Introductioǹ`The way rights and duties are formally specified, distributed and redeemed in any legal and administrative system has a significant effect in structuring power relations and governance practices. Their specification reveals much about the political form and culture of a political community. '' Healey (1997, page 300) Discussions about citizenship have come to the fore in recent times and are an important part of both policy and academic debates. This is particularly so in relation to the development and implementation of urban policy where debates about the nature of citizens, their rights and responsibilities, have featured in a range of government policy documents and other outlets. For instance, in the United Kingdom the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1998a, page 23) has proclaimed that the development and delivery of government policies for the cities requires a``greater democratic legitimacy for local government and a new brand of involved and responsible citizenship; in short, reinvigorated local democracy''. Likewise, Prime Minister Tony Blair (1997a) has argued that``the basis of ... modern civic society is an ethic of mutual responsibility or duty. It is something for something. A society where we play by the rules. You only take out what you put in. That's the bargain.'' Blair's approach to government is based on the idea of the active citizen, or the notion that``for citizens to constitute the process of government depends upon them being able to play a full role in society''

A BSTR AC T This paper provides a docum entation and discussion of the diverse experiences that different disabled people have with regards to access in the built environment. It begins by outlining the various ways in which disabled people' s access needs and requirem ents are articulated in public policies and practices towards the development and regulation of the built environment. As the material indica tes, disabled people's needs are poorly articulated and/or represented in the design and development of the built environment while the regulatory controls which oversee disabled people's access are weak. In the second part of the paper, disabled people' s values, attitudes and practices towards access in the built environm ent are discussed by referring to the ® ndings of focus group research. The material shows that m any disabled people feel estranged and oppressed by facets of the built environment and generally feel powerless to do anything about it. W e conclude by suggesting a num ber of ways of interconnecting the design and im plementation of public policy towards the built environment with the daily lived experiences of disabled people.

This paper considers the relevance of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptions of the body to the development of disability theory. We begin by discussing the limitations of reductive conceptions of disability. In so doing, we consider how far Bourdieu's (1990) concept of habitus offers a way of bringing an analysis of the body to bear upon an understanding of the social inequalities which are core to the lives of disabled people. Through focus groups with disabled people, the paper explores aspects of disabled people's corporeal identities, feelings, and (embodied) encounters in a range of social settings. The research shows that disabled people's lives are connected to different 'valuations' attributed to corporeal forms, and to systems of signification and representation which underpin them. We conclude by reaffirming the need to consider Bourdieu's ideas in helping in the development of disability theory.

UD provides a useful, yet partial, understanding of the interrelationships between disability and design that may limit how far inequalities of access to the built environment can be overcome.

The paper describes and evaluates the theoretical underpinnings of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and develops the proposition that its conceptual framework provides a coherent, if uneven, guide through the competing conceptions of disability. To date, however, there has been little evaluation of the theoretical efficacy of the ICF. In seeking to redress this, the paper develops the argument that the ICF fails to specify, in any detail, the content of some of its main claims about the nature of impairment and disability. This has the potential to limit its capacity to educate and influence users about the relational nature of disability. The paper develops the contention that three parts of the ICF require further conceptual clarification and development: (a) (re)defining the nature of impairment; (b) specifying the content of biopsychosocial theory; and (c) clarifying the meaning and implications of universalisation as a principle for guiding the development of disability policies.

IntroductionMobility and movement are core to people's identities, life experiences, and opportunities. This is particularly so for those whose mobility and movement patterns are constrained by wider social or situational circumstances over which they have little or no control. For instance, research by the Royal National Institute for the Blind (1995, pages 17^18) shows that many people with vision impairments are isolated and trapped in their homes,``with many dependent on sighted assistance for such tasks as shopping''. Likewise, wheelchair users are prevented from entering into and using most buildings and transport; for example, 80% of London's underground stations are inaccessible to wheelchairs. Physical obstacles and barriers are compounded by social barriers too, with many disabled people often experiencing combinations of violence, verbal abuse, and hostile or negative reactions in public places (Barnes et al, 1999;Butler and Bowlby, 1997). Such expressions of societal aversion to the public presence of disabled people are commonplace and do little to encourage disabled people to move around. For most disabled people, then, daily reality is of restricted mobility, no mobility, or forms of mobility and movement which serve to highlight their impairment and difference. (1) The inequities of mobility and movement are connected to sociocultural values and practices which prioritise mobile bodies or those characterised by societally defined norms of health, fitness, and independence of bodily movements. Such bodies are, as Ellis (2000, page 5) notes,``naturalised as a biological given'' and projected as``the legitimate basis of order in a humanist world''. Illustrative of this are the plethora of metaphors of mobility and movement which are infused with conceptions of bodily completeness and independence, of the (normal) body far

No abstract

In this paper I develop the contention that architects rarely relate their design conceptions to the human body and its multiple forms of embodiment. Where the body is conceived of, it is usually in terms of a conception of the ‘normal body’, or a body characterised by geometrical proportions arranged around precise Cartesian dimensions. I describe and evaluate the content and implications of architects' conceptions of the body and embodiment, and consider the possibilities for, and problems in, challenging the dominance of bodily reductive conceptions in architecture.