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.

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