Month: September 2021

Disability and Race

turtleLeave a comment
  • Race by Nirmala Erevelles
  • This essay is about the direct connection people make between the experience of people of color and the experience of people with disability. Erevelles walks the reader through the pros and cons of this. The author’s argument is that essentially by saying ‘disability is like race’ people are trying to push disability into a broader social recognition as a political minority. Erevelles continues to explain how this has assisted the Disability Rights Movement in moving forward but at the same time created violent and oppressive overtones for disability. She then comes to a conclusion, “Thus, more robust and complex analyses of race and disability are necessary for us to move beyond the initial conceptual space of analogy.” (Erevelles, 148).
  • I found this essay intriguing, especially as a person of color. I thought it was interesting how the history of disability and race lined up in some ways. For example, Erevelles writes, “They were transformed into spectacles for popular consumption and economic profit” (Erevelles, 146). The best example I can think of this is circuses, originally the circus was a compiled group of ‘freaks’ from around the world. These so-called freaks were people of color and people with disability, put on stage for people to make fun of or laugh at, even sexualizes, so others could make money. I understand why disability and race should not be made a direct analogy, in my mind it belittles both group’s experiences, but I do see how making connections like this help us empathize, learn, and understand each other further. I think another thing that stood out to me was the fact that institutions mix race and disability into one big category, specifically in schools. Erevelles writes, “Special education classes became the spaces where African American and Latino students were ghettoized” (Erevelles, 147). This was something I could connect to because people with color and disability were immediately grouped into the special education classes, and that is one thing that I experienced throughout my life that I look back on now and see as problematic.

“Sexuality” by Robert McRuer

DellFrogLeave a comment

“Sexuality” by Robert McRuer, selected from “Keywords for Disability Studies”

Summary:

McRuer begins by acknowledging that the word “sexuality” is already intertwined with words like “freakish” and “abnormal”. He introduces Michel Foucault’s concept of the “cures” and “visibility” of sexuality as a system of control, often to obtain a sense of normalcy or correction. McRuer then compares Foucault’s views of “sexuality” as being similar to “ability” and what resulted in sexuality being pathologized, or specifically linked to a disability. McRuer acknowledges that sexuality is a social construction, which brought out the emergence of heteronormativity and ableism. Because the two were so linked, McRuer talks about how homosexuality led to “feebleminded” diagnoses and stricter regulation for control. He bridges the link between an “abnormal” sexuality being caused by illness or disability, which creates the conception that people who are disabled have an excessive sexuality. These two “excessive” notions led to violent treatments, misinformation about both sexuality and disability, and eventual ruling by the Supreme Court for sterilization. McRuer discusses a shift in the 20th-century from excessive sexuality and disability to the notion that people with disabilities are without sexuality at all. He mentions the link between poor and people of color being seen as “excessive” while white and middle-class are seen as “without” sexuality. Following this, he talks about the idea of people with disabilities having alternate sexual experiences outside of what was understood, which leads into modern day rebellion of both “excessive”, “innocent” and “alternative” sexuality. McRuer ends with discussing the efforts of disability activists against prior notions, and the acknowledgement that efforts are still ongoing and a source of conflict for the modern day person with disabilities.

Quote Bank:

“…in other words, sexuality was endlessly talked about, managed, pathologized, and (often) “corrected” ” (167).

“In 1927, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court famously ruled that Carrie Buck, who had been deemed “feebleminded” and institutionalized for “incorrigible” and “promiscuous” behavior and who became pregnant after being raped, must be compulsorily sterilized” (168).

“Disabled people often have been discursively constructed as incapable of having sexual desires or a sexual identity, due to their supposed “innocence” ” (168).

