Month: October 2021

Crip Spaces: Sexual, Fulfilling, And Revolutionary

unsureunderwaterobotLeave a comment

Summary of Sins Invalid

Sins Invalid is a short documentary about a performance team of artists portraying their understanding of sex and disability – as disabled, sexual beings. The team is made up of an entirely disabled cast and crew. Throughout the documentary we see live performances as well as interviews of the crew members. Performances range from dance routines and singing, to poems and short plays. We get to know a bit about the crew and their experience navigating sex as a disabled person in a world that dismisses or fetishizes sex. The documentary celebrates queer, disabled and identities of color through an artistic lens. 

Quotes:

“This is precisely why they (Crip Spaces) are needed: as long as claiming our own ground is treated as an act of hostility, we need our ground” (Smith pg. 274)

This quote ties in well with Sins Invalid and the need for performances like theirs. There are countless sexually-charged shows, but how many include disabled bodies? How many are accessible for disabled patrons? The organization provides an opportunity for the performers and viewers to feel safe, seen, and validated. Not only that, but Sins Invalid provides a space that disabled folks can actually show up to. The moment from the film I am drawn to is at the very beginning when the audio describer/host(?) is explaining who Sins Invalid is and what they stand for. The disabled voice of color celebrates disability and praises the sexual queerness of people. 

“…we might conclude that it (the way disability and sex is misconstrued) is because sexuality is always a site of deep-seated anxieties about normative forms of embodied being” (Shildrick pg. 165)

This quote speaks in tangent with our class conversation about feeling uncomfortable. Sex is not for everyone. Additionally, not everyone has a positive relationship with sex due to lived experience. It is not a good or essential aspect of many lives, however, I will challenge the discomfort for those who come from a cultural/religious place of taboo and anxiety. If sex is taboo for “normalized” bodies, how are we digesting sexuality within disabled bodies? How are our discomforts and anxieties being projected on those who society deems “abnormal”? I am brought back to the scene in the film when the woman who uses two prosthetic legs is on stage while a narrator graphically explains a sexual encounter. I don’t believe this performance is intended to be a dichotomy; her disability is not in opposition with her sexual experience, but rather in tangent. Our discomfort may be projected onto her not having legs, when realistically it may come from a place of insecurity and social taboo regarding sexuality.

Reflection:

In reflection of the readings and this film, I feel at ease, but not complacent. I feel hopeful and full of questions.

 I find the concept of “Crip Spaces” absolutely essential, both in my own life, within my identities and for the well-being of humankind. I hope, moving forward to find spaces for myself that embrace my queerness (in all meanings of the word). Likewise, I hope for disabled spaces, Black spaces, Indigenous spaces, spaces of color and tongue, trans spaces, survivor spaces, and beyond. Shameless plug, an online platform that amplifies these folks is SaltyWorld. I would highly recommend checking it out for all identities.

Rating:

My bias leads me toward a 5/5 rating. Despite the documentary being lower budget I believe it was artistically brilliant, socially impactful, and overall well done. 

Invalid No More: Disabled Performance in “Sins Invalid”

DellFrogLeave a comment

Sins Invalid is a short film featuring a troupe of the same name from the San Francisco area. The troupe is composed of performers with varying disabilities who express their sexuality and experience on stage for a live audience. The film chronicles the creation and heart of the troupe, formed out of a need to shift the narrative of disabled sexuality from something grotesque or shunned to something visible and celebrated. Sins Invalid is an active performance to display the varying sexualities and sensualities of each performer and to give the audience insight into the beauty of disability.

When analyzing the film from a disability theory angle, it is clear to see the subversive nature of the film. Robert McRuer explains in his essay on “Sexuality” in relation to disability theory that, “exclusion from normality or a presumption that one could not be part of the heterosexual/homosexual system, in other words, sometimes allowed for disabled pleasures and disabled ways of knowing that were not reducible to dominant systems of heterosexuality that were dependent on ablebodied definitions of sexual norms” (McRuer, 169). Given that in the 20th century people continued to find ways to label disabled sexuality as “abnormal”, there  is a need to break out of the othering that comes from heteronormative analysis of disabled sexuality. Sins Invalid as a performance troupe finds their own ways of subverting the narrative of abnormality, transforming the concept of disabled sexuality into something beautiful and sensual. This explicit subversion is emphasized in the lapdance performance of Maria Polacios, where she turns her wheelchair into an object of sexual mobility and sensuality. Something that the heteronormative society would see as abnormal suddenly appears erotic, freeing the label of disabled sexuality.

