Introduction
Corpi esibiti, corpi celati, corpi negati
By Maria Giulia Bernardini
https://www.academia.edu/1411616/Corpi_esibiti_corpi_celati_corpi_negati
This essay is inspired by the above paper. I acknowledge this at the outset and express my gratitude for that specialized work.
Furthermore, this essay is unrelated to the above paper, and if there are any errors, they are my responsibility. I also promise readers that I am writing this essay without affiliation and without compensation, and there are no conflicts of interest.
Now then, what standards should we use to understand humanity and design society in the contemporary world? Certainly, standard-setting is necessary in fields like medicine and welfare. However, there are serious problems when these become the definition of humanity or “normalcy” for society as a whole. This paper examines the fundamental ethical shift in perspective necessary to realize a diverse society.
Diversity and dignity are also matters of ethics.
The Limitations of “Standards” and the Reality of Diversity
Traditional social design has often been premised on a limited “standard human image.” For example, in policy-making, there is a tendency to regard heterosexual, non-disabled males as “typical” and treat everyone else as “exceptions.” The reality is that far too many people fall outside this narrow “standard,” revealing a lack of design sensibility.
Consider the example of life insurance. The fact that some people cannot obtain coverage or face high premiums may create the troubling impression that a price is being placed on life itself.
When there are too many exceptions like this, they are no longer truly exceptions—a contradiction that reveals a lack of sensibility. A design where a large portion of society is treated as “exceptional” is fundamentally flawed.
Redefining Human Dignity: The Value of Being Alive
What’s important here is fundamentally reconsidering human value. What truly matters in social design is the perspective that considers “being alive” itself as 100 points. Even when bedridden, a person’s dignity remains completely intact. All of us, simply by being alive, already possess maximum value.
Is this hypocritical?
Is this idealistic?
No, it’s realism.
Can you specifically determine the presence or absence of dignity?
From this perspective, what was traditionally labeled as “disability” looks completely different. It’s not “unable to walk” but rather “able to walk,” not “without arms” but “with arms.” It’s not “intellectual disability” but “able to think deeply,” not “unable to see” but “able to process visual information.”
Is this just rewording?
No. This thought experiment fundamentally overturns our preconceptions. When we consider “what is the minimum composition of humanity,” it lies simply in being alive itself. Beyond that, there are people who can walk, those who can use their bodies like fighters, those who can run like athletes, those who can think deeply like philosophers—each possessing different abilities.
Mutual Understanding and Building Social Trust
The diversity I want to share with you is not simply that everyone is different. It’s about understanding what each other can do and understanding what each other doesn’t want done to them. For example, since it’s painful for a person with visual impairment to be blamed for that condition, it’s important not to neglect such consideration.
We respect Helen Keller, but we don’t blame her for things she cannot do. We shouldn’t do that—but don’t we also not want to? Isn’t that evidence that ethics functions within you? It’s not about being kind or unkind—we pay respect to existence itself.
This kind of mutual understanding goes beyond mere “getting along” and has the power to increase trust throughout society. It’s not the totalitarian solidarity like historical fascism, but bottom-up trust born from mutual respect and diversity. Such a society based on trust is what we need in the contemporary world, which faces many crises and is criticized for lack of leadership. What do you think?
Reconciling Competition and Diversity
However, what’s important here is that this perspective doesn’t negate competition or effort. The institutional design I’ve described is also about how to protect the public good.
The public good and competition can coexist when handled appropriately. There are many historical examples of mistakes. Like the aggro strategy in Hearthstone, there are many cases where the public good was destroyed. This is happening in Japan too.
Competition is necessary for social progress, and advanced knowledge and skills are required in specialized fields. AI development requires specialized knowledge, and professional soccer requires high skills—this is natural.
What’s important is having a social system where intense competition is acceptable, but it’s okay to lose, and even if you don’t participate in that competition, you can demonstrate your abilities in other fields. If you can’t make it to Serie A, you might excel in the Mathematics Olympiad. In a society where failure in one field doesn’t prevent success in another, diversity is guaranteed while maintaining society’s productivity.
Pathways to New Social Design
Let’s consider specific approaches to realizing these ideals. First, it’s important to incorporate diverse perspectives from the design stage.
Depending on the nature of the work, if people with different opinions can work as a team, more multifaceted verification becomes possible.
In policy and product development, various stakeholders should be involved from the beginning, realizing a process of “creating together” rather than post-hoc “consideration.”
Next, it’s necessary to expand the concept of universal design, making systems that are easy for everyone to use the standard, rather than designing for specific groups. Social systems should also shift from “exception-handling” to “diversity-presuming” models, building flexible mechanisms suited to each individual.
Even more important is cultivating a culture that doesn’t exclude or treat “differences” as special but accepts differences as natural, acknowledging the burden of understanding differences while encouraging it. Education and media should convey diverse ways of living and differences in body and mind not as “special stories” but as “society’s norm.”
Conclusion: Social Transformation Through Reversed Thinking
It’s necessary to completely flip the current social view that sees “disability” as a deficiency in ability. Instead of subtracting when something is lacking, we need a society that considers being alive as 100 points and recognizes diverse abilities beyond that—a society that can value 101 points and above.
A society where everyone has the right to challenge themselves, can choose where to make efforts, and where failure doesn’t negate one’s life. This would also serve as a deterrent against the historical pattern of decline through bureaucratization.
Isn’t this kind of paradoxical thinking a step toward our diverse society? Building a society where competition and cooperation coexist, based on the principle that having life and being alive is the standard, and dignity is unchanging for everyone. This is the direction we should aim for.
Questioning the concepts of “normal,” “typical,” and “standard.” Establishing design thinking premised on diversity throughout society. This is not an easy path, but precisely because it’s difficult, the joy will be great when we realize a balanced society that cherishes each individual’s dignity while maintaining society’s vitality.