "Against Technoableism" is a relentless, breathlessly paced, and well structured exploration of exactly why we need to eliminate technoableism - "the harmful belief that technology is a “solution” for disability; that the disabled simply await being “fixed” by technological wizardry; that making society more accessible and equitable is somehow a lesser priority."
Quoting many of the top voices in disability, including many of whom I consider friends, Shew has crafted an invaluable resource and introduction to disability expertise that considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the crucial relationship between disability and race. Even as someone with a lifelong disability, I found "Against Technoableism" informative and incredibly engaging.
I will confess that I occasionally found "Against Technoableism" so fast-paced that it was confusing with a narrative structure that transcended technoableism and entered culture, disability history, and much more. For example, while I've long known about the connection between the Nazis and disability Shew added layers of depth that will prove enlightening to nearly all but those who've truly researched the subject.
Shew truly raises the valuable question "Who needs improvement?" with "Against Technoableism," a pushing back against the frequent narrative that the disabled simply are awaiting being "fixed" by technological wizardry rather than being uniquely equipped to navigate a challenging world.
Ashley Shew is an associate professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech, and specializes in disability studies and technology ethics and who recognizes that the future is disabled and creating a more accessible future is vital.
"Against Technoableism" is incredibly insightful, frequently funny, narratively fierce, and absolutely uncompromising. In other words, it's the kind of book you won't be able to stop thinking about and you'll absolutely want to share.
Just today, I was having a conversation with my supervisor about internalized ableism and my tendency, especially since my cancer diagnosis, to apologize for my disability within the work setting.
Ugh.
At less than 200 pages, "Against Technoableism" is a relentless, breathlessly paced, and well structured exploration of exactly why we need to eliminate technoableism - "the harmful belief that technology is a “solution” for disability; that the disabled simply await being “fixed” by technological wizardry; that making society more accessible and equitable is somehow a lesser priority."
Quoting many of the top voices in disability, including many of whom I consider friends, Shew has crafted an invaluable resource and introduction to disability expertise that considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the crucial relationship between disability and race. Even as someone with a lifelong disability, I found "Against Technoableism" informative and incredibly engaging.
I will confess that I occasionally found "Against Technoableism" so fast-paced that it was confusing with a narrative structure that transcended technoableism and entered culture, disability history, and much more. For example, while I've long known about the connection between the Nazis and disability Shew added layers of depth that will prove enlightening to nearly all but those who've truly researched the subject.
Shew truly raises the valuable question "Who needs improvement?" with "Against Technoableism," a pushing back against the frequent narrative that the disabled simply are awaiting being "fixed" by technological wizardry rather than being uniquely equipped to navigate a challenging world.
Ashley Shew is an associate professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech, and specializes in disability studies and technology ethics and who recognizes that the future is disabled and creating a more accessible future is vital.
"Against Technoableism" is incredibly insightful, frequently funny, narratively fierce, and absolutely uncompromising. In other words, it's the kind of book you won't be able to stop thinking about and you'll absolutely want to share.
December 24, 2023
[3.5 stars] Essays from a disabled and neurodivergent professor that complicate the rise of technology as a solution to the existence of disability and impairment.
In general, I think this book has some solid central theses: Disability exists in the future. Efforts to eliminate physical, mental, intellectual, or developmental disability are rooted in ableism and eugenics. Technology and science are not and should not be used or relied upon to control, decrease, or eliminate the prevalence of disability or neurodivergence, especially by non-abled people and society. It also does a decent job of introducing readers to key frameworks and concepts, like neurodivergence, common tropes, and the medical and social models of disability, and connecting the author’s personal experiences to disability rights and accessibility arguments.
Where I think there are gaps are in attribution and intersectional analysis. Many of the ideas shared are taken from Disability Justice theory, yet DJ is only mentioned by name once early on before a brief listing of its principles a few pages before the end. I think both the writing and editing processes could’ve given more space to DJ history in the chapter on foundational knowledge, especially since the core theses so heavily rely on its scholarship without full recognition of its influence. There was also an opportunity to infuse an intentional anti-capitalist lens into discussions about cost, self-determination, and worth / humanity. And while mentions of race and gender are scattered throughout, I thought the analysis could’ve gone deeper and the history rooting ableism in white supremacy and anti-Blackness could’ve been presented earlier.
Potentially recommended to supplement QT/BIPOC-authored disability access and justice writing, especially for those interested in exploring the ethics of technology, science, and innovation.
Goodreads Challenge 2023: 46/52
In general, I think this book has some solid central theses: Disability exists in the future. Efforts to eliminate physical, mental, intellectual, or developmental disability are rooted in ableism and eugenics. Technology and science are not and should not be used or relied upon to control, decrease, or eliminate the prevalence of disability or neurodivergence, especially by non-abled people and society. It also does a decent job of introducing readers to key frameworks and concepts, like neurodivergence, common tropes, and the medical and social models of disability, and connecting the author’s personal experiences to disability rights and accessibility arguments.
Where I think there are gaps are in attribution and intersectional analysis. Many of the ideas shared are taken from Disability Justice theory, yet DJ is only mentioned by name once early on before a brief listing of its principles a few pages before the end. I think both the writing and editing processes could’ve given more space to DJ history in the chapter on foundational knowledge, especially since the core theses so heavily rely on its scholarship without full recognition of its influence. There was also an opportunity to infuse an intentional anti-capitalist lens into discussions about cost, self-determination, and worth / humanity. And while mentions of race and gender are scattered throughout, I thought the analysis could’ve gone deeper and the history rooting ableism in white supremacy and anti-Blackness could’ve been presented earlier.
Potentially recommended to supplement QT/BIPOC-authored disability access and justice writing, especially for those interested in exploring the ethics of technology, science, and innovation.
Goodreads Challenge 2023: 46/52
September 21, 2025
Brief and interesting!!!
July 29, 2024
rating: 4.25
incredibly eye-opening and informative. super fast read and very digestible, even as audio (for me).
this examines the lack of actual disabled input on media, medicine, and technology for and about disabilities, which is currently mostly controlled and headed by abled folks.
def on my shortlist of "must-read nonfic recs" for all readers, esp abled.
check TWs as there are various forms of ableism, injury, medical trauma, etc. discussed as related.
incredibly eye-opening and informative. super fast read and very digestible, even as audio (for me).
this examines the lack of actual disabled input on media, medicine, and technology for and about disabilities, which is currently mostly controlled and headed by abled folks.
def on my shortlist of "must-read nonfic recs" for all readers, esp abled.
check TWs as there are various forms of ableism, injury, medical trauma, etc. discussed as related.
March 5, 2024
I loved this book and I have a lot of notes on it and I think it deserves more reads. It felt like an easy read as well as a quick one. I feel like this book was made for me. I appreciated such a vast array of ideas in such a small book, while keeping it both informative and accessible. The focus on media (and the mention of my favorite author Le Guin) helped me realize how to fully realize disabled characters in my fiction.
I also liked the relation to other disabled writings like The Future is Disabled. There was a general appreciation for disabled voices because so often they're ignored. Listen to them. They know what they need more than nondisabled people.
I also liked the relation to other disabled writings like The Future is Disabled. There was a general appreciation for disabled voices because so often they're ignored. Listen to them. They know what they need more than nondisabled people.
