Whenever she talks to her patients she is very straight-forward. She points out that she is interested “in facts not opinions.” They choose to exploit her love of rules by having her patient be a Navaho who is very spiritual. He believes that the heart he was given in his transplant has caused the ghost of the person who gave the heart to haunt him. He wants the heart, after the surgery, to perform a Navaho ritual that will get rid of the ghost. This sets Dixon off, because it is against the rules. “Rules are rules and laws are laws!” While the other doctors recognize that it is “common courtesy” and just an understanding at the hospital, Dixon is only interested in laws.

Bailey asks the chief of the hospital to make it a rule that they obey a patient’s cultural beliefs (rather than it only being common courtesy) so that she can tell Dixon it is a rule. “Dr. Dixon does not do common courtesy, she understands rules.” While Dixon goes along with providing the patient with the heart for his ritual “because the chief said it was a rule,” she confronts Bailey. She asks her, “Are you familiar with Asperger’s?” Bailey finally realizes why “she is a little off” when she states, “Of course, significant impairment in social situations.” Dixon, aware that Seatle Grace would like her to join their staff, informs Bailey:

 
I’m not good at cues like sarcasm or condescention, but I do know when I’m being made fun of. I don’t think I like this hospital ver much. I don’t think I like this hospital at all.”

They wait until the end of the episode to have Dixon “out” herself. We, the audience, are supposed to then understand that this is how someone with Asperger’s functions. We pair what we have seen of Dixon’s mannerisms throughout the episode with what she gives us in the explanation above. By pairing Dixon with a very spiritual patient, the writers set-up a binary of beliefs vs. science and facts. Dixon appears in two episodes after this one, and the writers continue to put this character in situations where she is straight-forward about the facts. They purposefully write this character into situations where she chooses science over empathy.

At one point, in the second episode in which she appears, a sixteen-year-old girl becomes “brain dead” after a car accident. During the surgery the doctors come to this realization and Dixon states, “She’s only sixteen.” Everyone in the O.R. looks down as if Dixon is pointing out how sad this situation is; however, just when it gets really quiet, Dixon begins speaking again. She continues with, “That’s good news. She’ll be an excellent candidate…excellent organs…young.” Again we are given an instance in which Dr. Dixon is very factual with the family of the girl as she tries to get them to donate her organs. We know from the previous episode that she has “significant impairment in social situations” and so we are not surprised when she adds the fact that the girls age is a good thing. In fact, if anything, everyone in the O.R. seemed surprised that Dixon was showing empathy, and then the writers use her continuation as a comedic opportunity.

John Elder Robison explains the “robotic” mannerisms and characteristics that go with having Asperger’s in his memoir Look Me in the Eye. In this way we could almost apply this “disability” not only under the wondrous that we often see with aspects of the “super crip” but we could also look at Harroway’s discussion of the cyborg. Are we not being presented with a character that has super intellegence similar what we see with robots in science fiction. How can we put this “disability” into the future the future bodies discussion?

We live in a society in which we always want things to be better, smarter, stronger, and faster. Not only is McDonnell’s character highly intellegent with an amazing memory for detail, but they have the character perform an aspect of the surgery that a resident remarks is done the fastest he has ever seen. Would we not want this in a doctor? How important are social skills in a doctor? This is what Grey’s seems to deal with each time they bring in this character. They try to set up Dixon’s ability as a binary to her disability. They show her get very flustered when the unthinkable occurs or when a patient refuses to have a surgery unless it is done on their terms.

Technology is a force that renders all humans as impaired by being only human. While this impairment is in no way equal, it adds a layer to the already problematic idea that “everyone is disabled.” This can be seen from things as disparate as the bare foot vs. Converse vs. the Air Jordan and/or the hearing aid vs. normate vs. the Stealth Secret Sound Amplifier.

This still creates a hierarchy which is problematic, but it indicates the ways in which BioPower has always been suplemented with technology. The ever receeding horizon of a technological utopia places our contemporary conception of normate and impaired as so close together as to be impossible to differentiate between. In looking at these lists we see minor examples of what Haraway speaks of concerning the cyborg.