Reflection:

In all of my academic studies I have come to understand that if there is one thing that white men love to do, it is to control others. The author does a fantastic job at digging into the intertwined history of sexuality and disability and how they cannot truly be analyzed without the other. The pathologization of sexuality as a disability is in itself offensive, but it also gives the people in power the ability to declare someone “of unsound mind” and to strip them of all autonomy altogether. The development of the “correctional” treatments like shock therapy or sterilization was an inhumane way to tell people with disabilities that they had no choice in life, not even a choice to love and be loved without it being controlled. The case of Carrie Buck is not new to me, and I am fully aware that sterilizations like this continue to the present day. Often people assume that if someone has a severe disability, whether of the body or mind, others assume that the person is “too disabled” to have desires to seek out relationship, sexual or romantic. This concept is widespread enough that growing up and seeing people in wheelchairs or people with Down Syndrome in relationships was a televised phenomena, including shows like “Little People, Big World”. Episodes of medical dramas are committed to showing people with disabilities who are in relationships as “strange” or just straight up ill, especially if the other partner is not disabled. But I chose this chapter specifically because I was curious about the idea that people with disabilities are often seen as “innoccent” or “lacking sexuality”. There is a modern day movement to take back sex and sexuality for people with disabilities, not in an excessive or alternative notion like the text discusses prior, but as a sort of “this is me” kind of mentality. But I wanted to address a very specific point of tension within the disabled community on the base of sexuality. While there is a danger of being “too loud” (read: excessive), or “too kinky” (read: alternative), there is an even finer line between the concept of innocence or being without sexuality. Specifically, there is a subgroup of the asexual community who have an inner struggle of recognizing their sexuality (asexuals being people who experience no sexual attraction) and being ostracized. On one end, the LGBT community will always look at them as “disabled”, and sometimes not in a positive context, but the disabled community, especially those fighting to be recognized as sexual, look at them at perpetuating the “innocent/without” stereotype. So not only do people with disabilities walk a fine line to even be recognized as human at times, but they are also often denied their true lives, living and loving who they want because there is even added pressure being LGBT+ and disabled.

Citation:

Adams, R., Reiss, B., & Serlin, D. (Eds.). (2015). Keywords for disability studies. “Sexuality”. McRuer, R.

Reflective Annotated Bibliography: Corbett Joan O’Toole “Celebrating Crip Bodyminds”

Limbo1 Comment

Celebrating Crip Bodyminds

By: Corbett Joan O’Toole

Summary:

In this piece, O’Toole discusses important concepts from specific terminology unknown to the general public and why it matters, to finding community within the vast vibrant culture of disabled bodyminds. They introduce the idea of social support through creative problem-solving for those with a disability potentially taking from both a cultural and social model of disability. Having conversations with others going through similar experiences is extremely vital. This being beneficial for the sake of learning to adjust to the constraint’s society (an ableist society) has placed upon people living with a different bodymind than the status quo. Specifically, discussions can range from coping with side effects from medication to economic hardship and much more. In this instance, O’Toole refers to disability-specific circles that highlight pride and strength alongside their disability rather than in spite of it.  

An important note, O’Toole reminds us that the medical community often never knows about these circles so fails to adjust to more appropriate language and a different perspective. The author uses a short anecdote about women not knowing how to identify on the spectrum of disability because they were never provided information about it. I believe this sentiment is one we come back to throughout the introduction of this book. Social support systems within a large community that is for the community. Using agreed upon terms that challenge, compliment, or otherwise intersect nicely with identity. Not only acknowledging this, but also realizing where they lie and how they are not represented or respected by people outside of those social groups.   

Quotes: “Their quality of life goes up because, often for the first time, they are surrounded by people who see their wholeness, in contrast to the medical system that primarily sees their brokenness.” (pg. 5)  

“…They didn’t have any language for being disabled, so they were isolated in their own worlds.” (pg. 4)  

“It seems as though the role of “miracle worker” conflicts with the role of “disabled person”” (pg. 29) 

Reflection:  

One main message I received from this piece would be in relation to how culture shapes a social reaction or view of disability and how intertwined they can be. Narratives that surround the disability community as the author pointed out can revolve around anything but accepting the disability. Stories and beliefs held are related to wishing for a cure or achieving greatness despite a condition. If our belief system rooted in ableist rhetoric was to be altered, then accessibility in society might be better. One small example would be education or careers. Someone with a disability might not get hired because they are deemed incompetent. In school, teachers often will not adjust curriculums or programs for a student to learn in the way they can so are viewed as “less.” The people are competent but are unfortunately in an incompetent society that refuses to extend accessibility to others’ needs.  