June 28, 2024
Concise, informative, and easily digestible.
This book explores ableism as it permeates in how we consume certain “inspirational” social media posts, express specific language regarding the topic of disability, and dives into the future of disability.
This was fantastic and very eye-opening on certain topics that I hadn’t considered before- especially in the world of astronauts ???
CW: recurring references to ableist abuse, medical abuse/discrimination, the holocaust, genocide, violence, medical trauma
This book explores ableism as it permeates in how we consume certain “inspirational” social media posts, express specific language regarding the topic of disability, and dives into the future of disability.
This was fantastic and very eye-opening on certain topics that I hadn’t considered before- especially in the world of astronauts ???
CW: recurring references to ableist abuse, medical abuse/discrimination, the holocaust, genocide, violence, medical trauma
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
June 12, 2024
Yes, 100% this.
Why should we adapt the individual to fit what is considered "normal" instead of adapting the world and ourselves? A community versus individual approach to design and life, that embraces, acknowledges and accommodates difference and disability instead of trying to mask or hide it away.
Why does the "solution" often require conformity that is painful to the user, so that their surrounding neighbors can be comfortable?
Lots of questions raised, with the nod that while lots of technology is really, really helpful, it's only good technology when the community being "helped" is part of the design and testing process instead of just the endpoint wearers. Also, cost, access, and the weariness of wear (hearing aids in public spaces, prosthetics for appearance vs functionality) are all factors that are rarely considered when presenting the story of a disabled person regaining something considered essential to function (note: it's generally not essential, just considered essential to able-bodied people...see: walking without mobility aids, or holding still to avoid stimming and being seen as fidgety).
Are we really accommodating disability, or are we prioritizing able-bodied comfort over disabled access?
Highly recommended this quick read on disability justice.
Why should we adapt the individual to fit what is considered "normal" instead of adapting the world and ourselves? A community versus individual approach to design and life, that embraces, acknowledges and accommodates difference and disability instead of trying to mask or hide it away.
Why does the "solution" often require conformity that is painful to the user, so that their surrounding neighbors can be comfortable?
Lots of questions raised, with the nod that while lots of technology is really, really helpful, it's only good technology when the community being "helped" is part of the design and testing process instead of just the endpoint wearers. Also, cost, access, and the weariness of wear (hearing aids in public spaces, prosthetics for appearance vs functionality) are all factors that are rarely considered when presenting the story of a disabled person regaining something considered essential to function (note: it's generally not essential, just considered essential to able-bodied people...see: walking without mobility aids, or holding still to avoid stimming and being seen as fidgety).
Are we really accommodating disability, or are we prioritizing able-bodied comfort over disabled access?
Highly recommended this quick read on disability justice.
Read
July 3, 2024I've seen a lot of positive response around this book. I like her approachability and the interest she's generating in Disability Studies. Shew argues that disabled people have been kept out of the conversation regarding the technology that's made for them. She says "technoableism is a belief that considers the elimination of disability a good thing, something we should strive for. It's a classic form of ableism—bias against disabled people, bias in favor of nondisabled ways of life. Technoableism is the use of technologies to reassert those biases, often under the guise of empowerment." She has some examples that effectively show this. Cochlear implants imposed on children. Certain prosthetics pushed on amputees or that a prosthetic must be used at all. She reaches into history to show how Hans Asperger worked with the Nazis and only wished to save certain autistic people. The ones he deemed worth of saving. For such a short book though I found it a bit meandering at times and then at other times where she could have explained more, she didn't. For example, Shew references Universal Design and its principles without ever explaining to the audience what Universal Design is and how it would apply to technoableism. This feels especially egregious when her whole argument pushes for society to change (the social model) and not the indvidual, which is kind of the point of Universal Design. For a book that's operating as an overview and speaking to an audience where this might be their first time reading from Disability Studies, this book feels like a missed opportunity.
January 2, 2024
3.5 stars. Worth a read for a good overview/introduction on an important topic. There was a fair amount of redundancy, especially for something so short, and a few places where I thought the point got a bit lost.
May 8, 2023
By focusing on disability as an individual problem, not a social one, abled people often focus on disability technologies as the "solution" to eliminate the disability altogether. But what do disabled people think? This insightful (and compact) overview of disability, ableism, and the role of tech in the lives of disabled people is a real eye-opener. Though many disabled people may rely on tech to help them live their lives, they take a different approach to the tech, aware of the many unresolved concerns about those technologies and learning to piece together different types of technology appropriate to different needs and situations in their lives.
This book really helps to unpack the various ways ableism prevents us from seeing how tech might or might not be beneficial to disabled people, and it stresses the point that the experts on disability are the people who experience it -- and that we need to listen to the voices of disabled people to address the ways they still feel left out of society today.
An excellent addition to the growing body of work centering disabled voices and perspectives. 5 stars.
Thank you, W. W. Norton and Company and NetGalley, for providing an eARC of this book. Opinions expressed here are solely my own.
This book really helps to unpack the various ways ableism prevents us from seeing how tech might or might not be beneficial to disabled people, and it stresses the point that the experts on disability are the people who experience it -- and that we need to listen to the voices of disabled people to address the ways they still feel left out of society today.
An excellent addition to the growing body of work centering disabled voices and perspectives. 5 stars.
Thank you, W. W. Norton and Company and NetGalley, for providing an eARC of this book. Opinions expressed here are solely my own.
June 28, 2024
A fantastic short nonfiction book with a fantastic cover stuffed with useful, accessible information. I feel like this book worked its way inside me and pushed on all these assumptions and biases I did not realize I had from the inside out.
Shew gives a frank primer on disability, including common harmful tropes, the medical vs. social model, cross-disability communities, and historic examples of how disabled people have been and are currently targeted as “drains on the system.”
I grew up watching Extreme Home Makeover, and distinctly remember a reveal where everyone cried watching a wheelchair-using family member walk again using some new-fangled technology. Much like every other aspect of Extreme Home Makeover, it turns out that was a tacky veneer slapped over ruining the lives of an already struggling family, but we do not have time to talk about Extreme Home Makeover any more than I already have in this Goodreads review. Because it is time to talk about Maintenance Phase.
Maintenance Phase is a podcast about wellness culture and fatphobia. It zeroes in on the idea that sometimes people say they are commenting on others’ weight out of concern for their health. Yet, many of the medical treatments fat people are subjected to, cause new and serious health issues (example: prescription weight loss pills that could only be prescribed for a few months due to cardiac and neurological problems).
Ableism and fatphobia are closely intertwined, as both rest on the idea that health can be ascertained based on outward appearance. This is false in and of itself, but the entire thing crumbles in on itself like an Extreme Home Makeover horse stable themed children’s bedroom when the interventions detract from the health of people others are supposedly so invested in.
Until this book, I had never thought about the idea that technology can or even should aim to solve (and thus, eliminate) disability. The section on outer space was way more interesting than I thought it would be. I loved reading this alongside Doppelganger (even though, spoiler alert, I liked this more), as the accounts at times corroborate each other, and both draw on fictional texts. I would also recommend this to fans of Disability Visibility, Assata, Devon Price, and Angela Davis.
Shew gives a frank primer on disability, including common harmful tropes, the medical vs. social model, cross-disability communities, and historic examples of how disabled people have been and are currently targeted as “drains on the system.”
