Reengaging, reenacting and reenvisaging discourses of disaster through public space performance: Austerity, art, and the art of protest

This paper offers a mediation on disaster, recovery, resilience, and restoration of balance, in both a material and a metaphorical sense, when ‘disaster’ befalls not the body politic of the nation but the body personal. In the past few decades, of course, artists, activists and scholars have deliberately tried to avoid describing personal, physical and phenomenological experiences of the disabled body in terms of difficulty and disaster. This has been part of a political move, from a medical model, in which disability, disease and illness are positioned as personal catastrophes, to a social model, in which disability is positioned as a social construct that comes from systems, institutions and infrastructure designed to exclude different bodies. It is a move that is responsible for a certain discomfort people with disabilities, and artists with disabilities, today feel towards performances that deploy disability as a metaphor for disaster, from Hijikata, to Theatre Hora. In the past five years, though, this particular discourse has begun rising again, particularly as people with disabilities fact their own anything but natural disasters as a result of the austerity measures now widespread across the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. Measures that threaten people’s ability to live, and take part in social and institutional life, in any meaningful way. Measures that, as artist Katherine Araniello notes, also bring additional difficulty, danger, and potential for disaster as they ripple outwards across the tides of familial ties, threatening family, friends, and careers who become bound up in the struggle to do more with less. In this paper, I consider how people with disabilities use performance, particularly public space interventionalist performance, to reengage, renact and reenvisage the discourse of national, economic, environmental or other forms of disaster, the need for austerity, the need to avoid providing people with support for desires and interests as well as basic daily needs, particularly when fraud and corruption is so right, and other such ideas that have become an all too unpleasant reality for many people. Performances, for instance, like Liz Crow’s Bedding Out, where she invited people into her bed – for people with disabilities a symbolic space, which necessarily becomes more a public living room restaurant, office and so forth than a private space when poor mobility means they spend much time it in – to talk about their lives, their difficulties, and dealing with austerity. Or, for instance, like the Bolshy Divas, who mimic public and political policy, reports and advertising paranoia to undermine their discourses about austerity. I examine the effects, politics and ethics of such interventions, including examination of the comparative effect of highly bodied interventions (like Crow’s) and highly disembodied interventions (like the Bolshy Diva’s) in discourses of difficulty, disaster and austerity on a range of target spectator communities.

Performing immobility / protesting immobility: The risks & rewards of public space protest performances

Though there is much interest in mobilities and performing mobilities as a characteristic of modern, urban, social life today, this is not always matched by attention to immobilities, as the flipside of mobility in modern life. In this paper, I investigate public space performances designed to draw attention to precisely this counterpoint to current discourses of mobilities – performances about the socially produced immobilities many people with disabilities find a more fundamental feature of day-to-day life, the fight for mobility, and the freedom found when accommodations for alternative mobilities are made available. Although public policy is increasingly aligned with a social model of disability, which sees disability as socially constructed through systems, institutions and infrastructure deliberately designed to exclude specific bodies – stairs, curbs, queues and so forth – and although governments in the US, UK, and to a lesser degree Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth nations aim to address these inequalities, the experience of immobility is still every-present for many people. This often comes not just from pain, or from impairment, or event from lack of accommodations for alternative mobilities, but from fellow social performers’ antipathy to, appropriation of, or destruction of accommodations designed to facilitate access for a range of different bodies in public space, and thus the public sphere. The archetypal instance of this tension between the mobile, and those needing accommodations to allow mobility, is, of course, the antipathy many able bodied people feel towards the provision of disabled parking spaces. A cursory search online shows thousands of accounts of antagonism, vitriol, and even violence prompted by disputes which began when a disabled person asked an able person to exit a designated disabled parking space. For many, it seems, expecting them to pass by such parks so others can experience the mobility they take for granted is too much. In this paper, I examine a number of protest performances in public space in which activist present actions – for example, placing wheelchairs in every regular parking space in a precinct – to give bystanders, passersby and spectators, as well as antagonistic fellow social performers, a sense of what socially produced immobility feels like. I examine responses to such protest performances, and what they say about the potential social, political and ethical impacts of such protests, in terms of their potential to produce new attitudes to mobility, alternative mobility, and access to alternative modes of mobility.

Traversing the space between threats and violence: A review of threat assessment guidelines

While the majority of violent threats – defined as an expression of intent to do harm or act out violently against someone or something – do not progress to actual violence, a small proportion of threateners do go on to enact violence. Most researchers argue that violence risk assessments are inadequate for assessing threats of violence, which raises the question: how should a threat assessment (TA) be conducted? To begin to understand available frameworks for assessing threats, a systematic review of TA research literature was conducted. Most TA literature pertains to a specific domain (schools, public figure threats, workplaces) and target audience (clinicians, school personnel, law enforcement). TA guidelines are typically based on literature reviews with some based on empirical measures and others having no strong evidential basis. The most common concepts in TA are exploration of the threatener's mental health, the motivation for the threat and the presence of any plans. Rather than advocating for the development of a protocol for conducting TA, this article outlines the common areas of inquiry in assessing threats and highlights the limitations of current TA guidelines.

Diverse bodies-space politics: Towards a critique of social (in)justice of built environment

Writing has long played an important role in the progression of architecture and the built environment. Histories of architecture are written, manifestoes that form the basis for a designer’s work are written and most importantly, the built environment advances itself through the act of critical writing. Not unlike the visual arts, literature and poetry, the tradition of written criticism has been crucial to the progression of architecture and its allied professions (Franz 2003). This article contributes to architecture and the built environment through the act of a written essay that critiques the problem of bodily diversity to architecture. In particular, the article explores the implications of body-space politics and abstracted body thinking on diverse bodies and their spatial justice. Using Soja’s Spatial Justice theory (2008), we seek to point out the underlying conceptions and power differentials assigned to different bodies spatially and how this leads to spatial injustices and contested spaces. The article also critically analyses the historical emergence of ‘the standardised body’ in architecture and its application in design theory and practice , and looks at how bodies often found on the outside of architecture highlight how such thinking creates in justices. Different theories are drawn on to help point to how design through the use of the upright, forward facing, male bod willingly and unwillingly denies access to resources and spatialities of everyday life. We also suggest ways to re-conceptualise the body in design practice and teaching.