Disability Visibility

Institutions vs. Community

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment
  1. The title and author of the source 

Ricardo T. Thornton, “We Can’t Go Back” 

  1. An objective summary of the reading 

Thornton begins by stating their credibility as someone who has lived in institutions and battles the inequitable (nonexistent) support system in the United States. They explain their experience in institutions, specifically Forest Haven. They explain the dangers of living in an isolating environment in which individuals are not encouraged to engage in the community. Thornton explains the transition out of the institution and into group homes, then family living. They explain their involvement with Special Olympics. They use this involvement as an example of just how capable disabled people are. Out in community, Thornton is capable of so much more than when they were at Forest Haven. The chapter is summed up and given agency. The author closes by explaining how essential support and opportunity is for folks (especially mentally disabled folks) to grow.  

  1. 3 or more quotations (with page numbers) 

“When people are given a chance to grow and contribute, they grow and contribute” (Thornton pg. 88). 

“Segregating people is always bad; people never grow in those places and are safer and happier in the community” (Thornton pg. 89). 

“In the institution I didn’t get to think for myself. The staff thought for me and made all my decisions. For a long time, no one expected anything of me” (Thornton pg. 85). 

  1. A personal reflection naming 2 or 3 take-aways from the reading 

I was drawn to the distinction that the author made between “the institution” and “the community.” Thornton makes a strong comparison between living institutionally and freely. I think I take advantage of the ways community comes so easily to me. I am given opportunity after opportunity to grow and contribute, which so many folks are not. I was struck by one of the authors closing remarks, “the only thing that is special about me (in comparison to other people with mental disabilities) is that people believed in me and in my potential to learn in spite of my disability, they took the time to help me learn” (Thornton pg. 89). This quote connects closely with the social model of disability. It is the world around the disabled that makes them that way. 

De-Centering Whiteness to Make Room for Black Joy

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment
  1. The title and author of the source 

Keh Brown, “Nurturing Black Disabled Joy” 

  1. An objective summary of the reading 

Brown begins by identifying themselves as a Black woman with CP, who strives toward joy in a world that assumes its absence. She states her argument that emphasizes inclusion within (and outside) the disabled community, in a way that de-centers whiteness. Popular culture sees disability through the lens of a cishet white man who is a wheelchair user and hates his life. This image is a monolith and erases the author; she aims to combat this. Her end goal is joy and the agency to live fully. Using the hashtag #DisabledAndCute, Brown broadcasted her joy. She says that her perspectives often leave people angry or confused, but that. The quote is included below, but she states that days in which joy is absent, it is important to remember, feeling at all is a gift. 

  1. 3 or more quotations (with page numbers) 

“No one should have to be happy all the time- no one can be, with all the ways in which life throws curveballs at us. On those days, it’s important not to mourn the lack of joy but to remember how it feels, to remember that to feel at all is one of the greatest gifts we have in life.” (Brown pg. 119) 

My joy is my freedom—it allows me to live my life as I see fit. I won’t leave this earth without the world knowning that I chose to live a life that made me happy, made me think, made me whole. I won’t leave this earth without the world knowing that I chose to live.” (Brown pg. 120) 

In response to readers who were confused, frightened, or angry, “… reacted defensively because they’re not centered in my story– because I am calling for inclusion that decenters whiteness.” (Brown pg. 118) 

  1. A personal reflection naming 2 or 3 take-aways from the reading 

I thought this reading was a brilliant depiction of intersectionality (intersectionality or die). The author takes note of their identity and experiences, then forms an educated notion that centers the lives of those who most frequently experience marginalization. She is aiming to reframe thinking; away from cishet white guys, to Black disabled womxn; away from the despair life may throw at you, to the joy that exists! I hate commenting on this, but this piece was very accessibly digestible (even my old-fart of a father could read this and gather something from it). Brown successfully drops knowledge and encouragement, while challenging the reader to be better. 