I grew up watching Extreme Home Makeover, and distinctly remember a reveal where everyone cried watching a wheelchair-using family member walk again using some new-fangled technology. Much like every other aspect of Extreme Home Makeover, it turns out that was a tacky veneer slapped over ruining the lives of an already struggling family, but we do not have time to talk about Extreme Home Makeover any more than I already have in this Goodreads review. Because it is time to talk about Maintenance Phase.
Maintenance Phase is a podcast about wellness culture and fatphobia. It zeroes in on the idea that sometimes people say they are commenting on others’ weight out of concern for their health. Yet, many of the medical treatments fat people are subjected to, cause new and serious health issues (example: prescription weight loss pills that could only be prescribed for a few months due to cardiac and neurological problems).
Ableism and fatphobia are closely intertwined, as both rest on the idea that health can be ascertained based on outward appearance. This is false in and of itself, but the entire thing crumbles in on itself like an Extreme Home Makeover horse stable themed children’s bedroom when the interventions detract from the health of people others are supposedly so invested in.
Until this book, I had never thought about the idea that technology can or even should aim to solve (and thus, eliminate) disability. The section on outer space was way more interesting than I thought it would be. I loved reading this alongside Doppelganger (even though, spoiler alert, I liked this more), as the accounts at times corroborate each other, and both draw on fictional texts. I would also recommend this to fans of Disability Visibility, Assata, Devon Price, and Angela Davis.
December 30, 2024
Prosthetic legs, Prozac, pacemakers, ostomy bags, fidget spinners, heating pads, and wheelchairs
are technologies for disability—and so are gas chambers, institutional confinement, and prenatal de-selection.
Becoming disabled faster than my cohort has been challenging socially and emotionally. I miss late nights drinking, an occasional drunken cigarette, the independence that comes with driving in a vehicle dependent country, hiking without losing my balance and just laying there because it's hard to get up. This has made me address my ableist beliefs and cause strife accepting my disability does not diminish my worth and that going back to "normal" is an idea I have to let go, but also reinforce like an affirmation. I'm trying to lessen that resistance by learning more about disability history/culture and be involved with the community, and this book was important to me.
It's easier to think and read about deconstructing ableist thinking, but harder to believe you're worthy when society isn't built for the disabled community, and it's disheartening knowing that we will all be disabled. At first I thought this book was arguing against accepting technology to live as needed, but it was pointing out how much of a disabled world is created by non-disabled people and the idea that making more tech (and often expensive with the annoying negotiations with insurance) is the solution to living a "normal life". (But if our able-bodied society were more accepting and knowledgeable about living with a disability .... Maybe it would be life overall would be improved with equity and acceptance ? Just a crazy thought y'all ....) Because of this problem solving that doesn't center its intended population and reinforces ableist thought, it overall hurts those who need help and continues to marginalize and stereotype disabled people.
I learned a lot about prosthetics, and didn't realize that a person might have to go through surgery again to be fitted to their prosthetic than the prosthetic fitted for them and I was like ... wow. Then the history and dehumanization of autistic people was just ... jarring to process. This was a great intro to disability history and its intersectionality with race + gender and why the continued fight for needed representation is important when help isn't from or for disabled people.
are technologies for disability—and so are gas chambers, institutional confinement, and prenatal de-selection.
Becoming disabled faster than my cohort has been challenging socially and emotionally. I miss late nights drinking, an occasional drunken cigarette, the independence that comes with driving in a vehicle dependent country, hiking without losing my balance and just laying there because it's hard to get up. This has made me address my ableist beliefs and cause strife accepting my disability does not diminish my worth and that going back to "normal" is an idea I have to let go, but also reinforce like an affirmation. I'm trying to lessen that resistance by learning more about disability history/culture and be involved with the community, and this book was important to me.
It's easier to think and read about deconstructing ableist thinking, but harder to believe you're worthy when society isn't built for the disabled community, and it's disheartening knowing that we will all be disabled. At first I thought this book was arguing against accepting technology to live as needed, but it was pointing out how much of a disabled world is created by non-disabled people and the idea that making more tech (and often expensive with the annoying negotiations with insurance) is the solution to living a "normal life". (But if our able-bodied society were more accepting and knowledgeable about living with a disability .... Maybe it would be life overall would be improved with equity and acceptance ? Just a crazy thought y'all ....) Because of this problem solving that doesn't center its intended population and reinforces ableist thought, it overall hurts those who need help and continues to marginalize and stereotype disabled people.
I learned a lot about prosthetics, and didn't realize that a person might have to go through surgery again to be fitted to their prosthetic than the prosthetic fitted for them and I was like ... wow. Then the history and dehumanization of autistic people was just ... jarring to process. This was a great intro to disability history and its intersectionality with race + gender and why the continued fight for needed representation is important when help isn't from or for disabled people.
March 8, 2024
This is an excellent short book that packs a lot in of good introductory information in, but shares it accessibly. Because of how short and concise it is, it falls into one of those books I'd recommend to everyone and wish everyone would read- especially able-bodied and neurotypical people. It's a great intro to ableism and how technology and spaces are not designed for disabled people and if they are they are designed to "fix" disabled people and make them fit in as an able bodied person would, because.... Capitalism. It's also a great explanation of how being "able bodied" is temporary. Well worth your time to pick this one up.
For me personally, as a disabled and autistic person, I would have liked it to go more in-depth, but I accept it for what it is and does (short and concise books are also important to have available!) and it is a valuable installment of books on disability and ableism. I appreciate that the book is written so that the chapters can be read in any order, and the audiobook was excellent and I ended up reading it in one day since it was only 4 hours.
For me personally, as a disabled and autistic person, I would have liked it to go more in-depth, but I accept it for what it is and does (short and concise books are also important to have available!) and it is a valuable installment of books on disability and ableism. I appreciate that the book is written so that the chapters can be read in any order, and the audiobook was excellent and I ended up reading it in one day since it was only 4 hours.
September 15, 2024
4.5⭐️ A great short look at ableism and how it intersects with technology. This talks a lot about physical disabilities but also discusses neurodivergence. There is a lot of history sprinkled in, as it is necessary for understanding where we are now -- including that of colonization and racism, as that was a key factor in old ideas about disability and eugenics. And there is so much interesting and nuanced discussion of the future with disability in mind! The author pulls from a lot of different writers and activists as well, so I am really looking forward to reading more from who she referenced as well
July 15, 2024
this is a fantastic, accessible introduction to foundational bits of disability culture and principles of disability justice. my brain fog makes most books on crip theory, ironically, very hard to get through, and this was a refreshingly precise, simple text!! against technoableism will be top of my recommendations list when people ask for a great intro to disability justice work.
November 8, 2023
I agree with her premise and some of her arguments. However, the book’s structure detracts from the thesis. The author includes lots of information, but it’s very disorganized. It’s disappointing, because I think her message is incredibly important.
March 18, 2025
Short and sweet and heartfelt and poignant! I listened to the audiobook (4 hours). The chapters are very well written and introduce some really thought-provoking ideas. It's both accessible and full of novelty and research. 5/5
September 23, 2025
4.5? such an incredible book - a great and accessible introduction to technoableism that i learnt a lot from/jogged my memory on a lot of areas.
chapter 1 - what is technoableism?