“The cyborg, a half-human, half-machine creation that embodies and materializes the breaking of traditional patriarchal distinctions between human and machine, physical and non-physical. The cyborg is simultaneously a living being and a narrative construction. As both a technological object and a discursive formation, it embodies the power of the imagination as well as the materiality of technology.” (Corker and Shakespeare 12)

We can see a technological evolution from the self-propelled wheelchair to the electric wheelchair, but there is still a lack of ramps and curb cuts. And how much work is being done to make power wheelchairs’ battery life last longer? How much effort is being put into making them into all-terrain vehicles? Self-propelled wheelchairs may invoke a greater sense of able-bodiedness than do electric wheelchairs, but only because the elusive normate is still the standard of comparison. The more technology there is, the greater the allowance for impairment, and the more we move toward the cyborg ideal.

However,Technology has moved the normate beyond reachable goals with mere human capabilities. For example, in flight, in nano-surgery, in the da Vinci Surgical System, and in infared vision (in fact, the military is one of the prime places to see movement in technology).

We have the technology to meet the needs of our society, and yet we don’t utilize it because of our illusory normate ideals which hinder our application of technology to respond adequately to the needs of the disability community. For example, progress is being made toward designing soft cities and soft cars, since there is no reason to build cars to go as fast as they do while being as hard as they are. There are ways to create cars that are mostly foam and plastic, but our auto designs continue to represent the idealized normate within our capitalist consumer culture.  Mitchell Joachim is working to create this foam and plastic architecture as well as drastically altering the way we view city scapes.

South African Runner Oscar Pistorius aka “Blade Runner” raises the question, as we move from “human” to “cyborg,” do we in some way move outside of humanity? Are we forced to reconceptualize humanity, and at what point do we have to ask ourselves, “do androids dream of electric sheep?” It’s possible that the ways in which me might reconceptualize “human” would be more inclusive.

One of the problematics with cybernetics is its emphasis on a normate mind, and those with cognitive disabilities and cognitive impairments have been largely underrepresented in our class so far.

We are looking forward to expanding this idea in the “future bodies” section in our next post!

Love,

Colson 300

Also, in dealing with class, Mitchell and Snyder address the separation of those living in the country and how they are often characterized as “feeble-minded.” This is still prevalent today as well. Ken and Melanie Light put out a book in 2006 entitled Coal Hollow: Photographs and Oral Histories. Many of the tropes we often head about West Virginia are represented in this book. The not only play up the visible aspects of the lower class (houses as well as physical appearances, sometimes disabled) in the book, but have stories from a couple of the people figured in the book as well. I can bring the book to class tomorrow, but you can also visit the website:

http://coalhollow.org/

It contains the images as well as some of the test featured in the book.

Tropes about people that live in the country, especially Appalachia, are still used a great deal today (we even discussed the Appalachian Emergency Room SNL skit playing up many of them). These center not only on poverty and class, but majority of the time the characters will display aspects of feeble-mindedness. The Redneck Comedy people often play-up this in their jokes (especially using Larry the Cable Guy to enact this).

What is interesting is the target audience for these and the way that they play with the tropes in their acts. It begins to get back into the discussion we often have about portrayals of disability in TV and film. It is a blurred line between parody and accurate representation with this type of stand-up. The character of Larry the Cable Guy is often the butt of jokes for his “feeble-mindedness” and often plays it up himself in his own performances. So given what we have read, especially in the Mitchell and Snyder, what are we to make of performances like this?

Also, to go back to American Eugenics and Somerville, when bringing these two aspects of Eugenics together I keep thinking of the way people say that gay parents will only create more gay children. In ways you can see the laws and barriers that are put in place to keep gays from adopting as an example of Eugenics. While they are not the ones reproducing (if we are strictly speaking about adoption) people still have this fear that they will cause the children to be gay. This is yet another way of still trying to maintain that preferred “perfect” race as evidenced by the following video:

Robison addresses the expectations of the wondrous in his book, pointing out the positive side of Asperger’s:

Asperger’s syndrome isn’t all that bad. It can bestow rare gifts. Some Aspergians have truly extraordinary natural insight into complex problems. An Aspergian child may grow up to be a brilliant engineer or scientist. Some have perfect pitch and otherworldly musical abilities. Many have such exceptional verbal skills that some people refer to the condition as Little Professor Syndrome. But don’t be misled – most Aspergian kids do not grow up to be college professors. Growing up can be rough. (4)