Beyond These Walls

DellFrog1 Comment

“We Can’t Go Back” by Ricardo T. Thornton Sr.

Summary: Thornton begins with introductions and starts his speech with his early history of living in an institution for people with intellectual disabilities. He talks about how knowledge of his family who lived in the same institution were kept from him and the death of his sister. He talks about leaving the institution and society’s perception of him living in a group home, then to how he started his own family. He continues speaking about how people with disabilities deserve opportunities to learn and grow and his family’s work experiences. Thornton talks about the necessity for community and support, and how people with disabilities have great potential when they are supported. Thornton implores his audience to support people with disabilities and help them learn and grow. He concludes by arguing against segregation and institutions, and says that we need to move forward with our communities, not backward.

Quotes:

“People need to have high expectations for people with disabilities because then they’ll give them opportunities to learn and grow” (87).

“I believe that people can do anything if they’re given the opportunity and support” (88).

Reflection:

I think Thornton uses a really concise speech that works well to ask an audience to support and care for people. It is tragic that as a society for so many decades we had (and continue) to segregate people in many different ways. The institution is just one way of segregating the disabled community from the non-disabled community. I was happy to hear Thornton’s story of success but I know that the reality is so many people in institutions don’t get the chances that he did. Society has collectively decided that the best way to “support” people with disabilities is to put them in special places with people who work to support them. And on paper, that sounds great. But in reality, it creates even more barriers to the human experience by making disabled people feel inhuman. Having all choice and opportunity stripped from you because of your ability or lack thereof is inhumane. I agree with Thornton’s plea to end institutional living and instead focus on community support. I think one of the best ways to do that is through education and the sharing of stories. We cannot move forward as a community until we hear the voices of everyone in the community. And it is equally as important for us to work together to create a better opportunity for the people around us, giving them support and breaking down barriers, choosing to lift each other up instead.

The New Joy

DellFrogLeave a comment

“Nurturing Black Disabled Joy” by Keah Brown

Summary: First Brown talks about how disabled communities are typically barred from experiencing joy or hope. Brown is unapologetic about her joy and proceeds to talk about the aftermath of publishing her first book. Brown counters the arguments against her book through realizing that the reason the readers were upset was because the book was not centered on their experience. She talks about starting her movement #DisabledAndCute and how it enabled her to start living life unapologetically. Brown continues to talk about how she searches for joy and hope and ends with sharing her joy with the world and commitment to living her life fully.

Quotes: “So I live as unapologetically as I can each day- for myself, of course, but also for those who will come up after me, who will walk through the doors I hope to break down” (118).

“On those days, it’s important not to mourn the lack of joy but to remember how it feels, to remember that to feel at all is one of the greatest gifts we have in life” (119).

Reflection:

I think that Brown’s essay is a great example of how transformative joy and hope can be. I think for a lot of people, disabled people especially, there can be a compulsion to cling to the dreary. As someone with mental illness, I know that there were plenty of times in my life when I said, “I am too depressed to be happy”. And the moments that I did feel happiness later became twisted because my brain inserted facts that did not exist, marring my perception of whatever had just made me happy. But the moment that joy is sought after and accepted is transformative. Not only can it help your own mental health, but it can help the mental health around others too. It is important to pursue joy in your own life, not only because you deserve it but also because you deserve to share your joy with others. Joy and hope are contagious, and recognizing joy in others creates a sense of belonging and hope for a positive future. You can recognize when things are difficult or painful, you can validate those feelings as they come. But it is important to train yourself to understand that those feelings won’t last forever. That it is okay, even desirable, to have hope for the joy that is to come. I know that the concept helped pull me out of some dark spaces, and I have also used my search for joy to help fuel others, recognizing that living is a community process, and we all help each other one step at a time.

