IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2020 - 46

moving through the world) almost seem designed to end
with exoskeletons as a solution to the "problem" of mobility impairment - a technoableist's dream solution. Yet
exoskeletons aren't the cure-all imagined by the news stories in which they are featured [13], [26]. And actual
wheelchair users - the people for whom the devices
were ostensibly developed - point out that nondisabled
people are often mistaken about what is bad about being
a wheelchair user. Wheelchairs themselves are not the
problem; as Peace put it, "From my perspective, I think a
wheelchair is a phenomenal invention" [33].
The real problem with wheelchairs is accessibility, both
environmental and economic. Many places remain inaccessible for wheelchair users (despite legal accessibility
requirements, which are poorly or simply not enforced),
and wheelchairs are economically inaccessible to many
(good wheelchairs are costly and difficult to repair - and
just imagine how much worse exoskeletons will be to
maintain and repair!9). The fanfare over exoskeletons puts
the focus on mobility devices rather than other problems
faced by paralyzed people. Rather than spending money
developing alternatives to wheelchair technology, which
works very well, other effects of paralysis should be examined by scientists and technologists, as the blogger Shane
Clifton (quoted above) pointed out [9]; why can't a tech
designer create a workable device to help with bowel and
bladder control or nerve pain? These are a much bigger
problem for many wheelchair users than the chair itself.
Disability studies scholar Kim Sauder identifies the
key reasons why the fanfare around standing wheelchairs
and exoskeletons is problematic for those in the disability community. First, Sauder says, "able-bodied people
ignore the cost of these devices," which would usually
"be shouldered by the disabled user." Second, Sauder
points out, many of the exoskeletons are very limited; for
example, she says, the Tek exoskeleton "is only useful
indoors so an alternate mobility device is required outdoors." And exoskeletons will do nothing to increase
accessibility for non-wheelchair users who have other
mobility impairments. These people "may also need
additional space to maneuver or ramps," and exoskeletons do nothing to make the broader environment accessible to everyone. Third, the fact that exoskeletons
ignore the possibility of "making the actual social environment more mobility friendly" instead puts the problem back on the individual disabled person, reinforcing
the ableist medical model of disability: "It positions the
disabled body as social space where others can enact
changes to mobility," which "ignores both the autonomy
of disabled people and the fact that many of us don't
want to be 'fixed' either by cure or imposed treatment."

Finally, Sauder notes that the entire concept of exoskeletons "associate[s] an accessible environment to disability
(therefor [sic] rendering it 'other' and undesirable)" [36].
Exoskeletons only look like a solution when wheelchair
use and paralysis are couched as individual problems, rather than problems of our infrastructure - of who we include
in our visions of the environments of the future. This exoskeleton narrative ignores the fact that many wheelchair
users are not paralyzed. Even if this technology were affordable (it probably won't be), it still would do nothing for the
real problem as nondisabled people see it: the fact that
people use wheelchairs. The huge number of non-paralyzed wheelchair users would still be around, asking for
more curb cuts and door openers, reminding nondisabled
people that people with disabilities exist. And the hype
about exoskeletons as solving the "problem" of paralysis is
completely misplaced - the way that the technology has
been marketed, promoted, and hyped is more a reflection
of ableism than of the devices' real value, which is for nonparalyzed people. Exoskeletons could be remarkably useful
as safety devices (they are currently being tested for workers in home improvement stores, who have to lift heavy
things), and people report that the devices can be successfully used in physical therapy rehabilitation for people who
have had strokes, supporting them as they practice different movements to regain strength and balance. But these
uses for exoskeletons - as support devices for older people doing post-stroke rehab or as expensive lifting belts for
workers at your local Home Depot - are much less technoredemptive, for these workaday uses for exoskeletons don't
fit into our (ableist) visions of a techno-utopian future.

Technoableist Dreams of Cure and Passing
Disability and technology must be situated within the
social, historical, and cultural stories we internalize, which
usually show that disabled technology users are empowered, liberated, or normalized by technology. This is the
rhetoric that is embodied in the controversies over cochlear implants, autism charity work, and exoskeletons - case
studies that make clear how supposedly well-meaning people can make mistakes in imagining the needs and desires
of the communities they purport to serve.
Even members of those communities, though, can
get it wrong. Ableism is a system of value that all of us
participate in, including individual disabled people. And
internalized ableism might be even more common
among disabled people who (like me) are not born with
disabilities, but become disabled during the course of
their lives. Disability is a category that can come to apply
to anyone, and people who are already disabled might
enter new categories of disability at any time.10 Systemic
10

9

Joshua Earle has some forthcoming work on "Cyborg Maintenance" that
talks about this exact problem with current technologies.

46

Here I think of my amputee pal Mallory Kay Nelson who, upon recounting to
me how she became an amputee, added "of course I've always been dyslexic,
so I have been a part of the disability community for much longer" [30].

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

∕

MARCH 2020
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2020