This aspect of expecting the wondrous with some cases of mental disabilities will be something I will focus on in my paper. There seems to be this impulse to think that because something is “wrong” with a person that they must have this extraordinary ability to compensate for their social deficiency. I am also intrigued, as mentioned above, by the decision of where we place value in today’s society. Even if a person with autism or Asperger’s is really smart, society labels them as disabled due to their social skills. Yet, who are we to say where value belongs? Robison discusses a few situations in which he was often labeled a sociopath due to his social skills and reactions to things. He discusses an instance in which he was told that a kid he didn’t know had been run over a train. When he smiles after hearing this woman telling the story confronts him and asks his mother, “What’s wrong with that boy?” He discusses learning how his reaction was “wrong” later in life, but first he explains his thought process that caused him to smile:

Someone got killed.
Wow! I’m glad I didn’t get killed.
I’m glad Varmint (his nickname for his little brother) or my parents didn’t get killed.
I’m glad all my friends are okay.
He must have been a pretty dumb kid, playing on the train tracks.
I would never get run over by a train like that.
I’m glad I’m okay. (30)

Given his explanation, we now understand why he would smile. These are the instances I am interested in with Robison’s narrative. He provides a great deal of examples he encountered throughout his life, and how he dealt with them. He also gives excellent detail in how he taught himself the thought process he saw occurring with others, and how he was able to then duplicate that for himself so people would not think something was wrong with him.

You can also see a video clip from amazon.com of Augusten Burroughs discussing Look Me in the Eye with his brother.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m1CFZ2EIEBDLVT

One thing I was not familiar with was the “504 sit-ins” that were discussed Thursday night. For those of you who also would like more information on these, NPR has a lot of great information:

http://www.npr.org/programs/wesun/features/2002/504/

One thing that was brought up that night that I found particularly interesting was the discussion of Iraq war vets, and the issues of visible physical injuries and the invisible mental injuries –only one of which gets you the Purple Heart. There have been plenty of TV series and films that have tried to deal with both of these types of injuries (i.e. Home of the Brave and Grey’s Anatomy –current season).

Questioning Laughter

A great deal of the second session Friday dealt with the issues surrounding laughter that we have talked about a good bit in class. There is always the acknowledgement of good and bad laughter and how we as scholars navigate our own, etc. And one phrase that I found helpful about this discussion was that we must all recognize our own “points of entry” into the various texts. For instance, many people who were not familiar with Miracle Worker or the Jerry Lewis Telethons had a very different experience with the Mickee Faust clips that those of us who had seen the originals. I can see how it would be hard to understand a parody if you do not have the original. How are you to know what is being satirized and what is (perhaps in your mind) overstepping boundaries? As someone who uses a great deal of pop culture to teach I found this POV really helpful.

Another aspect of laughter was the way people try to get cues from those with the agency to “OK” your laughter at a given text. For example, if someone is telling a really racist joke, and they are in the room with a token minority, they will look to that person to laugh at the joke before they themselves laugh. They are seeking reassurance for themselves that if they laugh they are not themselves being racist by finding humor in said joke or statement. Yet there was the question again of why perhaps the person with said agency was laughing and why the person looking for the cue was laughing. There was also the issue of agency in the person telling the joke. For instance, in the following clip I am sure that there would be various types of laughs going on during this stand-up. Yet, because it is a lesbian doing the stand-up comedy, everyone can laugh and “feel comfortable” about it. She uses tropes for her humor; however, some people are laughing because they have had these experiences, and some may be laughing at the stereotypes without having any investment in the “gay community” at all.

I also enjoyed the discussion about what “queer theorist” Madonna said about confusion and how we can use the discussions in our classrooms. Someone asked, “Why are we so concerned with making students feel comfortable?” And there was the discussion of our attempts as teachers to have them recognize through these conversations that they have been taught/conditioned to feel they way they feel and think the way they think.  I wonder how this works in classes like English 101. There was the acknowledgement that younger students are not yet ready to laugh at themselves for thinking the way they thought in the past. So while in higher level classes, it may be more productive to have these conversations, does that mean that we should not attempt them in our own 101 classes? One must also keep in mind that the teacher conducting this discussion would have to be prepared for as many outcomes as possible.