The Philosopher’s Dilemma: Why Different Bodyminds Deserve The Right To Live

LimboLeave a comment

Summary: 

In the piece, “Unspeakable Conversations” author Harriet McBryde Johnson recounts her experience with meeting infamous philosopher and professor at Princeton University, Peter Singer. Johnson is a disabled rights activist a part of the organization Not Dead Yet and lives with a neuromuscular disease herself. Familiar with his ideologies relating to infanticide and mirroring beliefs in modern-day eugenics, Johnson was intrigued yet reluctant to meet Singer. Their first interaction is intriguing because Johnson sees some of her own peers chatting with Singer, the man that believes anyone with a disability should not be born/be able to live. They get introduced and suddenly start exchanging emails for a while until Johnson is invited to speak at his university to a group of students with a follow-up Q and A. Upon arrival Johnson notes the attentive audience nodding along to the illogical, quite frankly horrid arguments Singer presents to them. He is professional, respectful, and calm. When Johnson speaks, she adds more of a personal touch while keeping the same professionalism. Afterwards, the two end up going on a walk as they also say their goodbyes and it seems Johnson’s opinion of his character has changed a bit. The chapter closes with thoughts running through Johnson’s head about Singer, about how ignorant people can be when it comes to disability in general. She feels content with concluding that Singer is extremely misguided but truly believes he is doing something helpful. She cannot hate him or violently argue because the world is filled with Singer’s unfortunately, but she was able to make some important dialogue with him that could alter others’ minds.  

Quotes: 

“But I have trouble with basing life-and-death decisions on market considerations when the market is structured by prejudice” (Pg. 10) 

“Within the strange limits of this strange assignment, it seems Singer is doing all he can to make me comfortable” (Pg. 18) 

“If I define Singer’s kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him as a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently worse off or that a life without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value.” (Pg. 26) 

Reflection: 

This reading wasn’t one of my favorites, but I think the writing got away from me towards the end. The theme that stuck out to me the most and seemed one of the most important was the power of rhetoric here. Since Singer had a professional, calm tone about him he would/will always have an attentive audience. Not to mention his status as a professor and famous philosopher. Singer has the privilege of painting his atrocious beliefs as something admirable because not only does he believe he is coming up with a real solution, but his status and demeanor demand interest and respect. If Johnson or anyone with Not Dead Yet were to speak out against Singer in a “aggressive” way that would be completely rational, an audience would see it as irrational depleting the other sides view immediately. Johnson knew for that reason she must remain calm but still added her personal touches in and also was professional. As we are all aware, many people similar to Singer exist in our world and they exist through their usage of rhetoric.  

Philosophy and Ethics Debates are Once Again Disturbing Me

Isabelle S1 Comment

Harriet McBryde Johnson details in her story her meeting and eventual debate with Professor Peter Singer, who believes that disabled infants are not people and thus it should be legal for parents to kill their disabled child. Johnson, who is notably known for being a disability rights activist, who has congenital neuromuscular disease and occupies a motorized wheelchair, debated Singer and others with similar beliefs, and gave a full account of her meetings, emails and debate with Singer.  

One thing that I think captured my discomfort with this reading was when Johnson explained, “We should not make disabled lives subject of debate”(Johnson 11). I agree with her here, there is something sort of disturbing seeing in an academic setting the blatant disregard for empathy and emotion in some of these arguments. The urge for Singer’s perspective to become completely devoid of emotion and human contact – an impossible feat. As if distancing itself from compassion and delving solely into “facts” (which doesn’t equate to truth but that’s an entirely different discussion to be had) reveals an objective truth that defies the boundaries of morality altogether in its purity. YUCK! This seems to mostly come from nondisabled people in this story, where the distance between a person and “them” (being disabled people) is distinct, it seems to make the argument easier for them to have. The author here is much more patient here than I am, but I’m young and impressionable and quick to judge. It’s hard to appreciate the nuance that I know is there in these arguments when the topic of debate is — once again, like so many other seemingly pointless debates —  on who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

I must say however, that I am absolutely in love with this author’s voice. I can’t quite put my finger on why; maybe it’s because she’s a lawyer, maybe because she’s disabled, maybe because this is her story and she’s told it a hundred times over, but I really want to read more of her work after reading this! I love how she included so many details about the complexity of this situation, the people she’s aligned herself with and opposes, the debate and the trip she took to get there, every part of it is so captivating. I in particular love how she introduced Singer as, “The man who wants me dead”(Johnson 3). This sort of concise language is really refreshing, and her voice is so soothing and easy for me to read.

