In a groundbreaking study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, researchers have delved into how mobility-related disability stereotypes are perpetuated and challenged within clinical rehabilitation settings. Utilizing a Foucauldian lens, the investigation unravels the intricate ways medical discourse shapes both physiotherapists’ narratives and clients’ perceptions of disability, illuminating complex interplay between institutional authority, language, and symbolic representation.
At the heart of this inquiry is the recognition that rehabilitation is not simply a biomedical process but a deeply representational arena where stereotypes about disability are both reinforced and contested. The researchers spotlight three interrelated themes that elucidate how initial interactions between clients and healthcare professionals in clinical environments influence notions of disability. These themes collectively reveal how medical power structures are refracted through patient-centered care models, communicative barriers, and the symbolic weight of assistive technologies.
The first theme underscores the nuanced role of physiotherapy clinics in the rehabilitation journey. Unlike traditional medical settings characterized by rigid hierarchies and brief encounters, physiotherapy often involves sustained, relational interactions. This extended engagement allows clients to voice their bodily experiences more openly and fosters empathetic patient-centered care. However, the study cautions that such empathy operates within prevailing biomedical frameworks and institutional norms which subtly govern patients’ self-expression and participation in their recovery processes.
Despite perceptions of physiotherapy as more approachable than other healthcare spheres, this accessibility is intertwined with broader socio-political ideologies emphasizing individual responsibility and self-management in health. The physiotherapists’ professional identity emerges as fluid and context-dependent, shaped within professional communities and institutional policies that continuously negotiate the balance between empowerment and regulation. This reflects contemporary shifts in medical authority from paternalistic, doctor-centric models toward more collaborative therapeutic relationships, a transition echoed in disability studies grappling with the paradox of enhancing function while embracing disability as valuable diversity.
Architectural and environmental design further contributes to this shift in patient experience. Physiotherapy clinics, often resembling gyms and sporting facilities rather than sterile medical spaces, visually and psychologically distance themselves from traditional clinical environments dominated by intimidating machinery and clinical signage. This spatial reconfiguration aligns with Foucauldian perspectives on biopolitics, where control over bodies is mediated not only through direct intervention but also through the symbolic organization of spaces reinforcing or alleviating patient anxiety.
The study’s second theme addresses profound communication chasms between healthcare professionals and clients. Despite awareness among providers about the importance of clear, jargon-free language, medical encounters remain fraught with linguistic complexity. Research cited within the paper reveals that patients encounter specialist terminology repeatedly within brief consultations, impairing understanding and fostering feelings of marginalization. Physicians’ tendencies to prioritize efficiency under time constraints exacerbate these issues, often curtailing patient engagement and discouraging clarifying questions.
Physiotherapists appear to bridge some of these gaps by consciously avoiding technical language, cultivating inclusivity and empathetic communication. Yet, this apparent ease masks undercurrents of institutional power dynamics where mastery of medical language symbolizes authority and social hierarchy. Clients internalize pressure to acquire biomedical vocabulary simply to participate meaningfully in their own care, inadvertently reinforcing the dominance of healthcare professionals. This dynamic poignantly illustrates Michel Foucault’s concept of power-knowledge, in which expertise functions as a mechanism of control, shaping identities and social relations even in ostensibly collaborative medical settings.
Central to the third theme is the symbolic significance of mobility aids—especially wheelchairs—as cultural icons loaded with meaning beyond their functional utility. Healthcare professionals tend to frame these devices within technical and rehabilitative discourses, emphasizing progress, innovation, and bodily functionality. Conversely, users often interpret mobility aides through social narratives laden with stigma, associating them with weakness or incapacity.
Visual symbolism plays a critical role in reinforcing these divisions. Clinicians’ formal attire and medical instruments project authority and observation, whereas the presence of assistive devices situates the client within an “othered” social category demarcated by physical limitation. These embodied symbols perpetuate stereotypes and impact psychological dimensions of disability, contributing to internalized marginalization. Moreover, mobility aids transcend clinical boundaries, becoming public markers subject to societal judgment and influencing identity construction.
The researchers call attention to a mechanistic conceptualization of the body prevalent in physiotherapy, where the focus on biomechanical function risks neglecting the social and emotional facets of disability. This reductive view traces back to a modernist tradition in assistive technology design that privileges efficiency and form-follows-function principles, often at the expense of aesthetic and symbolic considerations. The study contrasts this approach with cultural portrayals that reimagine disability aides as extensions of personal empowerment and social identity, as exemplified by the transformation of Professor Charles Xavier’s wheelchair in popular media.
The paper advocates for a paradigm shift in designing mobility aids, encouraging integration of emotional resonance and social meaning alongside technical efficacy. By challenging entrenched mechanistic metaphors, future innovations could contribute to destigmatizing disability and fostering more holistic engagement with assistive devices. This would align with wider disability rights movements seeking to reframe disability as diversity rather than deficit.
Beyond the clinical encounter, environmental factors such as public accessibility infrastructure play a pivotal role in reiterating or attenuating disability stereotypes. Each barrier encountered serves as an embodied reminder reinforcing marginalization and exclusion. These external challenges compound the internal struggles patients face when negotiating self-concept amidst changing bodily capabilities and societal beauty standards proliferated by media.
Additionally, the study highlights the tension between medical discourses—imbued with regulatory intentions—and patients’ lived realities. Physiotherapy, with its emphasis on empowerment and patient participation, presents a less disciplinary stance relative to other healthcare sectors. Yet this shift operates within existing institutional power structures and cannot be uncritically celebrated as emancipatory. The nuanced Foucauldian analysis reminds us that transformations in care do not necessarily erase power inequalities but recast them in new, subtler forms.
Importantly, the research underscores how clinic design interacts with these dynamics. Spaces crafted to resemble athletic or recreational environments rather than sterile hospital wards mitigate clinical anxiety and promote trust. Psychological research supports the idea that visible yet approachable rehabilitation equipment reduces fear and facilitates mental well-being, fostering a therapeutic atmosphere conducive to active patient engagement.
The implications of this study extend to healthcare policy and professional education. Training programs must address not only biomedical expertise but also communication skills, cultural competence, and reflexivity regarding power relations in clinical encounters. Elevating patients’ voices and experiences is critical to dismantling hierarchical barriers and co-creating rehabilitation pathways attentive to diversity.
In summary, this Foucauldian study reveals a complex landscape at the intersection of medical discourse, professional identity, communication practices, and symbolic representation in physiotherapy settings. It elucidates how rehabilitation clinics simultaneously perpetuate and contest mobility disability stereotypes, mediated through language, spatial design, professional interaction, and assistive technology symbolism. Addressing these multilayered dimensions offers pathways toward more inclusive, empowering healthcare experiences that respect both functional improvement and the rich social meanings of disability.
Subject of Research: Mobility disability stereotypes and representations in clinical encounters, analyzed through physiotherapists’ perspectives using Foucauldian medical discourse.
Article Title: Intersecting perceptions: a Foucauldian study of mobility disability representations in clinical encounters from physiotherapists’ perspectives.
Article References:
Rasoulivalajoozi, M., Cucuzzella, C., Farhoudi, M. et al. Intersecting perceptions: a Foucauldian study of mobility disability representations in clinical encounters from physiotherapists’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1829 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06109-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