Patricia Bearne, Co-Founder of Sins Invalid, speaks in the film about there being a distinct lack of disabled bodies on stage, how people with disabilities need a space where they can perform and grow as performers. In a short story labeled “The Beauty of Spaces Created for and by Disabled People”, s.e. Smith defines the concept of crip space as “unique, a place where disability is celebrated and embraced- something radical and taboo in many parts of the world and sometimes even for people in those spaces” (Smith, 273). This is exactly the kind of environment that the founders of Sins Invalid have fostered. Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha expands on this concept by speaking about how the first time she watched the show, she was amazed and moved to tears by the the notion that the queer and disabled performers did not have to hide any part of their identity while on stage. Sins Invalid as a troupe is working towards freeing the boundaries that have been set by society for people with disabilities, expanding the definition of what it means to live free lives full of love. In Petra Kupper’s analysis of “Performance” in disability studies, she explains how in performances like these “the action moves out from the individual and toward communal action, and a staged performance becomes a way of presenting disability in public” (Kuppers, 138). For the people who are disabled in the audience, this is a celebration of the lives of fellow people with disabilities. For the nondisabled in the audience, it is a chance to see another facet of disability, one that has long since been locked away by society. All around, it is another chance for the audience to see how acceptance and support can create stunning and captivating narratives for all viewers.

As someone who is asexual, this would not be my first choice of a performance to view. However, I do understand the need to shift the current accepted narrative that people with disabilities are without sexuality or that their sexuality is otherwise repulsive. Interpretive performances are also not my first choice of visual performance, but I think that each scene represented in the movie has its own beauty. If I were to watch performances that are not overtly sexual, I would have an easier time enjoying them. But that is a personal preference to avoid blatantly sexual media. However, I am struck by the moments of spoken word, specifically the performance of Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, relating her relationship to an adventure through the cosmos. And I can appreciate the stories that they are trying to communicate and the medium of which they are doing so, and I hope that they continue to find joy and freedom in their performances. From a professional standpoint, 4 out of 5 stars, from a personal standpoint, 3 out of 5.

Validating Sins: a review of “Sins Invalid : an unshamed claim to beauty in the face of invisibility “

Tuesday5 Comments

“Sins Invalid” is a vivid anthology of art performance expressing personal experience surrounding sex and sexuality through the lens of disability. Performers share some of the intimate moments of their lives, highlighting the impact having a disability has had on their ability to engage in sex and romance, none. Their performances also shed light on how ableist culture has contorted their daily lives to be abnormal, introducing struggle into their lives. Sins Invalid is a disability justice performance project, run by POC artists with disabilities show casing the talent and creativity of disabled artists. The Film, “Sins Invalid”, depicts the thought process behind one of Sins Invalid’s showcases.  The artists behind Sins Invalid strive to create understanding of issues surrounding their race, sexuality, and lack of able-bodiedness, something society demand participants have, by directly playing against the stereotypical non-sexual and non-sensual script given to disabled people.

According to Petra Kuppers, in the essay “performance”, “Making choices about one’s intervention is part of what an artful and conscientious disability performance practitioner does…”(139). The question to ask, is what type of intervention are the members of Sins Invalid engaging in? The performers are very explicit in their intentions. They are purposefully fighting against oppressive ideas of able-bodiedness, heteronormativity and racism. However, “Disabled people often have been discursively constructed as incapable of having sexual desires or a sexual identity, due to their supposed “innocence” ”(168), as Robert McRuer in “Sexuality” puts, seems to be the main antithesis of the showcase. This is often the only thing connect one part of the film to another. The film has a lot of ground to cover and not nearly enough time, leaving some discussions as footnotes. But does this matter? Not if the viewer is inspired to look further into the injustices and struggles display by “Sins Invalid”.

