RAB

Rhetorical Annotated Bibliography entry reading responses.

“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.

Johnson, Harriet McBryde, “Unspeakable Conversations”

Tuesday1 Comment

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

Summary:

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

Quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection:

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

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

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.

The Debate of Humanity

turtle1 Comment

Unspeakable Conversations by Harriet McBryde Johnson

This personal essay is about an attorney, Harriet Johnson, and a professor, Peter Singer. Singer believes in the killing of children before they are born or at birth if they are determined to have a disability or medical issue that will lower their quality of life. He also believes in assisted suicide if a person becomes so cognitively impaired that they can’t be considered a person anymore. Harriet, as a member of the disabled community, actively works against this ideal. In this essay, Singer invites Harriet to speak at Princeton and she shares her experience as a disabled person traveling and debating publicly with Singer on whether or not his ideas are morally right or should be legalized.

Something I want to point out is this question that Harriet seems to get a lot, “If I had to live like you, I think I would kill myself” (7). I was astounded to read this, how do people think it is okay to say this to someone? At the same time, Harriet has lived this way all her life, she doesn’t know anything else. Just because a life is different than your own doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, and Harriet makes that clear. That these stereotypes are just ran with even if they aren’t true, no one cares to dismantle them.

Another quote that stuck with me was at the very end, “I am still seeking acceptance of my humanity.” (27). At first, I thought this was a very dramatic statement. When I consider it further, it really isn’t. Harriet had to argue her right to simply be alive and breathe the same air as everyone else. She had to attempt to convince an audience that she and others with similar conditions deserve to be alive, that they aren’t mistakes. No one should have to defend their humanity like that, it’s absolutely ridiculous. It just continues to horrify me every time I go back and read or think about this sentence.

RAB: Imposter Syndrome and Parenting with a Disability

Limbo71 Comments

Imposter Syndrome and Parenting with a Disability by Jessica Slice 

Summary: 

In this emotional and heartwarming short narrative, author Jessica Slice speaks on what it is like to go through motherhood so far while living with a disability. Slice was diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome which greatly complicates how she moves, what environments she can be in, and daily physical activities in general. Khalil, her son, was a foster child that Slice and her husband lovingly took in when he was a baby. Khalil’s infancy stage was her favorite because their physical needs/capabilities were compatible. She got to spend an ideal amount of time with him. They were able to have physical closeness that is important to a mother and child. As Khalil grew up and entered his rambunctious toddler stage, she was not able to continue that level of closeness. More and more Khalil was mainly out of the house. As most of us know but do not acknowledge, a lot of what being a mother can be is typically emphasized on physical capability. Slice’s illness brought on a feeling of imposter syndrome because she did not meet that image of “mom” we so often see. However, she reminds herself of two important things. One, Khalil will get older and become mentally/verbally mature. He will begin to understand his mother more and her needs, as she will with him. Their bond will only grow stronger. Two, she has almost mastered the emotional and mental aspects of parenting. That is, to support, listen, and care for your own child’s mental well-being.  

Quotes: 

“Fortunately, love isn’t a collection of capacities, of practical contributions. My love isn’t diminished by my inability to carry my son up the stairs, just as it isn’t diminished by the fact that I didn’t carry him in my uterus.” (Pg. 132) 

“He knew I was there for him, even if my body wasn’t.” (Pg. 133) 

“Years of restricted movement have trained me to attend, to slow down, to savor.” (Pg. 132) 

This one made me tear up in the best possible way. Not because I felt sad or inspired. I felt that for the first time, I was hearing a parent embrace the importance of emotional connection with their child. As mentioned previously, we tend to focus on the physical. Playing games with your child, taking them to fun places, and having nap time. It’s not that any of that is unimportant, rather there comes a point where that child grows up. Kids who do not feel emotionally safe and supported by their parents will not get on well later in life with processing difficult things. Another part of Slice’s piece I liked is how she defined what love is not. Love can never be restricted to the body when the mind within can do so much without needing every function of the body. You don’t physically see love, you feel it.  

Sexcapades of the Sinless and More: A Sins Invalid Review

LimboLeave a comment

Sins Invalid is a short film exploring a performance piece put on by disabled artists based in San Francisco. The performances vary in a range of unique expression but relate to the idea of sexual freedom, beauty in identity, and loving different bodyminds in different ways. Viewers get insight on the stage performance itself as well as behind the scenes. Co-Founder of Sins Invalid, Patricia Bearne, is shown speaking to her artists and reacting to their performances before they go on stage. This BTS footage is a clear showcase of how close the entire cast can be, and how special the art is to everyone involved. The addition of various types of art forms from each artist is something refreshing for the whole audience.  