The second message I believe is important would be regarding narratives specifically and the language we use. I often hear people make the claim that semantics don’t matter. They could not be more wrong. O’Toole briefly mentions in their work that they felt getting judged for how they were as a kid felt the same as being judged for who they were entirely. A medical model may tell someone what they are missing and what is wrong with them to attempt to provide a solution. The author brings up different social groups that do the opposite. These groups focus on change in society for the better, empowerment, experiences of different bodyminds and how to cope in different ways. While I still actively learn about the differences between the groups listed, it is apparent to me that they are a source of peer power in the community regardless of each unique focus. Among them are: Disability circles, disability justice groups, and disability rights organizations. The language used in each one will range but it is important that it is vocabulary/terms they all agree on. Language that promotes mutual respect, understanding, and patience. That idea has not yet made an appearance in mainstream literature or media for the most part when discussing disability.

RAB O’Toole Reflection

Turnip FriendLeave a comment
  1. Title and Author: 

“Fading Scars: My Queer Disability History” by Corbett Joan O’Toole

  1. Summary:

O’Toole begins their piece first with the statement, “I love being disabled.” They explain that this statement is something most people don’t hear outside of disability circles because nondisabled people have a tendency to think of disabled people only in terms of “Sickness, diagnosis, and aberration.” They then brings up an anecdote from when they were a part of a women’s conference of a progressive national organization where chose small topics, O’Toole’s being disability. The women put up three signs, “Disabled,” “Nondisabled,” and “Not Sure.” Every single of the women who placed themselves in the “Not Sure” category could have easily been considered disabled, but were too “isolated in their own worlds… and working intensely to hide the fact of their disabilities from the people around them.

The section on isolation from others with disabilities nicely transitions into understanding how to have a successful life as a disabled person. O’Toole references research that says that support from peers and resourcefulness are the most important things a disabled person can have in order to live fulfilling lives, because the majority of people with permanent disabilities face enormous social and economic barriers.” Next O’Toole describes the ways societal views on people with disability affect their everyday lives in terms of lack of representation. They state that, “The current U.S. media representations of disabled bodyminds demonstrate a profound failure of imagination.” The messages surrounding disabled people in popular culture are simplistic and easy to swallow, and confirm negative biases about those with disabilities.

When disabilities are seen as primarily a bad thing that parents should test for so they can abort “abnormalities,” the numbers of people with say, Down’s Syndrome decrease. O’Toole takes issue with this because they know and have enjoyed the company of people with Down’s before and absolutely doesn’t believe the world would have been better if they hadn’t been born.” They uses the example of how changes have been made in the treatment of people with Down’s Syndrome and how when once they were routinely institutionalized, they are now treated with more human respect in our culture and are more able to lead rewarding lives. 

Next O’Toole goes into the idea that “normal” isn’t real, and shouldn’t be something that we strive to emulate, especially when it leads to ableism. They says that, “a society that leans toward “normal” creates significant disenfranchisement for everyone who is ‘not normal.’” Part of the issue with the desire for normalcy is the implication that competency is tied to it. Disabled people are routinely assumed to have less competence in various areas than they really do, and are forced into educational tracks that they don’t belong in because incompetence is seen as an overarching label for disabled people despite the variety of disabilities that exist in the world. They states that presuming incompetence leads to fewer disabled people being hired in nondisabled work environments because bosses assume they will not be able to effectively do their jobs despite little to no evidence of that idea. 

  1. Quotes:
  • “For many of us, the reality of being disabled, the way our bodyminds function, is cause for celebration. (O’Toole, 13-14).”
  • “The forty women who joined the “Not Sure” group were all women that Marj and I would easily consider to be disabled (O’Toole, 14).”
  • “Disabled people who are connected through disability circles have a much higher quality of life.’9‘ Notice that I did not say that they have fewer impairments. Their quality of life goes up because, often for the first time, they are surrounded by people who see their wholeness, in contrast to the medical system that primarily sees their brokenness” (O’Toole, iy).
  • “All bodyminds are on a continuum. At different points in our lives, we have more and less function and move closer or further from the “normal” end of the spectrum” (O’Toole, ig).
  1. Personal Reflection:

The most important message I took away from this reading was the idea that although it takes creativity to live a rewarding life with disabilities, that doesn’t mean that a life without disabilities is inherently better, in fact, “You get proud by practicing,” (Hershey, 14). I also really like how O’Toole described the example of the women’s conference and how very few of the disabled women were willing to describe themselves as such due to a variety of factors, the main one being shame. It seems that if were are able to eliminate the origins of this shame, a lot of people would be able to access the resources they need instead of being forced to deal with their difficulties by themselves. 

“Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity – Reassigning Meaning (Pg. 8-33)Annotated Bibliography

Djellibeybi1 Comment
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is IMG_20210921_190044883-1024x768.jpg

Linton, Simi, “Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity” (Pg. 8-34, “Reassigning Meaning”) New York University Press. 1998.

This source discusses analysis the affects of certain words and phrases used to describe the disabled and their conditions, with a particular emphasis on harmful or dangerous stereotypes. The author desires to inform the public of harmful ableist rhetoric and vocabulary in popular culture, in the same way we consider sexist or racist language. “The present examination of disability has no need for the medical language of symptoms and diagnostic categories.” (Pg. 8) Even terms such as “disabled” and “disability”, the most used terms for their respective subjects, can and do have harmful stereotypes associated with them, due to the origin of the terms being medical in nature. “The decision to assign medical meanings to disability has had many and varied consequences for disabled people. […] the medicalization of disability casts human variation as deviance from the norm, as pathological condition, as deficit, and, significantly, as an individual burden and personal tragedy.” (Pg. 11) Those who live with disability’s and those in disability studies (namely, Simi Linton), desire to redefine harmful descriptive words, like “cripple”, with more positive definitions, as many people with disabilities wish to not (or don’t) feel inhibited by their diagnoses. The desire of this group of people is to “take control” of the language surrounding disability and conform it to their purposes to help with communication and better representation of the disabled peoples, and in many cases, they have, “over the past twenty years [before 1998] disabled people have gained greater control over these definitional issues. The disabled or the handicapped was replaced in the mid-70s by people with disabilities” (Pg. 13). Clear and to the point, this resource is helpful for starting a conversation on rhetoric and what the disabled and nondisabled may consider harmful language around the subject of disability

Personal note: this article seems to have a Marxist bent (especially when it comes to the subject of “redefining terms” and “control” over language, rather than being “subject” to it. An interesting thought that I did not want to include in the main abstract but that I wanted to make aware.).

RAB: O’Toole’s Insight on Celebrating Crip Bodyminds

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment

Celebrating Crip Bodyminds
By: Cobett Joan O’Toole

An objective summary of the reading:

O’Toole begins by summarizing their book, explaining their first-hand experience being disabled, and years of studying disability studies. They give anecdotal evidence of just how complex disability is, through a story about a group of women, unable to commit to the term “disabled”. Then they explain the importance of disabled communities and why disabled circles are so important. O’Toole emphasizes the idea that disability is not a monolith, yet it is a communal experience.

O’Toole explains the terms and labels they use throughout their writing and give the reader a literary ground to stand on. Additionally, they provide cultural context, discussing how nondisabled society has determined what “normal” is and how disabled folks navigate this false ideology. From there, O’Toole dives into the misconceptions nondisabled folks have, emphasizing on the erasure or idealization of disabled people.

Later, O’Toole goes back to the language of disability, both in their own life and an academic setting. They give tools and tricks for identifying people based on their intersectional identities.

3 or more quotations (with page numbers):

The page numbers included are the pages from the dox. document!

“Being disabled is a cultural experience which shares many commonalities, even with others with very different disabilities” (pg. 7)

“Normal” is an artificial construct built upon the white, middle-class, male, nondisabled bodymind” (pg. 10) “Nobody is normal” (pg.12).
“Acknowledging that there is no ‘normal’ doesn’t mean that everyone experiences disability as a political and social identity. Acknowledging that there is no ‘normal’ creates a society where difference can be recognized without being diffused or ignored. It does not take away the culture of disability, only adds an opportunity and awareness for us to be more integrated into society as a whole” (pg. 12)

“What do you call a disabled person?” I don’t know the ‘right’ answer, but may I suggest calling him by his name, Bob? But I digress.” (pg.39)

“Was I going to use the academic language? Was I going to use the language of service professionals? Was I going to use the disabled peoples’ self- and community-identifiers? How should the time (late 20th century) and place (United States, more specifically Berkeley, California) shape the language choices?” (pg.37)

“So while I am widely known as being queer in disability, I was much quieter about being queer when negotiating school services for my disabled daughter. I was no less queer, but the school environment was significantly less friendly to queer parents than to non-queer parents. So I prioritized my daughter’s need for services over my own need to educate them about queer and disabled parents.” (pg. 41) Codeswitching and intersectionality