Now, for the rating of this film, I would rate Sins Invalid 2.5 out of five stars. The reason for this poor rating is digestibility. “Sins Invalid” is a hard watch. Not because of the disturbing treatment of people with disabilities described at times but due to the extremely explicitness of some of the more focused performances. For some, this may not be a deterrent when watching the film. I applaud your comfortability around sex, I suppose. I personally found some parts uncomfortably pornographic, which other parts ripe with symbolism and deep thought were stained by. I know that I am not alone in this mindset. It is not that I am conservative or prude, it is my personal beliefs that intimacy should selectively share with a few and not the world. Of course, there exist a wide range of opinions on sexual expression and its place in society, so my dilemma may be amplified in some and non-existent in others. No matter what your stance on sex positivity and expression, one should consider the messages conveyed by Sins Invalid. There was a borderline freak-showness and over sexualization to some performances that puts the message Sins Invalid is attempting to impart in danger of being obscured by some of the acts. I believe that was purposeful chose embracing the freak show stereotype. My final impression of both the film and project is that the artists are attempting to normalize a disabled sexual experience, but they are inadvertently alienating a portion of the audience with the explicitness of their performances.

Note: Both quotes used above are from essays featured in the book Keywords for Disability Studies, by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss and David Sirlen.

Performance and Expression

turtle340 Comments

The film Sins Invalid is a contemplation of performances from a show by different artists in the disability community. Poets, dancers, musicians, and actors come together on the stage to create a raw and pure performance of emotion. Expressing, not only their identity, but their sexuality, race, and experience as being disabled in an honest way. Between performances, there was commentary on the creative process and experiences the performers had while creating and performing their acts on the stage for live audiences.

Something I made a connection to between the film and the Keywords for Disability Studies books was sexualization. In the chapter about race the author writes, “For instance, the public’s morbid fascination with the sexualized bodies of Saartjie Baartman, the South African woman known as the “hottest Venus.””(146). It was common in the past for people of race or disability to be sexualized in a negative, unwanted way by the public. In this film, we see people of different race and disability reclaiming their sexuality and how they feel about their bodies, despite the opinions and misconception of others. The other connection I made was to the chapter about the topic of the word queer, “”Queer” opposes not heterosexuality but heteronormativity-the often unspoken assumption that heterosexuality provides the framework through which everything makes sense.” (143). Not only does the film challenge misconceptions of disability but it breaks down heteronormativity, opening our eyes to other people’s sexuality, sex, and experience that should be but is not viewed as ‘normal’ due to the concept of heteronormativity.

I really enjoyed watching this film. To watch people own their identities, to stand on a stage and listen and watch them proclaim their truths and who they are was incredibly powerful and inspirational to me. Each performer told their story, their experience and how they see themselves and their body. It just felt so raw and honest to me and I really loved that. I think this film is also incredibly powerful because it changes the perspective of the viewers. It breaks through the misconceptions and stereotypes that media and society have created about the sexuality and lives of people with disability. I find that incredibly impactful.

4.5/5 Stars

RAB: Disability and Queer

LimboLeave a comment

“Queer” by Tim Dean, selected from Keywords for Disability Studies edited by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin

Summary: 

This piece introduces the historical connections between queer studies and disability studies by first discussing the word queer. Originally, queer was used as a derogatory term to stigmatize not only members of the LGBTQ+ community but those in the disabled community too. Now it is decently well-known as a reclaimed term for empowerment. Dean points out that both queer studies and disability studies challenge the effects of normalization in society when it comes to identity and access. When I say identity, this can include sexual orientation, gender expression, physical appearances, personality itself and much more personal attributes. One example given comes from early activist groups and their slogans. Queer Nation began the chant “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.” And it was common for disability rights organizations to chant “Not dead yet.”  

Then, the term heteronormativity comes into play. Queer itself, is not supposed to challenge or simply be different from heterosexuality, as it challenges heteronormativity. The way Dean explains heteronormativity relates to heterosexuality because it’s based off covert expectations that makes sense of the world. The term is linked to another concept created by Adrienne Rich (lesbian feminist) known as compulsory heterosexuality. Dean claims that compulsory heterosexuality depends on compulsory able-bodiedness. Heteronormativity assumes that a body engaging in sex is healthy and able-bodied to fit the idea of “normal.” Lastly, the concept of “crip theory” is introduced because of its influence from queer and disability studies. Instead of focusing on physical aspects and capabilities of bodies and environments around them this field goes one step further. It wants to take a deeper look at abstract social expectations of what the human body should look like and how someone should behave or perform daily due to heteronormativity.  

