Tecnología, cuerpo y discapacidad: la corpoespacialidad y sus objetos cotidianos

Joan Francisco Matamoros Sanin

doi:10.29105/diversia.v1i2.12

Authors

Joan Francisco Matamoros Sanin Centro de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4615-362X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/diversia.v1i2.12

Keywords:

disability, corpospatiality, technology, body, disability studies

Abstract

This text represents a theoretical model for understanding disability, emphasizing the relational dynamics between the body, space and everyday objects. Drawing on different traditions, it argues that disability is not solely a biomedical condition but a sociocultural and spatial phenomenon that emerges through the interaction between individuals, their environments, and the material objects that mediate in everyday life. The discussion examines how technologies and artifacts such as wheelchairs, canes, prostheses, and other mundane objects facilitate mobility and contribute to the construction of meaning, identity and social participation. Building on the notion of “techniques of the body through space”, the bodily practices configured through cultural contexts and spatial relations are explored. It also engages with disability studies and cyborg theory to question conventional boundaries between bodies and technologies, highlighting forms of intimacy, embodiment and mutual constitution. The writing concludes that technologies associated with disability should be understood not merely as devices but as assemblages of practices, knowledge, meanings and power relations embedded in specific historical and sociocultural contexts.This perspective offers a relational framework for analyzing disability in relationship to space and social life.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Babyar, J. (2019). In search of Pan-American indigenous health and harmony. Globalization and Health, 15(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0454-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0454-1

Balslev, H., & Gutiérrez Martínez, D. (Coords.). (2008). Revisitar la etnicidad: Miradas cruzadas en torno a la diversidad. El Colegio de Sonora; El Colegio Mexiquense; Siglo XXI Editores.

Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

Coronado, G. (2005). Competing health models in Mexico: An ideological dialogue between Indian and hegemonic views. Anthropology & Medicine, 12(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470500140047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470500140047

Duch, L., & Mélich, J. C. (2005). Escenarios de la corporeidad: Antropología de la vida cotidiana 2/1. Editorial Trotta.

Gómez Guillén, F. A. (2018). Masculinidades indígenas: Una autopsia a los hombres zinacantecos [Tesis de maestría, CIESAS].

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.

Haraway, D. J. (2016). A cyborg manifesto. University of Minnesota Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/warw/detail.action?docID=4392065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816650477.003.0001

Herzfeld, M. (1985). The poetics of manhood: Contest and identity in a Cretan mountain village. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691216386

Lemmonier, P. (2012). Mundane objects: Materiality and non-verbal communication. Left Coast Press.

Loeser, C., Crowley, V., & Pini, B. (2017). Introductory essay: Disability and masculinities: Corporeality, pedagogy and the critique of otherness. En C. Loeser, V. Crowley, & B. Pini (Eds.), Disability and masculinities: Corporeality, pedagogy and the critique of otherness. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53477-4

López Moya, M. C. (2018). Hacerse hombres cabales: Masculinidades entre tojolabales (2ª ed.). Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas; Centro de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29043/CESMECA.rep.959

Matamoros-Sanin, J. F., & Montesi, L. (2025). Indigenous men with disabilities at work: Corpospatial reconfigurations in/of a changing rural Mexico. Anthropology of Work Review, 46, e70003. https://doi.org/10.1111/awr.70003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/awr.70003

Matamoros-Sanín, J., & Peláez-Ballestas, I. (2016). Spatial notions and illness. En J. Davidson & Y. Saber (Eds.), Narrating illness: Prospects and constraints (pp. 35–45). Interdisciplinary Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9781848884885_005

Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 34, 70–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147300000003

Reeve, D. (2012). Cyborgs, cripple and iCrip: Reflections on the contribution of Haraway to disability studies. En D. Goodley, B. Hughes, & L. Davis (Eds.), Disability and social theory: New developments and directions. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023001_6

Roldán, J., Álvarez, M., Carrasco, M., Guarneros, N., Ledesma, J., Cuchillo-Hilario, M., & Chávez, A. (2017). Marginalization and health service coverage among indigenous, rural and urban populations: A health problem in Mexico. Rural and Remote Health, 17, 3948. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH3948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH3948

Santos, M. (2009). La naturaleza del espacio. Ariel.

Salcedo Barragán, M., & Ortiz Ocaña, A. L. (2017). Análisis epistémico del pensamiento configuracional. Zona Próxima, (26), 99–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14482/zp.26.10180