Access to Power

I liked the clip and discussion that occurred in the first session today (Saturday). One of the things that most interested me was the discussions of access and various ways in which we discussed it. It was pointed out that Gould was able to put his article in Cosmo not because he is a doctor, but because of whom he knows by being himself a white, wealthy man from Manhattan. There were also discussions of access in areas of medical insurance. This led me to think about issues of productivity and how it relates to the issues with medical insurance. For example, a friend of mine is diabetic and has recently found out that she is no longer covered to get her meds. When she called to ask about this, they told her that she would only be covered if her diabetes led her to be no longer able to work. She tried explaining them that she can only work because she has the meds. There was then merely a vicious circle of this same discussion. Along these same lines was how HIV is not seen as a disability but that it can lead to disability. Now I do not believe that my friend views herself as disabled, nor apparently were the insurance people, but without her meds, this could lead to disability.

In the Wendell, the question of defining disability arises. This could lead to various types of things being in limbo of not a disability- but could eventually be a disability. I was wondering where we place these instances. Do they only belong in the category of disability once they have gone far enough? Are they put together with “temporary disability” in certain cases?

There are two ways to view the environment in this third (“disabled”) building:

It tends to have the setting of organized chaos. On more than one occasion I have been sitting with my grandma and people will wander into her room and just sit starring at me. Some may even wander around looking lost throughout the building. People scream that they need help, or merely random cuss words before making incoherent sounds. People will stare at you as you walk down the hall and scream out to you for help, or even beg you to stay and visit with them. Some will even yell about the family members that put them there if they remember you and that you know said family members.

This would be reminiscent of the glance that we discussed previously. On the other hand, with a closer look and perhaps more visits, you may have a different understanding of the goings on in this building. Many of the people that speak louder merely do so because they are losing their hearing, they are not trying to scare you in any way, but rather trying to communicate to the best of their abilities. If you listen to what they say (rather than hear it only as noise) you can understand better. While people do wander around a good bit, what are we to expect? That they be forced to remain in their rooms all day and night? This for all intents and purposes this place is now their home, and should they not be free to visit if they are not being required to do anything else at the moment? Many of the people there have no each other for years because I am from a small town and most of them have lived in that town their whole lives. This indicates that there will be a great deal of visiting. As for the bitterness, how would you feel? They have been taken from their homes (a place full of memories and comfort) and placed in a world that they may be seeing as the glace mentioned above. Are they then doing the “that’s not me” disidentification that Wendell discusses?

We seem to be aware that we are a society constantly aging, but I believe that due to the increases in technology (and the constant desire to be the “young and healthy” Wendell addresses as being a problematic view) that people forget that “aging is disabling” and they are only concerned with the number and not the effects that may be accompanying it.

Wendell also addresses aspects of environment, and the definitions that can be found concerning disability based on varying environments. While she discusses third world countries in relation to poverty and issues of who is having their basic needs met, I was thinking of the value of the elderly for differing environments. Concerning value, I am also thinking of the decline in respecting elders and viewing them as wise. Many people could go to a nursing home and probably get tons of great stories; however, we tend to talk to old people ways that infantilize them (just as we discussed can happen with many disabled people). Audre Lorde mentions the generation gap, and how it leads to not only lack of recognition, but the value of our elders. While some nursing homes are excellent care facilities, I am sure that this is not true of all places. We have seen in various films the horrible situations that may arise between caretaker and “patient.”

These two clips also acknowledge who has power, and how they define disability to get use. Is Ben Still’s character recognizing the “usefullness” of the “able-bodies” that surround him, and thereby using his power to define value based on this usefullness of what her perceives to be an abled body?

Which also reminded me of the scene from Kill Bill which is a far more disturbing aspect of abuse of power. (Buck does not enter for about two minutes if you want to skip ahead.):

The following is a clip that Teresa found last semester and its relation to reproductive futurism. I also can see aspects of McRuer’s discussion of reclaiming heterosexuality as it defines marriage.