Quotes: 

“Indeed, able-bodiedness appears to be even more compulsory than heterosexuality because the former requires the latter” (pg. 144) 

“Queer approaches to thinking about disability and sexuality argue that neither the human body nor its capacities are biologically determined” (pg. 144) 

“In other words, normalization does not exclusively bolster the interests of the so-called normal, since it also puts them at risk” (pg. 144) 

Reflection: 

One thing that I focused on was the idea of normalization. I like how this author framed it, and the references he provided when discussing it piece by piece. While I can’t be positive I fully grasp it from this reading, including Goffman’s take helped. If I’m following correctly, normalization could be a framework that anyone is capable of straying from. That goes to say that anyone is capable of later in life becoming disabled, therefor being stripped of their “normal” social status. I would also argue that while I view a standard normal as being the straight white able-bodied male (and doubtful that will change soon) I think norms can sometimes exist on a continuum. We create new norms and once those are established if you don’t fall in line or can’t make the cut, you are not normal anymore. Normalization is an identity vacuum that exists to continuously eradicate accessibility, education, and mutes every minority.  

Secondly, something this piece reminded me of is the power of taking back hurtful language. Growing up, I vividly remember learning as a young child that “queer” meant weird. It meant different, gross, and was not a word to be associated with. Being a member of the LGBTQ+ community and being able to then grow up and see us take back these terms for empowerment meant a lot. I never knew queer studies and disability studies had this historical, powerful link in that way. Typically, I always emphasize how crucial vocabulary can be, and this author solidified that more for me. It’s not just how we speak about identities but how we don’t speak about them as well. Having learned some bits and pieces of queer history it’s saddening interconnections to other communities like this do not get mentioned or credit.  

RAB Reflection of “Keyword for Disability Studies”- Chapter 47: “Queer”

Turnip FriendLeave a comment
  1. “Queer” by Tim Dean from Keywords for Disability Studies

2. Summary:

Dean starts this section of the book explaining that in the past, the term “queer” didn’t just apply to people in the LGBTQ+ community. It was also a word used to describe people with physical or cognitive impairments. He then explores how the term “queer” doesn’t oppose heterosexuality, which many people assume. It actually opposes heteronormativity, “the often unspoken assumption that heterosexuality provides the framework through which everything makes sense.” Coined by Michael Warner in the early 1990’s, the term “heteronormativity” was invented to supplement the existing concept of “compulsory heterosexuality” which had been coined by feminist writer Adrienne Rich in the early 1980’s. Dean then explains that “compulsory heterosexuality” is dependent on “compulsory able-bodiedness” because heteronormativity first requires that the participants adhere to the idea of a standard “normal” body. This idea created by disability theorist Robert McRuer, lead to a combination of Disability Theory and Queer Theory to develop “Crip Theory.”

The author states that, “The central claim of this area of scholarship is that, beyond examining the bodily conditions or the physical environments that produce disability, disability studies should also examine those less tangible but profoundly distorted social expectations that presume what bodies should look like and be able to do.” When thinking about disability and sexuality through a queer theory lens, we come to the conclusion that the human body and its capacities are not biologically determined, but are formed and influenced by the process of normalization. Likewise, sociologist Erving Goffman describes how everyone has the potential to fail to adhere to identity norms, and therefore even the so-called “normal” people are put at risk by the system they perpetuate and benefit from. Next, Dean brings up medical historian Georges Canguilhem’s idea that “significant variations from what is statistically normal for a population need not imply pathology.” This concept is important because our perception of variation equating sickness is only upheld when mathematical norms and evaluative norms are conflated together.

Dean then moves onto the AIDS crisis, which he describes as a time when social and medical norms intersected more powerfully than ever before. He references a quote from literary scholar Ellis Hanson’s idea that the origins of Queer Theory came from disability studies due to the activism during the AIDS crisis which centered on the concept that the disease was not isolated to groups such as IV drug users and gay men, though the groups were severely impacted. Dean’s final idea surrounds the idea that queer studies and disability studies are interconnected in many ways that future scholars should look into to form their own theories.