Peter Singer is Spooky as Hell

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment
  1. The title and author of the source 

Unspeakable Conversations // Harriet McBryde Johnson 

  1. An objective summary of the reading 

In this reading, the author tells a story of their experience with Peter Singer. Singer is an educator at Princeton University who believes in and fights for assisted suicide and infanticide of disabled peoples. The author is a disabled lawyer, fighting against Singer’s notions, in order to defend their own life.  

In the chapter, the author walks their readers through a series of events—the major ones being: when the author went to one of Singers talks in town, their email exchanges, and the author’s visit to Princeton where they spoke to a class with Singer, toured the campus and had lunch. Each of these events paint a picture of who Singer is, who the author is, and the paradoxical exchange between them. The author brings their own perspective and voice to the writing by inserting further explanation regarding their positionality and beliefs, Singer’s beliefs and actions, and how the two clash/collide. Woven throughout the anecdotal evidence is commentary regarding how the author felt, the thoughts that came up for them, and reflections looking back.  

  1. 3 or more quotations (with page numbers) 

Regarding their differences: 
“To Singer, it’s pretty simple: disability makes a person “worse off”. Are we “worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful sense” (McBryde Johnson pg. 10-11). 
“I define Singer’s kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently worse off or that a without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value. That definition would make monsters of many of the people with whom I move on the sidewalks, do business, break bread, swap stories, and share the grunt work of local politics… I can’t live with a definition of ultimate evil that encompasses all of them” (McBryde Johnson pg. 26). 

Regarding non-normalizing:  
“…I have no more reason to kill myself than most people…” (McBryde Johnson pg. 7) 
“…to try to prevent most suicides while facilitating the suicides of the ill and disabled people is disability discrimination” (McBryde Johnson pg. 20) 

  1. A personal reflection naming 2 or 3 take-aways from the reading 

This was such an informative read. I think the way the author spoke about the opposition/togetherness between themselves and Singer was so digestible. They offered complex and deep ways of thinking through a story + analysis lens. I think the story itself was pretty bizarre. It’s one I’ve been sharing with my friends. We’ve been discussing it a bit: how can a person have such specific and seemingly impractical beliefs? How have they not been put in their place? Then again, folks support Trump.  

In reflecting, I am brought back to the idea that Black folks are not responsible for educating nonBlack folks about racism; womxn are not responsible for educating men about sexism. I don’t feel like the author is responsible for putting themselves through that sort of discrimination. But also, they chose that. I don’t know. Lots to think about.  

“He Insists He Doesn’t Want to Kill Me”: Assisted Suicide, Disability Rights, Peter Singer and Harriet McBryde Johnson

Clover2 Comments

Summary:

“Unspeakable Conversations”, the first chapter of Disability Visibility, concerns the correspondences of its author (and attorney) Harriet McBryde Johnson and Australian philosopher Peter Singer. Over the course of the chapter, the two professionally debate ethics in infanticide, how truly “bad off” (page 21) someone with a disability can really be, and whether that ultimately puts their right to live in the balance through assisted suicide programs. Their debate began in 2001 at Charleston during Singer’s lecture “Rethinking Life and Death” (page 25), where Harriet represented a disability rights organization called Not Dead Yet, and challenged his views. The unofficial debate continued over email until their next meeting at Princeton in 2002, where Singer presented his lecture once more, arguing for a ‘humane’ infanticide of those who would be deemed a burden on society to let live, claiming that such individuals are not actually ‘people’ at all. Johnson writes on page 21 that according to Singer, qualifying as a person requires “Awareness of your own existence in time. The capacity to harbor preferences as to the future, including the preference for continuing to live.” How are such preferences even measured; how is this awareness detected? Unknown so far to science. Not to mention that millions of sentient people (for example those in a coma, nonverbal autistic people, or those with locked-in syndrome), would lose their right to life. This would, at birth, include the author, who could not speak for herself if an institution deemed it just to put an end to what they might see as a societal liability, as if some abled version of herself could exist as a theoretical alternative. As if she is incapable of a happy life from birth. And how are those left to live disabled lives supposed to feel? That they should not exist, that their joy is a glitch in a life that otherwise is just “bad off”? No.

Quote Bank:

“In the lecture hall that afternoon, Singer lays it all out. The ‘illogic’ of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible.” – Page 27

“Yes, I am shaking, furious, enraged—but it’s for the big room, two hundred of my fellow Charlestonians who have listened with polite interest, when in decency they should have run him out of town on a rail.” – Page 28

“I’m engaged for a day of discussion, not a picket line. It is not in my power to marginalize Singer at Princeton; nothing would be accomplished by displays of personal disrespect.” – Page 31

Reflection:

I greatly enjoyed the way that Johnson brought bold professionalism to a tired debate, and recentered the marginalized voices that Singer’s rhetoric directly insults and harms. To the reader, please take my reading of this chapter with a grain of salt, because I admire Johnson’s cause, and stand by her efforts to disrupt dominant ableist rhetoric at the heart of where it lives (academic institutions being one of these spaces). 

What I dislike is Johnson’s seeming gratification in confronting Peter Singer. She appears somewhat pressed to “win”, and while I understand she is essentially arguing for her right to exist, I feel that her agenda in doing so precedes her thinking somewhat. Take for example this quote from page 36: “Singer joins the discussion until he elicits a comment from me that he can characterize as racist. He scores a point, but that’s all right. I’ve never claimed to be free of prejudice, just struggling with it.” I completely understand that erasing prejudice is a process, but the issue with making racially offensive comments is not that they ‘score points’ for the opposing side of a tangentially related argument. So, I think an additional sentence of reflection from the author is needed here, at least. Some instance of connection between Singer’s misunderstanding of disability and her alleged mischaracterization that could humanize the discussion a little. Obviously, if Singer doesn’t understand how a child with a mobility impairment might have fun at the beach, he needs some education! That said it all for me. And while yes, it’s a problem that he takes up media space with his rhetoric, maybe he shouldn’t be referred to as “the Evil One” (page 26) in public print; it just seems immature and delegitimizes professional discussion. I saw similar disregard in the following quote from page 40: “when a student asks me a question […] The words are all familiar, but they’re strung together in a way so meaningless that I can’t even retain them—it’s like a long sentence in Tagalog.” So, Tagalog is analogous to meaningless? I found this to be an extremely poor choice of language. I live with a Vietnamese speaker, and it’s not uncommon that my family members will mock his conversations with his mom as gibberish, so to me the Tagalog comment was honestly trashy.

One other example of this behavior that I find problematic and somewhat ironic is on page 27, as Johnson writes: “As an atheist, I object to [Singer] using religious terms (‘the doctrine of the sanctity of human life’) to characterize his critics”, already demonstrating an intolerance for religious beliefs on page 25 “In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you want to know”, but simultaneously bemoaning the fact that “they don’t want to know. They think they know everything there is to know, just by looking at me. That’s how stereotypes work. They don’t know that they’re confused[…]” later on that same page. I wish that Johnson would be as compassionate towards others’ ‘struggle’ against prejudice as she is to herself, because I found her absolute assertion that God is not real, next to a call for open-mindedness, to be hypocritical. And I’m an atheist, too. But I admire more than anything her bold stand for the recognition of damaging and dominant cultural rhetoric, and found the chapter to be well-paced and impactful.

