possibilities. It is clear that the disabled body is ubiquitously represented in negative ontological terms and its limitation and deficits dominate the literature. It is difficult to escape the representation of the disabled life as doomed and tragic or to avoid the melancholia that surrounds non disabled people’s accounts of disabled people’s lives. ‐ To make disabled people of us all adds pessimism to essentialist naturalism . Would it not be better – as recent proponents of the ‘rhizomatic’ potential of people with learning disabilities have done (Goodley 2007; Braidotti 2002) – to admit that all of us, disabled or not, are bursting with possibilities and capabilities? In the universalist discourse ‘lack’ haunts us all. For those who embrace the tropes of monstrosity and abjection ‘lack’ is a status reserved for disability.
2AC - Mobility Perm do both [Insert analytics] The alternative wouldn’t break down physical obstacles that hinder movement of persons with disabilities – no solvency Imrie 2000 - Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London( Rob Disability and discourses of mobility and movement Environment and Planning volume 32 )bs Mobility 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 removed from those with physical and mental impairments.