3. Quotations:

-“In recent decades, sexual minorities have reclaimed “queer” as a badge of pride and a mark of resistance to regimes of the normal, mirroring the embrace of terms like “crip” (Dean, 143).

-“Power in modern society is exerted less through channels of regulation and prohibition than through those of normalization and rehabilitation” (Dean, 144).

-“Sex itself, in its effects on coherent selfhood, may be regarded as disabling” (Dean, 145).

4. Reflection:

The idea that most intrigued me from this reading was the assertion that queerness and heterosexuality aren’t opposing concepts in their basic form. The term “queer” has a much wider scope than just a descriptor of sexualities that are non-heterosexual, and instead battles the social standard of heteronormativity which primarily negatives influences the lives of everyone regardless of sexuality and gender. Being a queer person myself, for a long time I was uncertain of whether or not to accept the label because of its negative origins. However, this way of viewing the term is very unifying and inspiring to me.

I also really liked Dean’s emphasis on the idea that these theories are still being expanded and each scholar he referenced has influenced the minds of those involved in the communities, and the other scholars who develop their own theories based off of prior theorists work. It really emphasized that this ideas are built by living, breathing groups of people who want to make the world better both for themselves and the wider culture in relation to the structures that oppress them.

Margrit Shildrick: Disability and Sex

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment

Summary:

The author begins by explaining how the world sees sex: a paradox of too much or too little, of joyful or shameful, of scientific or pleasurable, of normal or not. After giving cultural context, they elaborate on how disability and sex are at play. Disabled folks don’t have access to sexual education which only amplifies a negative stigmas both within and outside of the disabled community. They then go on to explain why sex and disability are such a tricky intersection (quote number 2) and how it stems from a cultural anxiety regarding sex and the body. They break down the Deleuzian model and emphasis the importance of navigating desire opposed to embodiment. The author reinvents the widespread understanding of what sex/sexuality is. Lastly, they explain the relation to queer and disability studies in action. The closing of the chapter summarizes the issues of how sex and disability is viewed and where we can advocate going in the future.

Quotes:

“…disabled people, like everyone else, understand their sexualities in multiple different ways, which do not fit easily with the convenient models of social management” (Shildrick pg. 164)
“If those who count themselves as nondisabled have laregly disavowed the conjunction of disability and sexuality, experiencing what can only be regarded as the “yuck factor” when faced with the realities of sexual desire in all their anomalous forms, then we might conclude that it is because sexuality is always a site of deep-seated anxieties about normative forms of embodied being” (Shildrick pg. 165)
“…understandings of disability and sex have encouraged scholars and activists to confront questions of embodiment, and more specifically, the circulation of desire” (Shildrick pg. 165) *so good*
“…the term “queer” goes much further in being explicitly defined as against all forms of normativity” (Shildrick pg. 166)

Reflection:

I loved this chapter (I know that isn’t great analysis, but I just have to start with that). It went well in tangent with some of the queer theory work I’ve been reading. The author emphasized the need to tear down stereotyped preconceptions of sex (both within and outside the disability community). They provided alternative definitions of sex and embodiment, which I see as a powerful tool for advocacy. In addition to explaining the tangible intersections of sex and disability, they dove into the heady complexities of challenging everything we’ve been taught. I also appreciated the type of language the author used; very plain, with lots of examples.

Reflective Annotated Bibliography Two: O’Toole and Lewis (Chapter 14, “Crip”)

CloverLeave a comment

Summary:

 In Chapter 14 of O’Toole’s Keywords for Disability, Victoria Ann Lewis describes the loaded history of the word “crip”, and the way that crip genres of identity have been expanded upon since the 1980s. Once a slur used as a diminutive of difficulty (i.e. “crip course” (46)), the term “crip” has adopted an ironic affection, and is now most recognized by academics among other terms that reclaim the stigma of disability. 

Since then, the term has exploded throughout disability discourse: from “crip it” (47), to “crip zen” (46). “Cripping”, like “queering”, is now considered an effective means of demonstrating “dominant assumptions and exclusionary effects” (47) when applied to media. The two are repeatedly referred to in tandem throughout Chapter 14.

In conclusion, “crip”, sometimes written as “krip” to distinguish from the infamous gang, is showing no signs of slowing down, and goes to show how the allowance for self-definition can be generative of new forms of expression within, and beyond, the community.

