Planetary Health Requires an Anti-Ableist Turn

When writing about ableism, one is treading on sensitive ground. As with other forms of classification, oppression, and exclusion, ableism is associated with strong emotions, diverse experiences, and differing opinions. I therefore want to begin this essay by providing a definition of ableism that I have developed during the course of my studies and work. This definition is based on my understanding of ableism as a social scientist and is an attempt to develop a basis for the subsequent discussion of this topic in relation to Planetary Health.

In my view, ableism first and foremost consists of the process of constructing (non-)normality and related expectations and attributions concerning ability, appearance, behavior, way of life, and other aspects of human existence. One essential result of this process is then binary categories (e.g., able-bodied vs. disabled), which are hierarchically structured and embedded in dynamics of dominance, power, and the distribution of privileges and opportunities, and so on. Ableism consequently plays a crucial role in every aspect of our lives and affects everyone, albeit differently — including those who currently benefit more from it than suffer from its limiting, dividing, and fear- and aversion-inciting effects. 

My definition of ableism is connected to the fact that the experience of being (human) is fluid and ever-changing. However, there is more to the critique of rigid notions of normality and the continuous (re-)production of binary categorization practices: we bind ourselves to ideas of how we should be, what we should be capable of, and how we should live. We build groups that we think of as homogeneous and, in doing so, ignore people’s individuality, differing situations and experiences, and personal needs and strengths. The concept of health (and healing) is directly connected to this and interwoven with one’s opportunities to participate in society, to access things like education, as well as with the (modern) drive to individualize health-related responsibilities and to dedicate oneself to self-optimization (e.g., “to be as healthy as possible,” combined with an understanding of health as the absence of “disability,” as the ability to be resilient, as the “right” way to live/to exist, as a precondition for worthiness/happiness/love/etc., and as the opposite of being pitied or classified as a burden, as underperforming, or as incompetent, etc.).

For Planetary Health to truly include all life (including living beings who are labelled as “disabled”), we have to develop a concept of health that pays attention to the fluidity of life as well as to the concept’s own contribution to the construction of normality and inclusion-exclusion-dynamics. We need to understand health as a fluctuating, individually defined, and hence varying state that is (also, or particularly) linked to the systemic status quo and socio-ecological “determinants” and constructions of health and illness or disease/ability and disability. Against this backdrop, it is equally necessary to foster an awareness of ableism as a cause of health-related limitations and disadvantages. This is especially necessary with regard to climate change, environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, etc., and their (if undertaken at all) mostly ableist compensation, mitigation, or combat — on top of everyday marginalization and its negative health impacts/contribution to the social construction of “disability.” These health impacts include stress, negative effects on mental and physical health, and poorer chances of intended recovery/“healing,” for instance.

Continuing from this redefinition of health, the concept of diversity has to be detached from processes of othering, since diversity is often referred to as something inherent to “the others” (e.g., individuals labelled as “disabled”) and separated from or opposed to normality or “normal people/beings.” My objection is that the term diversity (or heterogeneity) rather encompasses the simple fact that every person and all life is like no other, and that many different characteristics, experiences, perspectives, etc., exist in this world. We and everything in the “natural/biological” sphere are diverse. This corresponds to the necessity of redefining inclusion, which I will elaborate on later.

For Planetary Health to truly be able to address and keep in mind all life on earth, we have to incorporate a diversity-sensitive, ableism-critical, and intersectionality-aware way of designing systemic change, societal transformation, and solutions for saving our planet and establishing sustainable ways of living. Considering that this is an ambitious and difficult goal to achieve, we have to think and talk about appropriate strategies. From my standpoint, we need to educate people based on an educational ideal that combines free personal development (through active engagement with the world) with the acquisition of intrinsic motivation and an inner compass for Planetary Health values and ethics.

The act of integrating everyone into the concepts of ableism and diversity, and the call to stop reproducing the dichotomy of ableist categories, does not mean ignoring that people/beings can suffer from their (current) constitution (as well as from ableism). What I am arguing is that the building of identities, the (self-)categorization, and the (self-)attribution around or with the help of those binary boxes is dividing, harming, and limiting us (e.g., “us vs. them” or the imprisonment in a specific way of being, living, perceiving, and seeing others/the world, etc.). In order to advance Planetary Health, we have to deconstruct damaging and hindering processes of classification and exclusion/marginalization and work on building community and solidarity — among us humans and, as an act of co-liberation or reconnection, with other beings. 

Thus, inclusion, in accordance with my beliefs, is neither the (self-)integration into nor the (self-)adaption to what is considered normal(ity), nor is it the effort of a dominant,  “normal”-labelled group to let “the others” be part of their community (e.g., by granting compensation or support). It is an act of mutual interaction, mutual empathy, and mutual acceptance, in which consideration of diverse needs and lived realities is built into structures, environments, etc., from the very beginning. On the one hand, it is the responsibility of privileged people who hold power and practice dominance to make a change (and not of marginalized and societally disadvantaged individuals; regarding both ableism and Planetary Health). On the other hand, different standpoints, views, experiences, knowledges, and competences (which often result from, e.g., being confronted with exclusion and socially constructed challenges) are not just crucial but often the driving force and an enrichment for transformations. This leads to the conclusion that we can only safeguard and improve Planetary Health when we realize that we are all in the same boat — not letting anyone drown, but rather recognizing that we need everyone (for humanity) to survive — heading towards a gigantic wave in the form of local, global, and planetary disasters.

About the Author

References

Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Springer. 

Nario-Redmond, M. (2020). Ableism: The Causes and Consequences of Disability Prejudice. Wiley Blackville.

powell, j. & Menendian, S. (2024). Belonging Without Othering: How We Save Ourselves and the World. Stanford University Press.

Taylor, S. (2017). Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation. The New Press.