Thoughts:

Something that stuck with me was the way the author wrote. It was a beautiful combination of rightfully unapologetic and understanding of the readers’ potential ignorance. I was struck by some of the language I didn’t know, as someone who is part of the disabled community. Primarily, I had never heard the term “consumer” for a mental disability. I’m eager to learn more about disability studies and the language used both within and outside of the disabled community. I have always found language to be so important, when identifying people; I value language that leaves a baseline for humanness, while making space for differences to be seen and valued. I included a quote about calling a disabled man “Bob” because that’s his name and I found that so grounding!

Identifiers span cross identities, both chosen and culturally given. I admired how the author explained their experience with intersectionality. In the final quote I included, they explain an instance when they code-switched to protect themselves and their daughter. No human fits into a box, we are all combinations of privilege, lack thereof, and positionality. It is so humanizing to recognize these combinations and have the language for them. Language also leaves space for like-bodyminded folks to feel supported and not alone. #intersectionalityordie

Reflective Annotated Bibliography: “Reassigning Meaning”

CloverLeave a comment

Title and Author(s):

Simi Linton, “Reassigning Meaning”, second chapter of Claiming Disability.

Summary:

In this reading, Linton provides a theoretical framework that re-centers disability within the discussion on health and society, while considering other intersectional factors of race, gender, and sexual orientation as belonging on an axis with points of privilege. First, Linton introduces the audience to many of the terms typically used to discuss disability⁠—ableism, special, abnormality, overcome, person with disability⁠—going as far as to deconstruct that dis- into its “semantic consequences” (31) of diminutive separation. Through naming oppressive language (i.e. “dying of AIDS”), describing the conflict (the implication that those with AIDS are incapable of living active lives), and providing a helpful alternative (i.e. “living with AIDS”), Linton demystifies the myriad of options for describing disability, recommending the terms disabled and nondisabled among them (27). At the center of Linton’s framework is the idea that the nondisabled position is not the “universal, neutral position from which disabled people deviate” (32), but simply possible outcomes of human variation.

Quotations: 

“This new language conveys different meanings, and, significantly, the shifts serve as metacommunications about the social, political, intellectual, and ideological transformations that have taken place” (9).

“When disabled people are able to pass for nondisabled, and do, the emotional toll it takes is enormous” (20).

“Saying that someone is suffering from a condition implies that there is a perpetual state of suffering, uninterrupted by pleasurable moments or satisfactions. Afflicted carries similar presumptions” (26).

Reflections:

More than anything else from this text, I am grateful to have a layman’s-terms toolkit for discussing disability as the quarter draws on. There is so much power in language, and as Linton points out, language itself is a driver and a shaper of conversation. Knowing exactly why certain colloquial terms have been intentionally abandoned by disability advocates, and which alternatives are preferable, makes me more comfortable in charting the waters ahead.

However, I was pretty confused by some of the language in this reading, specifically about nondisabled perspectives. Linton wrote “The nondisabled stance, like the white stance, is veiled” on page fourteen. What exactly does this mean? That the “nondisabled stance” is an undertheorized stance? What is a “white stance”, anyhow? At first, some of Linton’s phrasing might seem inflammatory, but that in itself helped me to generate thought as I worked to dispute whatever I disagreed with at first. Another example: Linton described the nondisabled on page 32 as “a category of people whose power and cultural capital keep them at the center”. This ordering of words makes it seem as though the nondisabled could wield this “power” as a tool to force their way into higher positions in society. However, I believe what Linton means to say is that the absence of ableist oppression among the nondisabled—whether that may be incurred medical bills, workplace discrimination, an increased difficulty in accessing resources, or imposed stigma—allow the nondisabled to come to the “center” of the discussion on disability, through the osmotic pressures of privilege in society. 

It’s clear from this reading that Linton is as deeply critical of the linguistic structures enforcing ableism as our popular slang, which to me is refreshing, as it adds a layer of depth. Linton argues that only through the use of humanizing, accurate, and warranted language towards disability may academic discussions on ability and society be facilitated respectfully and appropriately. Personally, I couldn’t agree more.