Quotations: 

1) “With the emergence of the disability civil rights movement in the 1970 s, ‘crip’ gained wide usage as an informal, affectionately ironic, and provocative identification among people with disabilities.” (46)

2) “While there are examples of ‘crip’ converted into a verb as far back as the fourteenth century, where we read of ‘a beeste that was broken and Cripped ,’ our contemporary usage seems to have originated in academic discourse as a critical strategy borrowed from queer studies.” (47)

3) Sandahl also notes the two positions [queerness and cripness] share ‘a radical stance towards concepts of normalcy’, a position that McRuer describes as a shared ‘resistance to cultural homogenization’”. (47)

Reflections:

Lewis’ text, though brief, paints a bright future for the use of “crip” as a type of strategic language. I will say, in case my personal experience is not sufficient, that I think it’s wonderful that verbiage can inspire such feelings of community, ownership, and empowerment when they once inflicted pain. Affectionate terms are a great way to increase comfort, and promote self-confidence. Lewis’ paper also underscores the intersectional lines between queer and crip theory, which is equally fascinating, and I think exploring that shared history would make for a great essay. However, I would not personally advocate for the use of this term, because in my own experience I’ve seen it used mainly as a pejorative.

CRIP

Djellibeybi1 Comment
Get this image on: iStock | License details
Creator: anuwat meereewee | Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
Employees Men and women face a dazed question with a question mark on the head.

“CRIP” by Victoria Ann Lewis, Keywords from Disability Studies (pg. 46-48), Adams, Rachel, et al. 2015

Summary:

This section of the book “Keywords from Disability Studies”, goes over the history and use of the colloquial term, “Crip”. Crip, in the words of Victoria Ann Rice – the author of this section – “is the shortened, informal form of the word “Cripple”.” (Pg. 46). The term has it’s origins in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as an identifier or slang term, especially for collegiate sports in the 1920’s.

During the civil rights movement, the term is comendered by the disability civil rights movement in the 1970’s. Most likely influenced by the Women’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements of the 50’s and 60’s. According to Victoria Ann Lewis, the term “functions as an alternative to both the old-fashioned and rejected “handicapped person” and the new, more formal terms “disabled person” or “person with a disability,” both of which gained official status as the preferred terms for standard usage in the mid-1980s.” (Pg. 46).

It was interesting to read this; I did not realize that “handicapped person” was an offensive or rejected term. At risk of being offensive and insensitive, I’ll continue my argument: handicapped does not face the same stigmatism or vitriol as words such as “The N-word” for black people (which wasn’t originally intended to be offensive when in use in the 19th century – merely a descriptor – but has rightly become the subject of offense and vitriol.) I’m beginning to wonder if we should view the word “handicapped” in the same way we view the N-word, because I still used the word Handicapped fairly often (though it’s often to describe a physical disability rather than a mental one: I rarely call someone with mental disabilities “a cripple”, (and I tend to read old books and have many archaic or eccentric views on the world; I’m not saying it’s right – It is what it is – I digress.).).

It’s always interesting to read about how groups tend to adopt the names that where used to humiliate them, the textual example being the word “queer” for the LGBT community (Ah, the good old days, when it was just “LGBT”) or like in the early Christian movement, the word Christian was used to describe people who followed “the way”, and how Christian’s used to be called “Atheists” because they only followed one God (I always found that rather amusing). Many groups like to commandeer offensive names as a form of self-deprecating humor, (the song “Jesus Freak” from DC Talk comes to mind, or the way non-christians will often call themselves “heathens” in front of their Christian friends).

I’m not exactly sure how words like “cripping” or “cripped” are supposed to be used. I’ve never used them before, and I doubt I will have much occasion to use them in future, but things change. If someone where to explain what exactly they mean by these verbs, then I may gladly adopt the term in the same way I’ve adopted adulting (though, to be fair, I don’t like that term either and rarely use it. What can I say, I’m an old fashioned kid). Part of me just asks “why use these terms at all?”, which is partially answered in the paper in the following quote: “[…] the power of claiming either “crip” or “cripple” comes from the “seminented history of its prior usage,” and the capacity of both words to injure.” which sounds slightly masochistic to me, but there’s some form of sense to it.