A common important theme, and dare I say tone for this show, was that of an intimate one between artist and audience. While not every piece related to sexuality or sex itself, it dealt with the human body. A different bodymind than what is mostly represented in society. With that, expect to see nudity, stories of sexual encounters, and a brief tragic history lesson on euthanasia. While some might want to steer clear of that for personal reasons, I was able to admire the honesty. It did not just feel like being an audience member, it felt like performers truly got to be themselves possibly for the first time. That is not something I think many people in general get to experience nor are willing to for that matter. As s.e. Smith said, it felt as if “All the barriers between us have fallen away” (Pg. 271) once it began and all throughout.  

One performer by the name of Matt was on stage while audio of ableist and violent statements were thrown at him. He dodges, fights back, and bleeds on stage as if the voices were assailants attempting to kill him. This one in particular stands out the most to me. The point of his work may be obvious, but I feel it can go a step further if analyzed deeper. In that moment Matt was a victim of normalization as many people are. Normalization being a set standard of what bodies should be able to do and what they should like as well as expected behaviors associated with the bodymind. I think his performance showcased this well because of the different voices in different settings that were abusing him. Normalization is a disease. There will always be one group in power enforcing it, but that groups members can be switched out from time to time. You might be thinking why that is and author Tim Dean can explain. “Normalization does not exclusively bolster the interests of the so-called normal, since it also puts them at risk” (Pg. 144). Normalization may not switch continuously, but people do change. Even if you fit into “normal” you may not always.  

The first performer we see on stage is seen taking off her prosthetic legs and washing herself in bed. During this, she remembers a love-fling and goes into great detail about their sexcapades. This was yet another favorite of mine because it begins our show with the ultimate closeness and in my opinion, empowerment. You could tell from her movement and voice it was a happy memory for her. Two parts of this I found the most important. One, the fact that someone from the disabled community was able to display their sexuality free of judgement. And two, normalizing different types of relationships such as a casual sexual one where the woman was not degraded or shamed. I believe this opening felt powerful enough to be an example of someone from the disabled community “actively owning” a space as Smith writes (Pg. 272), and I could not be more encouraging of that energy.  

Overall, this show earns a 4/5 star rating from me. One main point of emphasis felt related to the idea of de-sexualization of those with a disability. Often people wrongly assume they are asexual or call them asexual which is not only the wrong terminology (asexual an identity a part of the LGBTQ+ community is not equivalent to de-sexualization) but a false, ignorant narrative. Many people may wonder how people with physical and mental disabilities have sex to begin with. If you are one of those people, I recommend reading some literature on relationships within the disability community. Additionally, there is such a thing as medically assisted sex. Vice recently put out a piece on this titled “Inside The World of Medically Assisted Sex.” The purpose is to encourage sexual freedom and desires of those who have been restricted from it physically and socially through payment of another person to service someone. Once you’ve done some light education, then I advise you to watch this beautiful art performance if you’re into some abstract thinking.   

If You Can’t Fast, Give – RAB style response

DjellibeybiLeave a comment

“If You Can’t Fast, Give”, Maysoon Zayid, from Disability Visability

This chapter is comparatively short when it comes to the chapters of Disability Visibility, but I have chosen it because it explores a people, culture and religion that I have very little knowledge about. The chapter titled, “If you can’t fast, give” follows the perspective of the author Maysoon Zayid, a female comedian and actor (I had to look the author up on the internet to determine that she was a woman because she doesn’t give many indicators of her gender in the text.). She describes her experience growing up in a Muslim household, observing the feasts and sacred rituals of Islam as a disabled woman with cerebral palsy. Even though she was exempt from performing the fasting ritual due to her health, she often performed the ritual as a child, during Ramadan – a time to fast and forsake earthly pleasures. As she grew older, it became difficult for Zayid to perform fasting due to her health, and so she began to give to those less fortunate as an alternative fasting. Zayid encourages all Muslim’s who desire to observe Ramadan, but can’t do to their health, to not be ashamed, but to “channel their devotion to charity.”.

Quotations:
“Regardless of the heat, it’s fun to fast for Ramadan when you are in a country where the majority of the folks around you are starving.” – (Pg. 37)

“The Qur’an states clearly in Surah 2, Ayat 185 that those who have medical conditions are pardoned, so I was treated like a champ for fasting. […] I knew that fasting against the odds I had been born with, I’d totally get into heaven and, more important, would get amazing gifts for Eid.” (Pg. 36-37)

“I miss fasting, but I’m happy to take on my newest mission of reminding those who can’t’ fast that there is no reason to put themselves at risk. Muslims fast so they can suffer a little. It is important not to die in the process.” (Pg. 38)

Takeaways:

It’s a wee bit too short. I would have like to have known a little more about the author and her experience, but what she does talk about is enlightening and engaging. When it come’s to the Abrahamic traditions, I’m most familiar with Christianity and Judaism, and know comparatively little about Islam. I knew Ramadan was an important time in the Muslim calendar, but very little else, so to have that explained was very nice. I love the part about “receiving gifts at Eid”, Eid being the celebration that follows Ramadan. It shows that she is like any child – she is not completely selfless or anything; she likes the attention and gifts that come from the act of fasting. She talks about the difficulty of observing her religious rituals in America, and how we often think of these acts as evil, (It’s interesting to contrast it to the other Abrahamic traditions when they observe their fasting traditions, or to compare it to secular fasts for health or mental reasons. You may have your problems with Islam, but fasting as a religious observance shouldn’t be one of them.) In the end, she had to stop fasting because it negatively affected her health, but she was able to still find other ways to follow the tenants of her religion (after all, fasting is one of the five pillars of Islam, (along with tithing, pilgrimage, prayer, and the declaration of faith.) It’s nice to read an essay on the positive aspects of Islam.

Falling/Burning

unsureunderwaterobotLeave a comment

Falling/Burning // Shoshana Kessock Summary:

The chapter I read was written by an author with bipolar disorder. They walk the reader through the complexities of the medical system as a creative with a mental disability. The chapter is an anecdotal narrative about their life, starting from a younger age, flying and falling and soaring and burning through the days. They share their experience with therapists, then psychiatrists, medication, then lack thereof. They sought out information about their disorder and were misinformed, under-informed, and poorly guided. The crux of the chapter is when the author explains their devastating ten year season from 2002-2012, which was ultimately “resolved” thanks to proper information and cautiously prescribed medicine.

A few quotes from the ten year period:

“Everything here is… hard, and bright, and violent. Everything I feel, everything I touch… this is hell. Just getting through the next moment, and the one after that”

“That was the illness talking”

Summary of Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents // Keith Grant-Davie:

Keith Grant-Davie outlines what makes up a rhetorical situation in their essay, Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents. They begins by elaborating on the wholeness of a rhetorical situation, then breaks down that wholeness into exigence, rhetor, audience, and constraints. Exigence, as defined is, “an imperfection marked by urgency. It is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be”. Exigence exists in a multiplicity. It begs to ask the questions: what is the discourse? Why does it exist? What should it accomplish? Rhetors are not as simple as one would think. Some may be unidentifiable and are complex and multifaceted by nature. Audience, similarly, to rhetors, could be anyone. Anyone that could potentially be the audience, is. The role of the audience is persuaded by the rhetor and discourse, but at the end of the day, it’s still a conversation and the audience is a prevalent part of the rhetorical situation. Constraints are, “persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence.” Constraints are preset circumstances/models that a rhetor and audience are held to.

“…where the aim is not victory over the opponent but a state of identification, where writer and reader are able to meet in the audience identity the writer has created within the discourse” 

In Reflection of both readings:

I found this chapter to be a accurate testimony to how mentally disabled folks navigate through life, in relation to creativity, medication, school, motivation, and frustration. It’s a tale so personal to this author, but true for many others. Through the scope of a “rhetorical situation”, the rhetors Shoshana Kessock, Alice Wong, and potentially others I am unaware of (are unspoken), are constrained by the length of a chapter, the english language, the obstacles of presenting a story as a disabled person, and the audience‘s knowledge regarding bipolar. I believe the audience extends much further than myself. The rhetorical choices made by the author lead me to believe that they hope struggling disabled authors to read their story. They persuade inspiration and hopefulness.

“Unbroken: Alice Sheppard’s Revelations in Dance”

Clover1 Comment

Title and Author: “So. Not. Broken” by Alice Sheppard, from Disability Visibility

Objective Summary: 

Alice Sheppard begins her short autobiographical piece “So. Not. Broken” from Disability Visibility by sharing a joke with her physical therapist as she arrives at an appointment. “I’m broken”, she says, but it has nothing to do with her disability (182). As a choreographer and dancer, Alice is used to living with a degree of physical brokenness, but not in the way her nondisabled audiences may immediately assume. “Many nondisabled people attribute a degree of brokenness to disability”, she writes, adding “it arises from the medicalization of our bodyminds” (182). For Alice, learning how to dance involved figuring out her body through the mechanics of her crutches, and her chair, as well as without them, leading her to new capabilities in performance. To Alice, the chair is a part of her body, because it becomes part of her embodied space, in dance and in daily life. She shares that her perspectives in dance were not just those of a disabled person; but also of a woman, and of a black woman; and she believes all of these intersections of identity impact embodied experiences in real ways. The “expressive capacity of bodies”, Alice writes, is surely enhanced by a variety of embodied forms, and she admits her new approach to the body as a whole gives her hope for a bright career future.