This idea of claiming leads into the Freak Shows that Clare also discusses which reminded me of the villains we often see in Disney movies (also discussed in class). Often in these movies the villain will have a change of heart, which got me thinking about the Grinch.  The Grinch is different because while he is obviously visibly different, he is in no way “DISabled” In fact, if anything, he is VERY “able-bodied” showing crazy feats of strength on numerous occasions (one of which is of course to save little Cindy Lou). The Grinch relates more to the freak show aspect with Clare, as well as what Mitchell and Snyder address:

From the outside, the meager nature of the lives of disabled characters was depicted as inevitably leading toward bitterness and anger that made them objects of suspicion. In fact, Kriegal and Longmore argued in tandem that disability portrayals could be understood best as a form of cathartic revenge in which the stigmatizers punish the stigmatized to alleviate their own worries and fears about bodily vulnerability and inhume social conditions. (Mitchell and Snyder)

This leads to the construction of the Grinch by what will eventually be the Mayor who outlaws even saying “Grinch” because he hates Christmas. This of course overlooks his involvement in the reasons behind the Grinch hating Christmas. While we know that the Grinch “learns to love” the original cartoon ignores the fact that society created the monster that was the Grinch. It is not until the Ron Howard version that we even see this history and acknowledgement. In a way, the Grinch functions as a “supercrip” with his strength, yet also as one of Quayson’s discussions of Hays’ limping heroes (emotionally sterile) until Cindy Lou teaches him the true meaning of Christmas.

The ideas of isolation, also addressed by Linton in “Enter Disability Studies” can be seen in the 80’s film Big Man on Campus, which is constructed as a type of modern day version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The film shows many medical studies of Bob and society’s attempt to incorporate him into life on the campus. His disabilities are used as points of humor as well as pity. For instance when a speech specialist is teaching him vocabulary, and when she tells him that a dog says “woof” he tells her she is wrong. He then proceeds to show her what a dog really sounds and acts like, and while this is far more correct (literally) his process is seen as incorrect. We see not only his physical “disability” with his appearance, but cognitive and social ramifications of his isolation due to this appearance. He tells a psychologist that he doesn’t remember his parents, but does recall people saying “yuck” when they would see him.

Some other applications could be found in seeing the failure of No Child Left Behind in Linton’s discussion of “separate (special education) versus integrated.” Or how “the background screams to be looked at” in the reversal of the gaze (Linton). For the freak shows that Clare discusses the glance or gaze becomes the gawk; however, when we are reading the analysis the viewers are what we analyze. They could be seen as the background at a glance, but even in movies like Big Man on Campus it is the people around Bob that are changing. When Cathy falls for Bob the audience is expected to praise Cathy for overcoming her bias and looking past the initial glance that she perceived of Bob. While this end result can be seen as an excellent message, it is also problematic because of the journey she relationship takes to get to this end, and the idea that Cathy would have to overcome anything to love Bob. Because we have her initial reactions to Bob, how are we to interpret her change?

We almost have an expectation that Bob will assimilate to the best of his abilities (as per conventions require in such films- the negative symbolism Mitchell and Snyder mention?) but what do we expect of those around him? Unrelenting acceptance? Is this an aspect desensitization that Mitchell and Snyder reference with these characters? Also what is problematic with this, is some may view their “acceptance” as heroic, when really they are merely being condescending and not actually enacting acceptance (very problematic).

Linton discusses the narrative of personal triumph over adversity, which is rather evident in two stars on the abc show Dancing with the Stars: Maree Matlin and Heather Mills. Again, however, is the question of individual vs. audience. While I am sure that Heath Mills and Marlee Matlin really did want to prove something, I tend to view the creators or producers looking at this from a manager view from those is Clare’s article. This “spectatcle” would greatly increase ratings merely based on curiosity. Kathy Griffin even exploits the morbid curiosity that many viewers had ,when they were being more of the gawkers mentioned above, in her stand up. She discusses DWTS and says, “You know we were all just waiting for the leg to come off!” This, sadly, is probably true of so many viewers. While they may have been all for triumph, there was still not only morbid curiosity, but a curiosity if the worst that could happen, would. Also, there is always the questions of the judging in the competition, and if these dancers would be treated differently. (as discussed in the following clip)