- understanding technoableism: “Technoableism is a belief in the power of technology that considers the elimination of disability a good thing, something we should strive for. It’s a classic form of ableism—bias against disabled people, bias in favor of nondisabled ways of life.3 Technoableism is the use of technologies to reassert those biases, often under the guise of empowerment.”
- technology is viewed as good and something that can ‘fix’ disabled people - but this isn’t the case and frames “disabled [as] a bad state of being, and that disabled people must be altered to be worthy.”
- whose opinions do we value and prioritise? interesting note re expertise versus personal experience - disabled people who are experts in their field are ignored for their expertise (e.g., autistic people with psychological degrees), who is included in disabled research (e.g., most studies exclude people with multiple disabilities), even reflected in how disabilities etc are named: “Think of how often disabilities and procedures are named after the physician who “discovered” a condition or technique rather than the people who experience it or those who were the subjects of “pioneering” experiments into disability. We are named and claimed by experts who may know our bodies in limited ways, but rarely know our communities, our experiences outside their clinics, or our reception in the world.”
chapter 2 - introduction to disability studies and ableism
- recognising there is internalised ableism and problems within disabled communities
- links between ableism and capitalism; in todays society, disability is considered in terms of if one can contribute labour - “When nondisabled friends lament the current political condition in the United States and talk about moving somewhere with more progressive social policies, they don’t realize that this is a privilege that most disabled people can’t even dream about.”
- ableism has a history rooted in slavery and oppression: “disability began to be mapped as the group of physical and mental conditions that limited the price at which enslaved people could be sold at auction”, black people who refused to assimilate were labelled as mentally ill - even new mental disabilities created for slave people who tried to escape
- the importance of language: “Ableism is deeply entrenched in language, which reflects how we think about things. When we use everyday insults like “idiot” or “moron,” both of which were originally medical diagnoses of mental disability but now are used as pejoratives, we’re employing language that reveals what we think about disability. Similarly, when metaphors of blindness are used to mean ignorance or other negative attributes (despite all the competent and knowledgeable blind people who exist in our world), it encodes the assumption that disability is limiting.”
- problems with the medical model - how do we define disability? what counts as a disability?
- disability is socially constructed - “These categories vary across cultures and over time. In fact, there are cultures and historical periods that have had no category of “disabled”—mostly times when many more people had what we would now call disabilities, due to disease, frostbite, or other harsh conditions of life. Today, many of our ideas about able-bodiedness and disability come from classifications based on who is suitable for plantation or factory work: we call people “disabled” when they can’t perform “normal” amounts of physical labor.”
- “It’s incredibly rare to find narratives like this one. In media and in wider conversation, we almost never see depictions of disability where normalization is not a goal—that is, where people are not made to use technology to walk or stand and are glad for it. Sit with this idea for a moment. So many of our stories about technology and disability are about technologies as redemptive, as having the power to normalize disabled people, to make us “overcome” our disabilities. They show us “better” living through technology, where better means something pretty specific in how people exist in the world. But sometimes technologies don’t make us better—indeed, the perception of better here is based on ableist norms, not on the desires of disabled people. Sometimes the “fix” ends up being too painful or takes too much time; sometimes it is fleeting.”
- didn’t realise there were so many models? would have been interesting to learn about the others - “The International Association of Accessibility Professionals has seven different models that are part of its certification test (and I can think of at least three additional models from disability studies that this material doesn’t touch).”
chapter 3 - how are disabled people represented in media?
- it is difficult to find disabled people represented in media - and when they are represented, they are often white and are shown through certain harmful tropes
disabled tropes
- pitiable freaks
- moochers and fakers - lying to get free money etc
- bitter cripples - one i’d not realised before: villains who became villains due to their disability: “it’s also assumed that disabled people who are cranky are cranky because they are disabled. This trope keeps us from complaining about lack of access or inclusion, since we’ll be dismissed as bitter; which lets nondisabled people off the hook from listening.”
- shameful sinners - disability a punishment for something the parents or disabled person did, blamed as having a lifestyle disease
- inspirational overcomers - the ‘good’ disabled person (usually white) - “This trope implies that to be good disabled people, we have to be constantly fighting against our bodies or minds in some way. We must disown our collective or community identities in order to be individuals. Inspiration porn makes disabled people into objects to inspire others; we must make ourselves into spectacles whose purpose is to motivate nondisabled people or make them feel good… the “overcoming” narrative pretends that structural problems of access can be overcome with the right plucky, can-do attitude on the part of individual disabled people; it lets abled people off the hook instead of calling on them to actually help make the world more accessible.”
chapter 4 - amputation
- sexism and racism in ways i’d not considered - e.g., prosthetics being designed for men; african Americans have limbs amputated at four times the rate of white Americans - unable to afford preventative care etc
- good amputees = “mostly successful, inspirational, white or lighter-skinned, good-looking, socially acceptable amputees—often war heroes or elite athletes”
- expected to be extraordinary: “Paralyzed people who want to be ordinary are a problem. They are stigmatized for their failure to follow the societal script. Worse, they force others to obey the law, the ADA in particular, that prohibits discrimination against people with a disability.”
- reframing how we think about technologies - what do disabled people actually want? what is the goal? what improves quality of life? e.g., not always a prosthetic (interesting reading lorde's cancer journals after this and seeing how this can play out irl!)
- “Deaf Gain—in opposition to hearing loss—to refer to the benefits of being deaf and what they have gained from both Deaf community and from not being able to hear. Too often, we have been conditioned to associate deafness with loss and to think that people need immediate technological fixes. But even technologies that can be helpful are not the simple replacements they are imagined to be. Things don’t work the same, or even as expected.”
chapter 5 - neurodivergance
- tech for autism is broad: “When we’re talking about tech for autism, we have to talk about both fidget spinners and gas chambers, about Dungeons & Dragons and locked closets.” (interesting at the end how they described how these games can be used to help understand socialising etc)
- knew hans asperger was shit but didnt realise autistic people were gassed in ww2??
- again, it’s all just socially constructed - the fact that there even is a neurotypical brain, what traits are ‘normal’ (e.g., eye contact is culturally subjective and constructed) - and these assumptions/norms get built into technologies
- “As professor Nick Walker has described it, the idea that “there is one ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ type of brain or mind, or one ‘right’ style of neurocognitive functioning, is a culturally constructed fiction, no more valid (and no more conducive to a healthy society or to the overall well-being of humanity) than the idea that there is one ‘normal’ or ‘right’ ethnicity, gender, or culture.”
- problems of ‘therapies’ forcing disabled people to conform/assimilate rather than be happier/comfortable etc - again, what do disabled people actually want/need?
- parallels between ABA and conversion therapy were a bit shocking
- flaws in studies of ASD using animal models/in vitro studies - doesn’t always mean this is true for humans
- loved the idea of counterventions: ““counter-interventions that let disabled participants involved in participatory research intervene in correction of researchers’ assumptions and change the direction of tech projects to create disability-led (and in the case of their most recent research, specifically autistic-led) technologies.”