On Living: Unspeakable Conversations

DellFrogLeave a comment

cw: infanticide, assisted suicide

“Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet McBryde Johnson

Johnson begins her essay talking about Peter Singer, the man who wants her, and disabled people like her, to die instead of being born. She briefly mentions that she accepted a conference where he invited her to speak at and how she is often the token disability advocate. She then addresses that there are several questions that people tend to ask her, which follows into the expanded answer of said questions. Johnson names her disability as muscle-wasting disease and talks about the way that she looks and the questions she gets on the street, to how she first meets Peter Singer as a member of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group actively fighting Singer’s ideas. Johnson attends his panel on infanticide and assisted suicide, refuting his points and finding him infuriating but loquacious. Their debate turns into letters, which eventually turns into an invitation to speak at Princeton. With hesitancy, Johnson accepts and sets the travel plans, which go awry when the airport breaks her wheelchair. With a fixed wheelchair and a short night of sleep, Johnson arrives at Princeton and begins her lecture to Singer’s students. After answering their questions, Singer asks for a walk where they discuss more of Johnson’s points of view. This leads to the evening faculty discussion where they discuss assisted suicide and Johnson does her best to offer commentary on philosophical ideas. Returned home, she has received a book from Singer and recounts the episode to friends and colleagues. While some are satisfied, others find fault that she would engage in civil conversation with him. She later questions her internal motives for conversing with him and the morality of his argument which concludes with her vision for the future.

Quotes:

“But that’s the way it always works, isn’t it? They’re always animals or vermin or chattel goods. Objects, not persons. He’s repackaging some old ideas. Making them acceptable” (24).

“But even if I’m a token, I won’t have to act like one… It’s an old trick, and I’ve laid myself wide open” (11).

“‘You kind of like the monster, don’t you?’…’Yeah, in a way. And he’s not exactly a monster” (24).

Analysis:

Right off the bat, Johnson leads in with some heavy hitting commentary on a very disturbing topic, one that is a high topic of debate today. I confess that I do have my own opinions on these arguments but they are still largely being shaped by alternative points of view. But to start, Johnson is arguing for her right to exist as a disabled person, more specifically, her right to exist at all or to be killed as a child. “‘You kind of like the monster, don’t you?’…’Yeah, in a way. And he’s not exactly a monster” (24). Breaking down the quotes from the text, it is clear that Johnson has come across what many people encounter during these divergent topics, a human. I do not mean that to be funny or clever, but specifically in the context of how her sister conflated Singer’s humanness to the Nazis. That is the issue in these debate spheres. It would be so much easier if the opposition was a monster, someone clearly (perhaps visibly) evil and deadly. But the reality is that so many of the people who propagate these downright deadly and repulsive ideals are the people you pass by on the street, your doctor, your cashier, your coworker. In any other situation, talking with them and engaging is fine, pleasant even, but then they drop the bomb that they believe every person with a severe mental disability should be killed out of mercy. So the answer is both yes and no. Singer is not a monster because he is capable of kind acts, thoughtful conversation and living in good relationship with others. But he is clearly a monster to all people with disabilities, or anyone involved in the eugenics act.

“But that’s the way it always works, isn’t it? They’re always animals or vermin or chattel goods. Objects, not persons. He’s repackaging some old ideas. Making them acceptable” (24). And his argument is one we know well: they (insert identity here) don’t have rational thought or are so dependent that they can’t find true joy in their life, are they even capable of making their own decisions? Or giving the whole power to a family member or a medical system who has no say in the individual’s life choices. It is even worse when you consider the pretty packaging that so many people offer the monstrous point of view. Using relatable, modern terms, catchy slogans and professional lingo, it all sounds very palatable. Of course parents would rather not go into medical debt for a child who is disabled, of course parents would like to raise a happy, healthy baby. And if you had the opportunity to genetically alter the baby so they would not be disabled? Why not? But the issue is that these eugenics principles are being packaged with new wrapping paper to suit their methods. No matter what, they want to take the rights away from people with disabilities, never giving them a chance to live and decide how to live their own lives. People with these polarizing arguments are quick to humanize themselves and dehumanize others.

