An Analysis of the Modified Handicapped Symbol
My older brother was born with Spina Bifida, meaning his spinal cord developed abnormally while he was in the womb. Since childhood, he has worn braces on his legs, maneuvered with walkers and crutches, and used a wheelchair. I didn’t notice anything about my brother that was out of the ordinary for most of my early years. I grew up with a handicapped tag hanging from the rearview mirror of my family’s car and thought nothing of it. Jakob was never a kid in a wheelchair to me. He was, and still is, simply my brother. As I’ve grown older, I’ve thought more deeply about the community which I have been raised alongside. I’ve spent lots of time in hospitals during his seven surgeries, cheered him on at all his many sports games, and attended countless events put on by organizations for families of kids with disabilities. Throughout all of this, I’ve encountered many incredible individuals who are a part of the disabled community.
I do not claim to understand the viewpoint of an individual with a disability. I simply know what I have experienced as an able-bodied person who is exceptionally close to a member of this community. With this relationship and others, I have been able to gain a sliver of insight into how those closest to me feel about certain issues. Specifically, I’ve heard opinions and testimonies regarding the somewhat recent change in the handicap symbol. From my closeness to the community, I’ve seen how this movement is not as groundbreaking as it is made out to be, and in actuality, it is more harmful than helpful to individuals with disabilities.
Description of Rhetorical Ecology
When considering the handicapped symbol, individuals most often think about its intended crowd solely in terms of people with disabilities. Although people with disabilities are a large part of whom the symbol is indeed designed for, the audience it reaches is much broader than this specific demographic. The symbol is directed towards the able-bodied crowd as well, simply in a different way. For example, it alerts able-bodied people where they are not allowed to park their cars and aims to prevent this group from using these parking spots. It also assists able-bodied caretakers in aiding individuals with disabilities. Able-bodied people have a notable role in receiving this symbolic form of technical communication and surprisingly played a big part in the change of the symbol.
Nevertheless, it is obvious the symbol holds the most importance for individuals with disabilities. The classic blue and white wheelchair emblem is something most, if not all, people with disabilities encounter every day of their lives. Recognized on a global level, the symbol is considered the official international symbol of disability (CBS News). It assists in their day-to- day tasks, helping them locate things like accessible entrances, exits, elevators, and more. It dictates where they can and, by default, where they cannot go. Due to the relevance and significance the symbol holds, it only makes sense that a drastic change in its design is considerable first and foremost for people with disabilities.
These two groups of individuals are not completely separated from one another. In fact, they intertwine more often than not. Many wheelchair users, especially children and those with more severe disabilities, depend heavily on able-bodied people for assistance. Parents of children with disabilities must be able to locate wheelchair ramps for their child. They must know where to park to best adapt to their needs. These things require the handicapped symbol to be encountered by able-bodied people. It is the same for adults with disabilities who are under the care of assistants. Personal assistance services, or PAS, help individuals with disabilities with activities ranging from bathing to running errands to work preparation (U.S. Department of Labor). The able-bodied people who are in these PAS positions are an ideal example of individuals who do not have a disability but still are an important stakeholder in the symbol’s rhetorical ecology.
The regulators of this piece of technological communication are significant as well. The government’s United States Access Board is in place to create regulations regarding handicapped signs (U.S. Access Board). Specifically, Title III of the ADA and the Architectural Barriers Act requires the use of the International Symbol of Access, which is the old version of the symbol, whenever a construction code demands usage of the sign (Egan). Though government regulation also varies by state. Currently, both New York and Connecticut have passed legislation which calls for use of the new “Accessible Icon” symbol rather than the ISA (Egan). It’s obvious that the government plays a huge role as a stakeholder in the rhetorical ecology of the symbol, as it is the institution making decisions impacting its implementations.
Analysis of the Artifact's Impact on Its Ecology
The original handicapped symbol was introduced in 1968 by a woman named Susanne Koefoed. This symbol depicts a stick figure sitting upright in a wheelchair. In 1974, the United Nations made it an international symbol of disability (CBS News). Therefore, it is the most well- known symbol indicating wheelchairs/disabilities. This symbol had remained untouched and in place until 2010 when The Accessible Icon Project was started by a philosophy professor at Gordon College named Brian Glenney (Phelps). His updated design for the symbol included a body which is leaning forward, has its arm reared back, and looks to be in motion rather than stationary (Paraplegia News). This adjusted handicapped symbol has since taken the world by storm. It is being used in place of the old signage across the globe, both by government enforcement and individual preference.