- “stereotypes of autistic people as robotic are often drawn from examples of traumatised autistic people”
- impairments can exists without being a huge problem, they can be easily adapted to: “I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the uneven lines between impairment, difference, and disability. I’ve gotten used to my new chemobrain and adapted to what was an impairment. My experiences of memory and time and finding the right words are all changed. I used to wake up every morning and know what day it was and what was on the calendar for that day before I even opened my eyes. That’s gone. Now I consult my smartphone. It’s not a big deal. For a while it was, though.”
chapter 6 - the future is disabled, especially in space
- “We should always be planning with disability in mind, because disability is an inherent part of having squishy meat bodies.”
- more individuals will get disabilities - there is a temporal quality to disabilities - ageing, due to climate change and war etc, a disabled planet, new diseases/illnesses
- discussion about disability and space exploration was so so fascinating!!
- space disables humans, but sometimes disabled people are also better suited for space (and therefore perhaps changes who we consider to be disabled) - people who don’t walk as primary method of moving, blind crew who own’t be affected by lighting issues/smoke etc, short stature, ostomies as pooping is complicated, short women with big tights = less likely to pass out when flying, congenitally deaf people don’t get motion sickness
- and space may also be better for some disabled people e.g., “Friends with some types of chronic pain and people with osteogenesis imperfecta (like Marlena Chertock) talk about what a relief on their body it would be to float and do things without the weight of Earth’s gravity.”
- “I would go to Mars if I wasn’t too short for NASA’s height restrictions. / I’d tell them you can fit more short people into a rocket”
- “The “stuff” that is taken to be “right” is usually privileged, masculine, from dominant cultures, and extremely abled (there are stringent physical “fitness” requirements for astronauts). Recruiting for space has always held up certain bodies as better than others, in ways that don’t at all map onto what might actually work best.” -> extends to how space is thought about in terms of colonisation, capitalism, ownership etc
other
- “Because ableism has often been a central feature of conversations around bodily autonomy, reproduction, immigration, education, inclusion, and even public services, and more intensely around additionally minoritized groups, it’s critical to understand disability as both political and relational too. Attitudes about disability often underpin how we consider important social issues that aren’t even explicitly about disability: conversations about representation, abortion, welfare, voting, crime, and more are shaped by biases that often ride on lines about disability—who is best to make decisions, whose lives are valued, what supports people deserve in education and in the community, what/who emergency management plans for (and who will be left to die in an emergency), and how policing, social work, and public health get defined and enacted.”
- “Disability has not always been as deeply tied to the ability to do labor as it is now. As Kim Nielsen’s A Disability History of the United States shows, many Native American cultures had more room for variation and a different sense of health and wellness; disability”
- “My childhood and adolescence were steeped in the politics of shame. Family members and teachers reinforced the idea that I was intrinsically wrong just for existing”
- ^^ realising i have a lot of internalised? ableism i need to unlearn - what lives are worth living, that i need to just get over it - so heartwarming and healing to see how matter of factly the author talks about making things accessible for people
- something discussed in our book club that i found interesting: the intersections between war and disability - who is funding technologies (e.g., israel), lots of disabilities coming from war etc
- so much of what is framed as helping ND people is just about making things easier for abled people
- so much of accommodations etc for disabled people helps everyone...
a moment for nuance
- really appreciated the nuance throughout the book - one thing that always annoys me in these discussions is the lack of nuance and black and white thinking e.g., refusal to admit that some disabilities/aspects can just be shit - and that’s ok! it doesn’t make disabled people worth less etc
- “When people posit disability as a problem, they look for solutions. Disabled people can and do have problems, which sometimes include pain and dysfunction. However, many of our problems are social, structural, and practical problems that stem from the idea that disabled people are fundamentally flawed, unworthy of inclusion, broken, or inadequate. This is ableist thinking. We have to resist these kinds of assumptions, which produce simplistic disability stories that collapse disabled people into stereotypes.”
- “It’s not that any one model is right or wrong, but they offer different ways to think about who counts as disabled, where we can make changes or should look to find and address problems, who counts as an authority on disability, and so on.”
- “this is not to say that anyone desires a condition that is painful and/or limiting. but not all disabilities are the same, nor are they all painful or limiting or otherwise bad except in how they are viewed”
- “There’s a tension here—between a disability community that is centered on disability rights, justice, and community pride and Herr’s vision of disability as a technical challenge. Both can exist at the same time. But media attention and storytelling focus almost exclusively on disability as a technical challenge, and this undermines disabled people’s lived experiences and community. Framing disability as the problem turns attention away from the real problem: the world is set up to exclude disabled people.”
- “Some forms of neurodiversity are framed as disabling only because of social mechanisms (like expected eye contact or not fidgeting too much). Other facets of neurodivergence are disabling beyond a social model and remain present and disabling even if social structures are changed to include a diversity of neurodivergent people.
- “This is not to say that we shouldn’t work toward a cure for some disabling diseases or seek better medical interventions—but these interventions can’t be only at the individual level, for that treatment has often led to awful things. ”
chapter 1 - what is technoableism?
- understanding technoableism: “Technoableism is a belief in the power of technology that considers the elimination of disability a good thing, something we should strive for. It’s a classic form of ableism—bias against disabled people, bias in favor of nondisabled ways of life.3 Technoableism is the use of technologies to reassert those biases, often under the guise of empowerment.”
- technology is viewed as good and something that can ‘fix’ disabled people - but this isn’t the case and frames “disabled [as] a bad state of being, and that disabled people must be altered to be worthy.”
- whose opinions do we value and prioritise? interesting note re expertise versus personal experience - disabled people who are experts in their field are ignored for their expertise (e.g., autistic people with psychological degrees), who is included in disabled research (e.g., most studies exclude people with multiple disabilities), even reflected in how disabilities etc are named: “Think of how often disabilities and procedures are named after the physician who “discovered” a condition or technique rather than the people who experience it or those who were the subjects of “pioneering” experiments into disability. We are named and claimed by experts who may know our bodies in limited ways, but rarely know our communities, our experiences outside their clinics, or our reception in the world.”
chapter 2 - introduction to disability studies and ableism
- recognising there is internalised ableism and problems within disabled communities
- links between ableism and capitalism; in todays society, disability is considered in terms of if one can contribute labour - “When nondisabled friends lament the current political condition in the United States and talk about moving somewhere with more progressive social policies, they don’t realize that this is a privilege that most disabled people can’t even dream about.”
- ableism has a history rooted in slavery and oppression: “disability began to be mapped as the group of physical and mental conditions that limited the price at which enslaved people could be sold at auction”, black people who refused to assimilate were labelled as mentally ill - even new mental disabilities created for slave people who tried to escape
- the importance of language: “Ableism is deeply entrenched in language, which reflects how we think about things. When we use everyday insults like “idiot” or “moron,” both of which were originally medical diagnoses of mental disability but now are used as pejoratives, we’re employing language that reveals what we think about disability. Similarly, when metaphors of blindness are used to mean ignorance or other negative attributes (despite all the competent and knowledgeable blind people who exist in our world), it encodes the assumption that disability is limiting.”
- problems with the medical model - how do we define disability? what counts as a disability?
- disability is socially constructed - “These categories vary across cultures and over time. In fact, there are cultures and historical periods that have had no category of “disabled”—mostly times when many more people had what we would now call disabilities, due to disease, frostbite, or other harsh conditions of life. Today, many of our ideas about able-bodiedness and disability come from classifications based on who is suitable for plantation or factory work: we call people “disabled” when they can’t perform “normal” amounts of physical labor.”