Quotations: 

  1. “My very first problem as a dancer was figuring out my chair. I had to learn how to move in it, of course, but I also had to understand what it meant as a black woman to use a chair onstage, in the studio, and in the world”. (page 183)
  1. “When I discovered the concept of embodiment—a word I use to describe the way in which my body takes shape and form—I made another breakthrough: My chair is my body.” (page 183)
  1. “My crutches and chair are not tools that compensate for my impairment. Nor are they simply devices that I use for traveling across the studio. I understand these starting points as embodiments, each of which has different movement possibilities.” (pages 183-184)

Takeaways and Reflection:

Clearly, Alice is speaking as someone with lived experience in multiple marginalized identities, and she centralizes the way those intersect in her life through her dance and stage performance career. The narrative does meander a little to fill in the details of her personal life, but one main claim she makes is that although brokenness and disability are affiliated through the medicalization of the American bodymind, this is both a harmful and inaccurate connotation which should be abandoned. It’s evident through Alice’s experience as a choreographer that mobility assistance devices are also a part of embodied selves, and can absolutely participate in the dance. In fact, she proposes that these devices can even expand the creative experience of dancers once integrated into routines. Alice’s narrative of her journey towards a greater self-understanding could be useful to many disabled and nondisabled in her audience, especially to those that might feel drawn towards athletic pursuits. At the end of the day, everyone must accept their body as it comes, because looking at the self as a lesser version of another person just seeds feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing.

A Supernova-Sized Burst of Accessibility: RAB Response

Turnip FriendLeave a comment
  1. “How a Blind Astronomer Found a Way to Hear the Stars” by Wanda Díaz-Merced from Disability Visibility

  2. Summary:

Wanda Díaz-Merced’s short personal narrative, “How a Blind Astronomer Found a Way to Hear the Stars” was originally performed as a TedTalk in February 2016. Beginning with a description of how supernovas work, Díaz-Merced explains how the star she was studying at the time she lost her sight, became a magnetar. Detected by their gamma-ray bursts, astronomers are able create pictures of the most energetic part of the supernova explosion. Something important to understand about them is that people are unable to see these events occur with the naked eye because we can only see a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Díaz-Merced emphasizes this because the only reason why astronomers create visual constructions of supernovas is because its a common and generally easy way to interpret them. That is, if you’re a sighted person.

When she lost her sight, Díaz-Merced thought that she might have to leave her field because of the lack of accessibility. Instead, she decided to make the work accessible herself, so she could continue to study the work she loves. Díaz-Merced. Because all light is a curve which can be turned into a table of numbers, those numbers can be translated into sound. Her and her collaborators worked really hard on this sonification project that had never been done before, and now “she is able to do physics at the level of the best astronomer,” (Díaz-Merced, 170). After telling her story of accessibility innovation, Díaz-Merced bought the TedTalk to a close with a last thought for the audience, which is that anyone can develop a disability in their lives, and most people eventually do. However, this doesn’t mean people should be excommunicated from their area of work. Scientific fields in particular have many systemic barriers in place that aren’t keeping up the outer world’s increasing focus on accessibility.

3. Quotations:

-“If people with disabilities are allowed into the scientific field, an explosion, a huge titanic burst of knowledge will take place, I am sure” (Díaz-Merced, 173).

-“I think science is for everyone. It belongs to the people, and it has to be available to everyone, because we are all natural explorers” (Díaz-Merced, 172).

-‘While other countries told me that the study of perception techniques in order to study astronomy data is not relevant to astronomy because there are no blind astronomers in the field, South Africa said, “We want people with disabilities to contribute to the field”‘ (Díaz-Merced, 172).

4. Reflection and Review:

I found the last quote I listed to be particularly interesting because when the various countries Díaz-Merced offered her new techniques to rejected them because there was no perceived need, its so clearly obvious that the reason there aren’t blind astronomers is because of the lack of accessibility which she was attempting to correct. It reminds me of a piece I read once about planes that have seen combat, where when the surviving plane came back from battle, engineers looked at where the damage on them was, and wanted to reinforce those areas. However, eventually someone pointed out that these were the surviving planes that they were looking at, and what they really need to do is to reinforce the areas of the planes where there was no damage, because those were in fact the places that if hit, would send the plane spiraling to the ground.

My big takeaway from this piece is that organizations can’t look at the people who maneuver easily through their field to decide how to accommodate people with disabilities, because nondisabled people are the ones the organization was built to cater to. They have to look to the people who are being left behind. They need to listen to them and their needs, and then work to create space for them, by either allowing disabled people to innovate the system themselves like Díaz-Merced, or working in groups that have direct contact with people with disabilities and prioritize their thoughts.

Here’s a link to the TedTalk:

Wanda Diaz Merced: How a blind astronomer found a way to hear the stars | TED Talk