Linton and Terminology

turtle8 Comments
  • “Reassigning Meaning” By Simi Linton
  • In this excerpt, Linton lists the different terminology to refer to or speak of people with disabilities. She goes through all the terms and their different categories, explaining exactly why they are problematic, frowned upon, and used, “The present examination of disability has no need for the medical language of symptoms and diagnostic categories.”(2). They argue that almost all words and phrases can be oppressive or offensive. First, she opens up with the claim that disability and the medical significance is unnecessary. From there, Simi points out all the problems with different words such as ‘ableism’ or ‘overcoming a disability’ and why these need to be addressed, “To say that I am physically challenged is to state that the obstacles to my participation are physical, not social, and that the barrier is my own disability”(14). Finally, she concludes that with the spreading of knowledge and awareness there will be better and more accurate terminology for disabled people as well as the power abled people have over this, “Similarly, it is important to examine the non disabled position and its privilege and power” (32). Overall, this was a very informative and interesting excerpt.
  • I think what stuck with me the most was the fact that almost every phrase or term that I use is offensive in some way. I had not thought deeply about these terms, I just accepted them as they were and maybe that was due to the exposure I grew up with and what I learned from parents, family, and just people in my community. It made me mad realizing that not only have we put these people in a group but we have created terms that are inappropriate and no one seems to care to understand that. It makes me upset that this is not something that is taught in schools or studied closely. We learn about racism, sexism, yet this does not qualify for some reason? In a way, I feel as if the education system has failed me in this way. My lack of knowledge and the fact that I had not realize that my lack of knowledge was present on this topic, makes me upset. I make it a goal to be as informed and respectful about topics like these and I feel like I have failed here.
  • Language and labels are so important. In my personal opinion, words are the most powerful thing in the world. They cannot be taken back and people remember them for the rest of their lives. Words start wars and forms relationships. Something that can do such drastic things holds power. This reading really reminded me of that opinion. The way that words effect people and can change a generation, or a group. These terms influence how people view themselves in terms of self image as well as society. This is something that needs to be addressed, finding ways to respect people should be a priority and in this case, it feels like it is not.

Kerry Richardson’s “The Children Will Be Fine” – Wesley Hager

Djellibeybi1 Comment

I must confess that I did not enjoy watching the film “The Children Are Alright”, and that this might color how this review is perceived. I will try to be as kindly as possible during this review, but I ask for your forgiveness if I give any harsh opinions. They are mine alone, and just because I didn’t enjoy it, does not mean that you shouldn’t.

Our story starts back in the early nineties, with the certain venerations of one Jerry Lewis amongst the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) for writing a piece describing the plight of people inflicted with muscular dystrophy as “a steel imprisonment”. Jerry Lewis was the host of the telethon hosted by the MDA, and he would often bring young children with muscular dystrophy (MD) to generate sympathy on the telethon. The telethon is designed to assist people with MD and to fund cures for MD. However, the former poster-children of the MDA and Jerry Lewis, had grown up to develop a disdain for the Telethon, the MDA, and Jerry Lewis – calling themselves “Jerry’s Orphans”. The film follows Mike Ervin, one of “Jerry’s Orphans” who was on Telethon’s during the 60’s, who grew to resent the MDA’s manipulation of people with MD and their loved ones.

The MDA would tell people that the telethon was a necessary element of getting funding, but Mike Ervin and “Jerry’s Orphans” state that the telethon contributes little of the MDA’s funding and that the majority of the funds raised from the telethon go to organizing events, rather than to helping others with MD.

An interesting point is made by Mike Ervin during the film: the money raised from the telethon are supposed to be used to fund a cure for MD. But many of “Jerry’s Orphans”, after having grown up, have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never find a cure to their condition, and that they probably wouldn’t want one even if they had. “Jerry’s Orphans” don’t want to be pandered to or become the objects of pity from self-righteous philanthropists. This is perhaps the primary message of the documentary, and while they have my sympathies, I found they’re methods and rhetoric betrayed a violent need for retributive justice which I found displeasing. But I also understand their criticisms of the MDA, and that much of their anger is justified – having been manipulated by a corrupt organization that lacks transparency. I honestly have mixed feelings about this film, and I don’t fault anyone who does not know who they should support in this argument.

Rating 3.5 stars

Not bad, but didn’t enjoy it very much.