- “It’s incredibly rare to find narratives like this one. In media and in wider conversation, we almost never see depictions of disability where normalization is not a goal—that is, where people are not made to use technology to walk or stand and are glad for it. Sit with this idea for a moment. So many of our stories about technology and disability are about technologies as redemptive, as having the power to normalize disabled people, to make us “overcome” our disabilities. They show us “better” living through technology, where better means something pretty specific in how people exist in the world. But sometimes technologies don’t make us better—indeed, the perception of better here is based on ableist norms, not on the desires of disabled people. Sometimes the “fix” ends up being too painful or takes too much time; sometimes it is fleeting.”
- didn’t realise there were so many models? would have been interesting to learn about the others - “The International Association of Accessibility Professionals has seven different models that are part of its certification test (and I can think of at least three additional models from disability studies that this material doesn’t touch).”
chapter 3 - how are disabled people represented in media?
- it is difficult to find disabled people represented in media - and when they are represented, they are often white and are shown through certain harmful tropes
disabled tropes
- pitiable freaks
- moochers and fakers - lying to get free money etc
- bitter cripples - one i’d not realised before: villains who became villains due to their disability: “it’s also assumed that disabled people who are cranky are cranky because they are disabled. This trope keeps us from complaining about lack of access or inclusion, since we’ll be dismissed as bitter; which lets nondisabled people off the hook from listening.”
- shameful sinners - disability a punishment for something the parents or disabled person did, blamed as having a lifestyle disease
- inspirational overcomers - the ‘good’ disabled person (usually white) - “This trope implies that to be good disabled people, we have to be constantly fighting against our bodies or minds in some way. We must disown our collective or community identities in order to be individuals. Inspiration porn makes disabled people into objects to inspire others; we must make ourselves into spectacles whose purpose is to motivate nondisabled people or make them feel good… the “overcoming” narrative pretends that structural problems of access can be overcome with the right plucky, can-do attitude on the part of individual disabled people; it lets abled people off the hook instead of calling on them to actually help make the world more accessible.”
chapter 4 - amputation
- sexism and racism in ways i’d not considered - e.g., prosthetics being designed for men; african Americans have limbs amputated at four times the rate of white Americans - unable to afford preventative care etc
- good amputees = “mostly successful, inspirational, white or lighter-skinned, good-looking, socially acceptable amputees—often war heroes or elite athletes”
- expected to be extraordinary: “Paralyzed people who want to be ordinary are a problem. They are stigmatized for their failure to follow the societal script. Worse, they force others to obey the law, the ADA in particular, that prohibits discrimination against people with a disability.”
- reframing how we think about technologies - what do disabled people actually want? what is the goal? what improves quality of life? e.g., not always a prosthetic (interesting reading lorde's cancer journals after this and seeing how this can play out irl!)
- “Deaf Gain—in opposition to hearing loss—to refer to the benefits of being deaf and what they have gained from both Deaf community and from not being able to hear. Too often, we have been conditioned to associate deafness with loss and to think that people need immediate technological fixes. But even technologies that can be helpful are not the simple replacements they are imagined to be. Things don’t work the same, or even as expected.”
chapter 5 - neurodivergance
- tech for autism is broad: “When we’re talking about tech for autism, we have to talk about both fidget spinners and gas chambers, about Dungeons & Dragons and locked closets.” (interesting at the end how they described how these games can be used to help understand socialising etc)
- knew hans asperger was shit but didnt realise autistic people were gassed in ww2??
- again, it’s all just socially constructed - the fact that there even is a neurotypical brain, what traits are ‘normal’ (e.g., eye contact is culturally subjective and constructed) - and these assumptions/norms get built into technologies
- “As professor Nick Walker has described it, the idea that “there is one ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ type of brain or mind, or one ‘right’ style of neurocognitive functioning, is a culturally constructed fiction, no more valid (and no more conducive to a healthy society or to the overall well-being of humanity) than the idea that there is one ‘normal’ or ‘right’ ethnicity, gender, or culture.”
- problems of ‘therapies’ forcing disabled people to conform/assimilate rather than be happier/comfortable etc - again, what do disabled people actually want/need?
- parallels between ABA and conversion therapy were a bit shocking
- flaws in studies of ASD using animal models/in vitro studies - doesn’t always mean this is true for humans
- loved the idea of counterventions: ““counter-interventions that let disabled participants involved in participatory research intervene in correction of researchers’ assumptions and change the direction of tech projects to create disability-led (and in the case of their most recent research, specifically autistic-led) technologies.”
- “stereotypes of autistic people as robotic are often drawn from examples of traumatised autistic people”
- impairments can exists without being a huge problem, they can be easily adapted to: “I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the uneven lines between impairment, difference, and disability. I’ve gotten used to my new chemobrain and adapted to what was an impairment. My experiences of memory and time and finding the right words are all changed. I used to wake up every morning and know what day it was and what was on the calendar for that day before I even opened my eyes. That’s gone. Now I consult my smartphone. It’s not a big deal. For a while it was, though.”
chapter 6 - the future is disabled, especially in space
- “We should always be planning with disability in mind, because disability is an inherent part of having squishy meat bodies.”
- more individuals will get disabilities - there is a temporal quality to disabilities - ageing, due to climate change and war etc, a disabled planet, new diseases/illnesses
- discussion about disability and space exploration was so so fascinating!!
- space disables humans, but sometimes disabled people are also better suited for space (and therefore perhaps changes who we consider to be disabled) - people who don’t walk as primary method of moving, blind crew who own’t be affected by lighting issues/smoke etc, short stature, ostomies as pooping is complicated, short women with big tights = less likely to pass out when flying, congenitally deaf people don’t get motion sickness
- and space may also be better for some disabled people e.g., “Friends with some types of chronic pain and people with osteogenesis imperfecta (like Marlena Chertock) talk about what a relief on their body it would be to float and do things without the weight of Earth’s gravity.”
- “I would go to Mars if I wasn’t too short for NASA’s height restrictions. / I’d tell them you can fit more short people into a rocket”
- “The “stuff” that is taken to be “right” is usually privileged, masculine, from dominant cultures, and extremely abled (there are stringent physical “fitness” requirements for astronauts). Recruiting for space has always held up certain bodies as better than others, in ways that don’t at all map onto what might actually work best.” -> extends to how space is thought about in terms of colonisation, capitalism, ownership etc
other
- “Because ableism has often been a central feature of conversations around bodily autonomy, reproduction, immigration, education, inclusion, and even public services, and more intensely around additionally minoritized groups, it’s critical to understand disability as both political and relational too. Attitudes about disability often underpin how we consider important social issues that aren’t even explicitly about disability: conversations about representation, abortion, welfare, voting, crime, and more are shaped by biases that often ride on lines about disability—who is best to make decisions, whose lives are valued, what supports people deserve in education and in the community, what/who emergency management plans for (and who will be left to die in an emergency), and how policing, social work, and public health get defined and enacted.”
