Say “I Already Belong” And The Conditional Access Paradigm Crumbles

Hi there 👋 Lately, I’ve been trying to work through the consequences of the statement “I already belong”.

I’ve been using a wheelchair for almost forty years. Over the years, I’ve been growing more and more tired of always having to ask for permission, relying on someone else providing access, and on always being conditionally present and never being fully anticipated from the beginning.

Saying “I already belong” completely flips this script.

How To Challenge The Conditional Access Paradigm

Wheelchair signs tell a great deal about society. The collage of 28 wheelchair signs above gives an overall impression of conditionality (Figure 1).

Access based on conditional relations typically has three traits:

• It demands that the individual ask for permission to access.
• It assumes that the designer has legitimate power to grant or deny access.
• It positions these two as “we”, the norm, who grant access to “them”, who deviate from the norm.

The conditional access paradigm relies on the “us and them” division to function. Remove that foundation, and it will start to crumble.

Nonclusion – Nonconditional Belonging as a Way to Move Beyond “Us and Them”

Nonclusion means starting from the basis that there is only one population in society, and in that population, there are variations in all forms. The shift towards nonclusive thinking is driven by a deliberate change in categorisation:

“Nonclusive design means design that resists categorisations of bodies/roles, and that does not come with predefined or presupposed limits in terms of who it is meant for.” [1]

It took me three years from our initial introduction of nonclusion to fully realise that one of the direct consequences of the shift towards a nonclusive paradigm is that everyone belongs from the beginning, without first having to be accommodated or “included” [2].

Flipping the Script

Nonclusion flips the script:

• It places the individual as already belonging.
• It demands that the designer explain why they designed as if some people don't exist.
• It positions all people as part of “we”, which makes the “us and them” relation crumble. The “us and them” division was never natural in the first place. It was created by design with embedded conditional terms for belonging. When belonging is nonconditional, the division has no ground to stand on.

Nonclusion shifts the burden away from the individual. But this doesn't mean ignoring human differences, just refusing to make them the basis for conditional belonging.

This is not a gradual change. It is a complete refusal of the division of people into norm and deviation. It isn't wishful thinking. The barriers are real. But the fact that barriers exist doesn't make them justified. That I already belong is an ontological truth. However, a design that creates barriers is a political choice. It is important not to confuse the two.

Look at the 28 wheelchair signs in Figure 1. Each sign marks a boundary, a condition to meet. They exist because design created two paths: the unmarked one (for “everyone“) and the marked one (for “disabled people”). But “everyone” never actually meant everyone, did it? The abundance of signs shows how pervasive this separation is. But the signs aren't solving the problem. The signs ARE the problem made visible.

Try to say “I already belong” and watch what happens: Then design can no longer hide behind “providing access”. It must answer to why it creates barriers in the first place.

The conditional access paradigm doesn't just weaken – it becomes indefensible.

What This Opens Up

Starting from "I already belong" makes different questions possible to ask.

When you ask, "Can everyone use this?" you're asking a different question than "Do we provide access?"

The focus shifts from permission and gatekeeping to function and design qualities. From "Do I qualify for access?" to "Does this work for the variation of people who will use it?"

This paradigm shift isn't about individual guilt. It's about recognising the system we're all working within and finding ways to challenge it from wherever we are.

The next time you encounter one of these conditional access signs, try saying to yourself: "I already belong here." Notice what shifts. Does the question change from "Am I allowed?" to "Why does this require permission?"

And if you design, try starting a project with "Everyone already belongs here, everyone will use this. Now what?" See what questions become askable. See what design possibilities open up that were invisible before.

I'd love to hear what you discover.

Notes and References

This piece builds on findings from The Syntax of Equality project, where we investigate situation-based categorisation and nonclusive design through citizen science and field observations.

Do you want to use the photos or illustrations in a publication? Please go ahead. Or in a presentation or video? Please do, and tell me about how you use them and what you learn! I appreciate attribution in some form, i.e., that you tell where you got the material from ("Per-Olof Hedvall"), but it is not mandatory. 👍

References:

1. Hedvall, P.-O., Price, M., Keller, J., & Ericsson, S. (2022). Towards 3rd Generation Universal Design: Exploring Nonclusive Design. Transforming Our World through Universal Design for Human Development, 85–92. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI220824.
2. Hedvall, P.-O., & Ericsson, S. (2024). The Problem with “Inclusion”? It Is Done to Someone by Someone. In Universal Design 2024: Shaping a Sustainable, Equitable and Resilient Future for All (pp. 18–25). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240978.