The article pulls a lot of comparisons between the LGBT community and the disabled community. Both having their terms and titles that have stereotyped and that they wish to “redefine” as some kind of power statement. But how much power can you have by controlling the language. After all, if you redefine what a word means, it probably won’t be long before a new word comes around to take it’s former station, or perhaps the word or phrase will default to it’s prior definition. How much power do we individual people have over people when it is the public who really defines what they mean and who determines their usefulness?

Crip Camp' Brings the Inclusion Revolution to the Oscars | Human Rights Watch
This film was the only time I can recall ever hearing the word “Crip” used before this class. Even so, I barely remembered this movie, and I’ve never seen it before. It might be an interesting watch – I’m curious.
Credit: Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/23/crip-camp-brings-inclusion-revolution-oscars

CONCLUSIONS

The article describing the history and use of this term was an interesting read, although I do think that I was left with more questions than answers. Crip is an odd word, to be frank; the people who use that word are a unique group. I’ve never heard of this word before this class, and I think it’s unlikely that I will ever use it much in conversation outside of this course. But, if the person to use this word (as an identifier, or a descriptor, or in verb tense) desire to use it, and if it does no harm to the person using it or being described by the term (and I’m not one to care for personal feelings very much, except in a general form of respect to everyone.), then I see no harm in the use of such a flowery euphemism.

Kuppers, Petra, “Performance”

TuesdayLeave a comment

Keywords for Disability Studies. edited by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss,& David Serlin. NYU Press, 2015.

Summary:

The section, “Performance”, begins with three scenarios in which people with various disabilities may find themselves. Scenarios where they may be exaggerating or playing up the symptoms of their disability to receive the assistance they need. Kuppers makes the distinction that these are all subconscious performances of disability, they are done out of survival instinct. Then, a second type of performance is introduced. This second type of performance is purposeful with the intent to display disabilities. Purposeful performances of disability bring the focus away from the individual and towards community, whereas subconscious performances are meant to bring focus to the individual. Kuppers turns her attention towards the ethics of disability-centric performances. She asserts that a performer must carefully consider what narrative they are supporting and conveying with every detail of their performance. For example, considering if their role or parts of the script promote the segregation of differences, through excluding performers with disabilities, displaying harmful stereotypes, or the performance is inaccessible. The point of the purposeful depiction of disabilities is to break down existing stereotypes, humanize people with disabilities and include them in the art world. Kuppers ends this section by describing how the lives of disabled people can be highlighted and illustrated through art  performances in a way that positively impacts all, especially others with disabilities.

Quotes:

“How to live artfully; how to move nimbly through discursive fields, tipping past stereotype traps; ducking the diagnostic, medica and charitable gaze: These are the kinds of guerilla skills most disabled people learn in a disabling world.” (pg. 139)

“In different ways, these staged performances in public all subvert some expected scripts (…) and leave others untouched.” (pg. 138)

 “Wider aesthetic issues include how disability performance practice is influenced by the histories of the freak show, by cultural fascination with the grotesque, by eugenic discourse, by the kind of audience engagements characterized by sentimentality, by notions of virtuosity and its space in modernist and post-modernist practice.” (pg.139)

Reflection:

I found the opening section on subconscious performance to be the most interesting thing discussed in this section. I can see how what Kuppers was talking about could be misused to justify the faking-it myth. But the exaggeration discussed, I think can be found everywhere. It is just a part of communication. Most people play up their sexuality to advertise to potential partners; women and men will sometimes over express their gender; Minority culture groups will practically brand themselves with their specific culture. My impression that non-binary people are not trying to fit into overly defined category like the binary genders most of the time, so there is no real way to over perform. We dramatize a simple thing about ourselves when we want others to no beyond a doubt that aspect of our lives is true. Our performances are ingrained into our subconscious from life experiences. This makes the fact that a person with disability may over emphasize their disability to receive assistance accessing basic necessities and rights incredibly sad. This leads into purposeful performance. I got the impression that the types of performances Kuppers was referring to in this part were for the purpose of normalizing disabilities. Making it so that people with disabilities will not be conditioned to put on unintentional performances to receive help, to be seen. This is why scripts surrounding or including disabilities need to be carefully thought out, why more disabled people need to be included in performance art without their disability being made into a spectacle.