- “Disability has not always been as deeply tied to the ability to do labor as it is now. As Kim Nielsen’s A Disability History of the United States shows, many Native American cultures had more room for variation and a different sense of health and wellness; disability”
- “My childhood and adolescence were steeped in the politics of shame. Family members and teachers reinforced the idea that I was intrinsically wrong just for existing”
- ^^ realising i have a lot of internalised? ableism i need to unlearn - what lives are worth living, that i need to just get over it - so heartwarming and healing to see how matter of factly the author talks about making things accessible for people
- something discussed in our book club that i found interesting: the intersections between war and disability - who is funding technologies (e.g., israel), lots of disabilities coming from war etc
- so much of what is framed as helping ND people is just about making things easier for abled people
- so much of accommodations etc for disabled people helps everyone...
a moment for nuance
- really appreciated the nuance throughout the book - one thing that always annoys me in these discussions is the lack of nuance and black and white thinking e.g., refusal to admit that some disabilities/aspects can just be shit - and that’s ok! it doesn’t make disabled people worth less etc
- “When people posit disability as a problem, they look for solutions. Disabled people can and do have problems, which sometimes include pain and dysfunction. However, many of our problems are social, structural, and practical problems that stem from the idea that disabled people are fundamentally flawed, unworthy of inclusion, broken, or inadequate. This is ableist thinking. We have to resist these kinds of assumptions, which produce simplistic disability stories that collapse disabled people into stereotypes.”
- “It’s not that any one model is right or wrong, but they offer different ways to think about who counts as disabled, where we can make changes or should look to find and address problems, who counts as an authority on disability, and so on.”
- “this is not to say that anyone desires a condition that is painful and/or limiting. but not all disabilities are the same, nor are they all painful or limiting or otherwise bad except in how they are viewed”
- “There’s a tension here—between a disability community that is centered on disability rights, justice, and community pride and Herr’s vision of disability as a technical challenge. Both can exist at the same time. But media attention and storytelling focus almost exclusively on disability as a technical challenge, and this undermines disabled people’s lived experiences and community. Framing disability as the problem turns attention away from the real problem: the world is set up to exclude disabled people.”
- “Some forms of neurodiversity are framed as disabling only because of social mechanisms (like expected eye contact or not fidgeting too much). Other facets of neurodivergence are disabling beyond a social model and remain present and disabling even if social structures are changed to include a diversity of neurodivergent people.
- “This is not to say that we shouldn’t work toward a cure for some disabling diseases or seek better medical interventions—but these interventions can’t be only at the individual level, for that treatment has often led to awful things. ”
April 9, 2024
This manifesto was just what I needed. It explores what people think they know about disability and how it's disabled people we should be listening to, as they are the real experts when it comes to technology and their own disability.
Written by bioethicist and professor Ashley Shew who is a self-described “hard-of-hearing chemobrained amputee with Crohn’s disease and tinnitus,” this is a book I think everyone should read. This synopsis describes the book perfectly:
This badly needed introduction to disability expertise considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the crucial relationship between disability and race. The future, Shew points out, is surely disabled—whether through changing climate, new diseases, or even through space travel. It’s time we looked closely at how we all think about disability technologies and learn to envision disabilities not as liabilities, but as skill sets enabling all of us to navigate a challenging world.
An amazing five-star read that I will definitely be buying a copy of to highlight. Below are two quotes that really stuck with me:
But for many [...] neurodivergent people, it's crucial to see themselves as part of the larger disability community.
Many of us also carry multiple diagnoses and other chronic conditions; and some physical disabilities and conditions are correlated to neurodivergence. For instance, autistic people have higher occurrences of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), a collagen disorder, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition impacting blood flow and balance, and digestive issues with related gut pain.
Something I've been thinking about for a while in regards to the first quote is that while I'm disabled for many reasons, one of those reasons is because of my neurodivergence. My OCD, anxiety, ADHD, and autism can, at times, be very debilitating. And while I am all for people disagreeing about their own experiences, sometimes the feeling I get from other neurodivergent people is that because they don't see theirs as a disability that I shouldn't see mine as one either and that is not okay.
Every person is different, and you can't tell someone that what they consider a disability isn't just because it isn't to you. That goes beyond your personal experiences and into denying other people's lived experiences and veers into ableism. Remember, just because you're neurodivergent doesn't mean you can't be ableist too.
Written by bioethicist and professor Ashley Shew who is a self-described “hard-of-hearing chemobrained amputee with Crohn’s disease and tinnitus,” this is a book I think everyone should read. This synopsis describes the book perfectly:
This badly needed introduction to disability expertise considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the crucial relationship between disability and race. The future, Shew points out, is surely disabled—whether through changing climate, new diseases, or even through space travel. It’s time we looked closely at how we all think about disability technologies and learn to envision disabilities not as liabilities, but as skill sets enabling all of us to navigate a challenging world.
An amazing five-star read that I will definitely be buying a copy of to highlight. Below are two quotes that really stuck with me:
But for many [...] neurodivergent people, it's crucial to see themselves as part of the larger disability community.
Many of us also carry multiple diagnoses and other chronic conditions; and some physical disabilities and conditions are correlated to neurodivergence. For instance, autistic people have higher occurrences of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), a collagen disorder, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition impacting blood flow and balance, and digestive issues with related gut pain.
Something I've been thinking about for a while in regards to the first quote is that while I'm disabled for many reasons, one of those reasons is because of my neurodivergence. My OCD, anxiety, ADHD, and autism can, at times, be very debilitating. And while I am all for people disagreeing about their own experiences, sometimes the feeling I get from other neurodivergent people is that because they don't see theirs as a disability that I shouldn't see mine as one either and that is not okay.
Every person is different, and you can't tell someone that what they consider a disability isn't just because it isn't to you. That goes beyond your personal experiences and into denying other people's lived experiences and veers into ableism. Remember, just because you're neurodivergent doesn't mean you can't be ableist too.
May 27, 2024
Dr. Shew's book resonated with me on so many levels as a person with a disability. She articulates so well many ideas and concepts that I have had throughout my life. And I absolutely love how she is unapologetic yet methodical in explaining important concepts in the disability community. I learned so much from this book as is evidenced by my many, many highlights.
Dr. Shew uses the example of technology to demonstrate how society focuses on "fixing" disability rather than accepting and celebrating differences. This idea of technology curing disability is ableist at its core. It's using the nondisabled way of life as the norm or standard to measure all others. A critical point is the idea that this technology is created without the input of disabled persons - the real experts. Dr. Shew also gives an excellent overview of the Disability Justice movement and the history of disability. Her chapter on neurodiversity was eye-opening.
This is a topic I'm obviously very passionate about so I apologize for the scattered thoughts in this review. This book reinforces the idea that disability is not tragic. It feels good to read a book about disability, written by a person with a disability that reinforces the idea that disability is an intrinsic part of me. I highly recommend this book!
Dr. Shew uses the example of technology to demonstrate how society focuses on "fixing" disability rather than accepting and celebrating differences. This idea of technology curing disability is ableist at its core. It's using the nondisabled way of life as the norm or standard to measure all others. A critical point is the idea that this technology is created without the input of disabled persons - the real experts. Dr. Shew also gives an excellent overview of the Disability Justice movement and the history of disability. Her chapter on neurodiversity was eye-opening.
This is a topic I'm obviously very passionate about so I apologize for the scattered thoughts in this review. This book reinforces the idea that disability is not tragic. It feels good to read a book about disability, written by a person with a disability that reinforces the idea that disability is an intrinsic part of me. I highly recommend this book!