O’Toole, Corbett Joan. “Celebrating Crip Bodyminds”

TuesdayLeave a comment

Fading Scars: My Queer Disability History, 1st ed., Autonomous Press, June 9th, 2015, pp.13-53

Summary

In this reading, O’Toole explores the boundaries they faced while writing about other disabled people and their stories. O’Toole starts their exploration by explaining their beliefs about why disability should be talked about and how discourse if thoughtless can enable ableist rhetoric. The most significant aspect of O’Toole’s writing is their classification of people as “disabled”, “nondisabled”, or “unknown”. They explain their reasoning for including people’s disability status, is to combat erasure of disability, one of the forms of ableism. Early on, O’Toole establishes their belief of two distinct forms ableism, erasing disability and idolizing perceived struggles. The latter is mostly done by non-disabled individuals and focuses on assumed struggles without seeing the disabled person as a person. This leads naturally into a discussion of society’s relationship to the concept of “normal”. They make a point that the more normal an “abnormal” condition is made the more rights people with that condition will be able to enjoy. This is the main reason they purposefully mention disabilities but do not make it the focus of a person’s introduction in their book. The language used around disabilities varies widely depending on who is speaking. O’Toole voices a hesitance to use medical and “formal” terminology as often that vocabulary is rejected by disabled groups. However, they do express a need to use it as most people who do not consistently interact with disabled people only know the “formal” terminology. They also make a point that outside of the “formal” language used to discuss disability there is not a consistently agreed upon lexicon. So, for the sake of transparent communication they used a mix of the “formal” and the commonly used lexicons. They also acknowledge the potential labeling people has for harm. This is the reason they classify people as “unknown”, to avoid labeling people something they have not chosen to be known as. By using this method, O’Toole is respecting other’s identity while bring awareness and normalizing situations that would otherwise be portrayed as different or downplayed.

Quotations

“Refusing to explore language options for people’s relationship to disability harms the nondisabled people by ignoring the ways that ableism also impacts them as they go through life with disabled people.” (43)

“There is no standard grammatical structure in how people use their chosen disability-specific terms. People with hemophilia call themselves ‘hemophiliacs’. The deaf community has a convention of using ‘Deaf” to mean people that are affiliated with the cultural and linguistic community of people who use American Sign Language and ‘deaf’ to indicate that someone has a hearing disability but is not necessarily tied to the cultural and linguistic capital ‘D’ Deaf community.” (37)

“A significant problem in American culture, as in many Western cultures, is the presumption that preforming ‘normally’ is required for competence to be presumed.” (22)

“When deviations from “normal” occur, our society reacts as if all efforts should be made to bring the deviant back to as close to normal as possible, and if that is not possible, to eliminate the deviant.” (18)

Reflection

I enjoyed reading this excerpt quite a bit. O’Toole probably had the most understandable explanation of “normalizing disability”. To be completely honest, I have been struggling to understand what each of the examples we have seen so far in this class mean when they say they want disability to be normalized. Up until this point, I have just placed the concept to the side as much as I could. That is a very unfortunate way approach the conversation we have been having as normalization is reoccurring theme. I also feel as if O’Toole has given me some of the context that has been lacking in most of the material thus far. The discussion of language and O’Toole’s method was very thorough addressing all sides of the conversation. I think the biggest part of O’Toole’s writing I noticed was their honest attempts to reach all sides. They were purposely tailoring their writing so that it would be understandable to as many people as possible. They were not catering to one group of people but considering all potential audiences. I am interested to hear their perspective on some other intersectional topics. They clearly are very conscious of differences and struggles that relate to those differences. Terminology seemed to be the largest struggle they faced. This is understandable because if used improperly, someone could be offended and/or the original narrative can be completely lost. I found the way they approached labeling interesting. I am personally very conflicted about labels. I at this point pretty much refuse to apply a label to myself in any way. I have never felt comfortable with any label I have been assigned. And I say assigned, because even if it seems that I am the one choosing the label, I am not. Most labels, even chosen ones, are based on how others perceive us and how we relate to others’ perceptions. I do, however, understand that labels really help people feel comfortable. So, it was interesting to see someone make a case for labels and a case against label usage at the same time. Without the explanation they gave, I believe I would have probably taken some issue with them labeling people as disabled or not throughout their writing.