Disability Rhetoric

Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from The Twenty-First Century, edited by Alice Wong, Vintage, June30th, 2020. (pp. 3-27)

Summary:

The author, Harriet McBryde Johnson, starts her narrative by dropping the reader right into the central conflict of her story. She is at Princeton giving a presentation and participating in an ethical debate against Peter Singer, a well-known Animal rights Supporter and Utilitarian philosopher. Johnson is there to counter Singer’s arguments for selective infanticide. This is not the first time these two intellectuals have gone head-to-head, the first time they engaged in open discourse being in 2001 over disability-based killings and assisted suicide. Despite Singers subscription to veganism and animal rights narratives, Singer strongly supports the killing of disabled people, a group Johnson belongs to. Johnson’s story while featuring some of the argument exchanged between her and Singer is not focused upon the content of their debates. Instead, she focuses upon the how the discussion was conducted. Most of the chapter is spent discussing how Johnson felt overwhelmed by the unfamiliar environment she had entered during each debate. Her being out of her element garnered her criticism from fellow disability rights activists and lawyers. Johnson describes how she felt guilty and foolish for even engaging with Singer. She describes how she entered her interactions expecting Singer to be discourteous and view her as less than human, only to be shocked when he did not. At one point, Johnson describes Singer as the “Evil One”.  Her interactions challenge her ability to hold this view of Singer. The most notable feature of the chapter is Johnson and Singer’s interactions. They both act with grace and treat each other like other humans, there is a respect between them. This surprised Johnson and leads into the larger realization of the chapter, though she cannot agree with Singer’s world view she can not disregard Singer’s humanity. Johnson ends the chapter by extending this sentiment to other’s who see her existence as miserable and declares her intent to keep fighting against ableist rhetoric.

Quotes:

“I shouldn’t shake hands with the Evil One.” Pp.8

“… I have been sucked into a civil discussion of whether I ought to exist, I can’t help but be dazzled by his verbal facility.” Pp.9 (This is a section where the whole paragraph is solid gold. Harriet Johnson’s emotional turmoil over the debate is highlighted very well.)

“I realize I must put one more issue on the table: etiquette.” Pp.13

“I feel like an animal in the zoo. I hadn’t reckoned on the architecture, those tiers of steps that separate me from a human wall of apparent physical and mental perfection, that keep me confined down here in my pit.” Pp.16

“I can’t live with a definition of ultimate evil that encompasses all of them. I can’t refuse the monster-majority basic respect and human sympathy.”  Pp.26

Reflection:

Before I go into my thoughts on the essay I would look to establish that I find most of what Singer says to be offensive. He reminds me of a typical theorist, stuck in their version of the world struggling to fully put themselves into reality. But I can not in good faith say I find all of Johnson’s points convincing. To me both sides have flaws, but Johnson’s side is more appealing and fosters more understanding. All the issues I have with Johnson’s arguments are minute compared to the issues I find with Singer’s. I will end by saying I understand how he reaches the conclusions he does, but that not make them right.

I do not think the ethical debates discussed in this entry of Disability Visibility should be focused upon too heavily. While they are very important conversations, I do not think they are major take away from the narrative put forth by Johnson. For a while now the internet has been the home of the war between the “leftists” and the “anti-SJWs”. I do not know if these are what either group currently identifies as, but they engage in a similar debate culture to the one described by Johnson. I am not talking about the idea of debating an ethical/moral issue in a public forum. I am talking about the idea that to engage with the other side is to be a fool and secede more ground than one should. I think Johnson does a wonderful job in illustrating how this mindset looks and feels. This view tends to inhibit progress quite a bit and requires a considerable amount of personal reflection to overcome. I think the internal and external conflict Johnson describes is a good place to jump off into an examination of a grey world view. Recently most of the discussions I have seen strongly suggest one side is right and the other has little to offer, in other words a black and white world view. Johnson is openly acknowledging that perspectives flaws. This is also the first time the word “evil” has been used explicitly. I will make the disclaimer that I do not believe any author we have read has thought of society as evil but combined they do paint a narrative where society is ableist and is sort of evil for being ableist.  It is hard to express how this affects the audience and the exigence’s palatability. If I had to explain it, I would say defining one side as evil and the other as good injects a rot into the conversation so no one can benefit from the interaction. To be clear, this explanation toes the line of respectability politics and is lacking in nuance. It is important to realize rhetoric is a two-way street, often the rhetor is the unwilling audience to the audience and audience an unknowing rhetor. The audience will either affirm or deny the rhetor’s message. In Johnson and Singer’s discourse, they have a literal audience in the students watching, but they are each other’s main audience. Their discourse extends past the staged debate to more personal interactions. We as a third party will probably never know the actual results of these discussions, but we can assume the effect on Johnson was a blurring between good and evil. These interactions also reaffirm her path to her, which I appreciate. I am glad that she was able to take this experience, use it as motive and grow from it. I think this is what the outcome of all discourse should ideally be.