The impact of the symbol’s change has much variation within the different stakeholders. For instance, many people with disabilities believe the change of the symbol is a monumental step. Lots of these individuals view the original stiff, stationary stick man symbol as outdated and ineffective. Jon Slifka, a disabled community liaison in Connecticut who uses a wheelchair, is extremely supportive. "I think this is just another step in the evolution of disability awareness or disability action, where the disability community doesn't want to be looked at in just one certain way," he states (CBS News). Slifka, along with many other wheelchair users, see the symbol’s change as a positive thing. For many, the new and improved emblem represents a sense of power and ability held by those with disabilities. These individuals not only embrace the change itself but also the attention of the public eye which it is stirring up.
Within the able-bodied audience of this change, there are just as many supporters. Most of the news articles found online in support of the change were written by able-bodied individuals. In fact, the head of The Accessible Icon Project itself, Brian Glenney, is an able- bodied man. Many able-bodied people feel the need to stick up for what is seen as the empowerment of individuals with disabilities and therefore offer their support for the movement. Despite not having a dog in the race, so to speak, countless able-bodied folk have become active members of the campaign for the updated symbol.
On the other hand, there are many individuals with disabilities who do not support the switch. Especially to those with more severe physical disabilities, this new symbol is seen as utterly exclusive. One example of the change being perceived in a negative light is Cathy Ludlum’s point of view. Ludlum, who has spinal muscular atrophy and uses an electric wheelchair, believes the new symbol “splits the disability community between people admired for their athletic prowess and those of us whose contributions may be less visible and less physical but are no less important” (Stuart). From some people with disabilities’ points of view, the impact of the symbol’s update does nothing more than create further division. It can make it seem as if those with disabilities are only valuable if they can mimic some sort of able-bodied- ness. Therefore, many individuals with disabilities take offense to the change and are unsupportive.
The effect of the symbol’s revamping on the government is noteworthy as well. As previously stated, only New York and Connecticut, along with a few other cities, have passed laws that require the usage of the altered symbol in lieu of the original. In these areas, all new construction is obligated to display the new symbol (Egan). This is largely where money comes into play. These state governments are unable to demand that every sign be modified because of the astronomical amount of money it would cost. It is an immense part of why the movement has not spread further in terms of legislature, as it would be an extremely pricey endeavor and therefore troublesome to enforce.
Implications
The main problems with the change that the symbol has undergone are its origins and its underlying connotations. The movement was not spearheaded by an individual with a disability who felt they were being wronged. Rather, it was brought into existence by an able-bodied man and his team of also able-bodied individuals. No matter where Brian Glenney got the inspiration to begin this endeavor or his rationale behind the crusade for adjusting the symbol, because of his status as a non-wheelchair user, it is rooted in some sense of a savior complex. The mere idea that something within the disabled community required change which the community itself was unable to identify and fix on their own proves this. If this was a pertinent issue to individuals with disabilities, it would have been recognized first and foremost by this specific audience.
The idea of the symbol having an issue at all is a downright ableist viewpoint. Claiming that there is something wrong with an immobile figure resting in a wheelchair is altogether disrespectful. A large portion of the disabled community consists of individuals with more severe physical disabilities which render them with lessened mobility. Transforming the symbol to a more active, mobile figure inherently tells these people there is something about them in need of correction. It seems to be stating that individuals closest to having able-bodied qualities are the ones who deserve to be represented in the design. Though these may not be explicit statements or beliefs carried within the handicapped symbol’s change, they are innate and ultimately harmful.
References
"Accessible icon moves forward." PN - Paraplegia News, vol. 68, no. 6, June 2014, p. 22. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A370396439/ITOF?u=mlin_n_gordon&sid=bookmark- ITOF&xid=2a498cc7. Accessed 16 Feb. 2022.
Egan, John. “Accessible Icon Update: New Federal Guidance Deepens Quandary for Businesses Facing Contradictory State Requirements.” ADA Title III, Seyfarth, 24 Apr. 2017, https://www.adatitleiii.com/2017/04/accessible-icon-update-new-federal-guidance- deepens-quandary-for-businesses-facing-contradictory-state-requirements/.
Glenney, Brian. The Accessible Icon Project, https://accessibleicon.org/.
“Handicapped Symbol Getting a Makeover - and Resistance.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 16 Oct. 2015, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/handicapped-symbol-getting-a-makeover/.
“Personal Assistance Services.” United States Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employment-supports/personal- assistance-services.
Phelps, Jonathan. “Gordon College Adds New 'Accessibility Icon' to Parking Lots.” Salem News, 20 Nov. 2012, https://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/gordon-college- adds-new-accessiblity-icon-to-parking-lots/article_a8590fe4-61bb-545e-8662- 6b9b3e4622b4.html.
Stuart, Christine. “Not Everyone Is in Favor of Changing the Handicapped Symbol.” CT News Junkie, 21 Jan. 2021, https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2016/02/23/not_everyone_is_in_favor_of_changing_the_handicapped_symbol/.
“U.S. Access Board.” Guidance on the International Symbol of Accessibility, 17 Mar. 2017, https://www.access-board.gov/aba/guides/guidance-on-the-isa/.