Uncategorized

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

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

2. Summary:

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

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

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

3. Quotations:

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

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

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

4. Reflection:

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

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

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.

“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.

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.).

Kerry Richardson’s “The Children Will Be Fine” – Wesley Hager

Djellibeybi1 Comment

I must confess that I did not enjoy watching the film “The Children Are Alright”, and that this might color how this review is perceived. I will try to be as kindly as possible during this review, but I ask for your forgiveness if I give any harsh opinions. They are mine alone, and just because I didn’t enjoy it, does not mean that you shouldn’t.

Our story starts back in the early nineties, with the certain venerations of one Jerry Lewis amongst the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) for writing a piece describing the plight of people inflicted with muscular dystrophy as “a steel imprisonment”. Jerry Lewis was the host of the telethon hosted by the MDA, and he would often bring young children with muscular dystrophy (MD) to generate sympathy on the telethon. The telethon is designed to assist people with MD and to fund cures for MD. However, the former poster-children of the MDA and Jerry Lewis, had grown up to develop a disdain for the Telethon, the MDA, and Jerry Lewis – calling themselves “Jerry’s Orphans”. The film follows Mike Ervin, one of “Jerry’s Orphans” who was on Telethon’s during the 60’s, who grew to resent the MDA’s manipulation of people with MD and their loved ones.

The MDA would tell people that the telethon was a necessary element of getting funding, but Mike Ervin and “Jerry’s Orphans” state that the telethon contributes little of the MDA’s funding and that the majority of the funds raised from the telethon go to organizing events, rather than to helping others with MD.

An interesting point is made by Mike Ervin during the film: the money raised from the telethon are supposed to be used to fund a cure for MD. But many of “Jerry’s Orphans”, after having grown up, have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never find a cure to their condition, and that they probably wouldn’t want one even if they had. “Jerry’s Orphans” don’t want to be pandered to or become the objects of pity from self-righteous philanthropists. This is perhaps the primary message of the documentary, and while they have my sympathies, I found they’re methods and rhetoric betrayed a violent need for retributive justice which I found displeasing. But I also understand their criticisms of the MDA, and that much of their anger is justified – having been manipulated by a corrupt organization that lacks transparency. I honestly have mixed feelings about this film, and I don’t fault anyone who does not know who they should support in this argument.

Rating 3.5 stars

Not bad, but didn’t enjoy it very much.

“Reassigning Meaning”: Redefining the Disability Community

DellFrogLeave a comment

Linton, Simi. “Reassigning Meaning”. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. (New York: New York University Pressm 1998).

Summary

Linton begins by informing the reader of the disabled community’s efforts to reclaim what it means to be disabled and the terminology involved. She talks about the oppression of the disabled community, how the previous way of defining and identifying the community no longer serves purpose, accompanied by a brief discussion of how the medical definitions of disability form certain stigma in practice. Linton continues by looking at the term “disabled” as an identity marker and how the definition creates a separation between “disabled” and “non-disabled”, which should remain as a way to identify community but not to exclude others. She covers the concept of people without disabilities creating alternative language to boost the views of people with disabilities, including the term “special education” for children. Linton also discusses how “nasty words” have also been used for the disabled community and how the concept of overcoming denotes an inferiority compared to others without disabilities. In discussing the concept of “passing”, Linton covers how exhausting and minimizing that can be for someone with disabilities, and how the concept of normal vs. abnormal creates a dichotomy of self-worth and identity. She also talks about how people with disabilities are often seen as passive “victims” of their conditions, rather than in control of how they live their lives. Linton then discusses how some words have double meaning and can ascribe hurtful ideas to people with disabilities and how the connotations of the prefix “dis” come with the concept of “to be apart”. Linton concludes the writing by talking about the need to denote a socio-political axis category for which disability can be separated from its medical origins.

Direct Quotes:

The decision to assign medical meanings to disability has had many and varied consequences for disabled people (11).

Because it is physically impossible to overcome a disability, it seems that what is overcome is the social stigma of having a disability (17).

The message that I read in this action: You are like everyone else, but only as long as you hide or minimize your disability (21).

Reflection:

There is a certain desire for people to be able to put a name to something, whether to then identify with the name or to use it as a way to define and separate two entities. While this desire is natural, it certainly can create some problematic situations, as it has for the disabled community. As someone who understands science, I understand the need to create medical definitions of conditions that people have as a means to discover treatments or accommodations that can be created to give them greater access. However, I do understand that the point was lost along the way and it has instead devolved into a means of separating the abled from the disabled. I have never appreciated the exclusionary efforts of people to created spaces where people exist “within or without”, and efforts like this drive me up the wall. That people with disabilities are asked to “overcome” is a failure within itself. People with disabilities have been the other for so long that it is absolutely possible that the only time an abled child or teen has had interactions with someone who is disabled is through inspiration porn. All they know are the “overcoming” narratives instead of stories of the lives of people with disabilities or the stories they have to tell that are not specifically about their disability. And where is the humanity in that? Why do people with disabilities have to prove themselves “normal”? When growing up there is such an immense pressure to be “normal” or to “fit in” that parents have to tell a child, “It is okay to stand out!” Then when people do stand out, they are scrutinized until they feel the pressure to conform, or “pass”. As a society, we have created a mainstream understanding of how a person should look, act, think, and exist, and when someone doesn’t fit the mold, or God forbid they have a disability, they are “abnormal”. I appreciate the author’s emphasis on redefining these terms that have for so long been used as inherently ableist definitions for a faux state of being. Not only will this effort require a reshaping of the understanding of disabilities, but it will also require a redefinition of how we view normalcy. People deserve the choice to put a name to something they experience, but they also deserve the right to be seen as they are: whole.

**Note: I use the term “disabled community” because “community of people with disabilities feels disingenuous. However, I currently stand by using “people with disabilities” as opposed to “disabled people”.