August 15, 2023
*4.5
Against Technoableism is a fantastic read for anyone who wants a good introduction to ableism as well as how society sees technology as a way to "fix" disabilities. I really enjoyed Ashley Shew's straightforwardness but I do wish the book had slowed down a bit with its pacing.
Against Technoableism is a fantastic read for anyone who wants a good introduction to ableism as well as how society sees technology as a way to "fix" disabilities. I really enjoyed Ashley Shew's straightforwardness but I do wish the book had slowed down a bit with its pacing.
September 8, 2024
If you want to learn about the disabled community and about ableism in the world, in narratives and your own internalized ableism I highly recommend this one.
It wasn't world changing because it is a topic I have been thinking about a lot myself with my chronic joint issues and depression etc but I don't remember the last time I read something that was this transparent in where the knowledge comes from. Especially with the chapter on autism where the author made clear she's not autistic but the information is based on friends and other autistic people instead of "experts" studying autism.
It was really easy to follow along and learn and gave me insights into some things I have never thought about (which sounds contradictory to what I said before but I promise it makes sense).
One scene that stuck with me was the authors description of her experience with a group of amputees and other disabled people dancing. Partly because it was so joyful and beautiful and partly because it made me realise how much internalized ableism I still have and need to work on.
It wasn't world changing because it is a topic I have been thinking about a lot myself with my chronic joint issues and depression etc but I don't remember the last time I read something that was this transparent in where the knowledge comes from. Especially with the chapter on autism where the author made clear she's not autistic but the information is based on friends and other autistic people instead of "experts" studying autism.
It was really easy to follow along and learn and gave me insights into some things I have never thought about (which sounds contradictory to what I said before but I promise it makes sense).
One scene that stuck with me was the authors description of her experience with a group of amputees and other disabled people dancing. Partly because it was so joyful and beautiful and partly because it made me realise how much internalized ableism I still have and need to work on.
April 3, 2024
A short, well written book on issues of people with disabilities. It's actually bizarre how the modern day world is constantly trying to "fix" disabilities, something I hadn't really realized before.
The book is quite short, and so it glances over quite a few things and explanations that would have been useful for beginners in the topic (various disability-related terms are not really explained). The most important take-away is in my opinion the (very minimal) role of people with disabilities in decisions made to cater to people with disabilities. The disabled people are the experts, and should be listened to, but often the people who try to "solve the problems" have no in depth experience with the disabilities they are trying to fix.
The book is quite short, and so it glances over quite a few things and explanations that would have been useful for beginners in the topic (various disability-related terms are not really explained). The most important take-away is in my opinion the (very minimal) role of people with disabilities in decisions made to cater to people with disabilities. The disabled people are the experts, and should be listened to, but often the people who try to "solve the problems" have no in depth experience with the disabilities they are trying to fix.
June 22, 2025
This was a great listen. It introduces you to the topic with definitions, and the challenges of which to use. It also really goes deep into the difference between what we see in media and what is true for the community. Addressing the question of whose stories we get to see and who is able to tell their story.
On the aspect of technology this book really highlights who is involved in the making of it and what expectations are and how this differs with perspective. As well as giving us an outlook of where things might go for people in general and what this might mean, if things continue like they are.
Overall I can only recommend if you are interesting in the topic (and not an expert already).
On the aspect of technology this book really highlights who is involved in the making of it and what expectations are and how this differs with perspective. As well as giving us an outlook of where things might go for people in general and what this might mean, if things continue like they are.
Overall I can only recommend if you are interesting in the topic (and not an expert already).
February 17, 2024
A must read in disability literature that looks at every aspect of society and it’s role in technology being made to “fix” us while never really even being marketed to or accessible to us for a variety of frankly unfair and arbritrary reasons. A lot of this has to do with societies perception of disabled people as a whole, but includes other factors like race and gender.
if you know someone with a disability, physical, sensory, mental ect, please read this book instead of asking me why I don’t qualify for SSI. 😂
if you know someone with a disability, physical, sensory, mental ect, please read this book instead of asking me why I don’t qualify for SSI. 😂
September 22, 2025
I think this approach of a short, simple overview with personal stories sprinkled in is the best approach to covering a topic as diverse as disability. It makes it, you know, more accessible to people.
November 21, 2024
Probably one of the best books I’ve read in my entire life? Nbd.
May 29, 2025
I was already aware that I don’t know anything about a lot of things, but this short book opened up my eyes to a whole world I never paid any attention to, yet work so closely with: disabled people.
Shew, being a multi-faceted disabled person herself, gets into the loooong history of disabilities and its impact on different societies, focusing in on how much of the technology and relief efforts aimed at serving the disabled population, in actuality, sometimes neglects to truly care for their own wants or experiences, but moreso aims to “fix” the disabled person’s “brokenness” or “incompleteness”. The book goes into tokenism, the idea of what society deems a good/bad disabled person (“you gotta be inspiring and overcome, or you’re not doing it right!”), touches a bit on neurodivergence and the appalling truth of how society has failed those on the spectrum many times (think: Autism Speaks, JRC and FDA-approved shock devices, classic therapy aiming to “fix” the autistic person’s tantrums, flapping, or whatever else is making the neurotypical persons around them uncomfortable).
I don’t know a lot about the world for disabled people, but what I do know and agree with, is Shew reminding us that death is inevitable, and if one lives long enough, they’re likely to get disabled in some way (mentally, physically, emotionally, so we ought to care about this topic now, as we seek to make changes for the better for the disabled in our communities.
TL;DR: This book about disabled people really challenged me and enlightened me on many things, and I’m grateful! Read it (it’s a short one)!
Shew, being a multi-faceted disabled person herself, gets into the loooong history of disabilities and its impact on different societies, focusing in on how much of the technology and relief efforts aimed at serving the disabled population, in actuality, sometimes neglects to truly care for their own wants or experiences, but moreso aims to “fix” the disabled person’s “brokenness” or “incompleteness”. The book goes into tokenism, the idea of what society deems a good/bad disabled person (“you gotta be inspiring and overcome, or you’re not doing it right!”), touches a bit on neurodivergence and the appalling truth of how society has failed those on the spectrum many times (think: Autism Speaks, JRC and FDA-approved shock devices, classic therapy aiming to “fix” the autistic person’s tantrums, flapping, or whatever else is making the neurotypical persons around them uncomfortable).
I don’t know a lot about the world for disabled people, but what I do know and agree with, is Shew reminding us that death is inevitable, and if one lives long enough, they’re likely to get disabled in some way (mentally, physically, emotionally, so we ought to care about this topic now, as we seek to make changes for the better for the disabled in our communities.
TL;DR: This book about disabled people really challenged me and enlightened me on many things, and I’m grateful! Read it (it’s a short one)!
January 14, 2025
Very much enjoyed this short book that challenges technology as a “solution” to the “problem” of disability. As someone who has a family member with Down syndrome, I’ve been on the periphery of spaces where tech has been presented as the solution to normalizing behaviors seen as atypical, and have seen second-hand the ways in which this mindset is damaging to the overall project of calling in people of all abilities into the social fold. This author has one through line that should be harkened back to when anyone is thinking about disability—ask those affected; don’t anticipate their needs, don’t speak for them, and don’t expect “normalcy” to be their goal. Really enjoyed this read, and look forward to exploring these ideas more when considering the sociological needs of everyone in aiming for a just society.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 515 reviews