“But even if I’m a token, I won’t have to act like one… It’s an old trick, and I’ve laid myself wide open” (11). And we all fall into a similar trap as Johnson did. If we don’t engage in discussion at all, how will our voices and views be heard? In matters such as this, it is vital that the life point of view be heard and seen, not brushed aside. However, in engaging at all, you are letting the opposition know that their argument has some sort of ground, ground enough that you think you have to refute it. So how do we combat this? I think the larger question is, how do we fix society so that these aren’t even debates anymore? There is a lot to be done to our medical and community support systems for even the current lives to be at peace, let alone any future lives brought into the world. So in the meantime, while it is difficult to give these ideas a platform, I think we have to debate. Because even if in a debate we change one person’s mind in a room of fifty, that person can go and change another person’s mind. It is a chain reaction of knowledge sharing and empathy, one that will take a while. But first, we have to actually see disability today, acknowledge the people who are living every day, full and complete lives, and do our best to offer support where we can.

Disability Visibility: Action of Humanness

unsureunderwaterobot2 Comments

“Contribution, innovation, relation, condition, completion, devotion, identification, regret, burden, belief, wrong, right, rebuild, beautiful, embodied”, all words used to describe Disability Visibility. Disability Visibility is a compilation of “first-person stories from the twenty-first century” written about disabled folks, by disabled folks. This mosaic of anecdotes was pieced together by Alice Wong. Each story differs greatly. Authors explain their individual experiences of being disabled in a world built without them in mind. Despite each story being personal to the author, the overarching theme of the book remains consistent. From narratives about navigating medication as a woman with bipolar disorder, to stories about the shame casted on a young, Black girl growing up in a religious household, Disability Visibility amplifies the voices of folks silenced in our world.  

Disability Visibility is written for a wide audience of folks both disabled and not. It acts as a learning outlet for nondisabled people to hear stories told by people living with disabilities first-hand. It gives disabled people an opportunity to tell their stories and exist in communion with one another. A concept explained in the story The Beauty of Spaces Created for and by Disabled People is crip space; “Crip space is 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 pg. 273). Disability Visibility is a crip space, of sorts. It is a space where disabled folks can express themselves without the ableist pressures of our society.  

Each story grapples with the idea of disability, for example, from Incontinence is a Public Health Issue—and we Need to Talk About It, “I didn’t feel disabled, as it were” (Ramsawakh pg. 175). Or from When You are Waiting to be Healed, “I was learning to navigate the world as a young Black woman, and I did not feel I had the right to claim a disability” (Eric-Udorie pg. 56). Both stories have unique plots, characters, settings, and emotions, but themes remain the same throughout. The entire book carries parallel agencies. The most prevalent is to share the non-fetishized, pity-free stories of disabled people.  

Alice Wong compiled these essays and short stories as individual accounts that created a sense of communion. Jamison Hill’s chapter, Love Means Never Having to Say… Anything, discusses their partnership with a woman named Shannon. Both Shannon and Jamison are disabled by the same illness (although it has manifested differently in their bodies). Jamison writes about how transcendent disabled love is and how having a disabled lover has been incredible. They write, “…but Shannon and I take care of each other in ways I never thought possible” (Hill pg. 265). This story portrays the larger concept of Disability Visibility. The disabled community can take care, despite the world not reciprocating. The story, and book as a whole shows the disabled community in action. The story avoids inspiration porn and pity; but rather, it resembles compassion, togetherness, and humanness.