More Ways To Understand Disability

Another way to understand the very different perspectives people have on disability is to think in terms of the three main academic divisions used by most colleges and universities:

Sciences

Social Sciences

Humanities

Just like in universities, these are three equally valid and important perspectives. Which one you choose depends partly on your personality ... what interests and excites you, and what doesn't.

Also, just as in universities, we really should all have a least a basic familiarity with with all three approaches.

How do disability issues fit with this model? Like this, I think:

Sciences:

Medical research

Treatment and prevention

Rehabilitation

Adaptive technology

Social Sciences:

Disability policy

Disability throughout history

Disability as culture and identity

Ableism … disability prejudice and discrimination

Humanities:

Art, music, and writing reflecting the disability experience

The language of disability used by the disability community and broader society

Philosophy, religion, ethics, and disability

How society sees disability … how disabled people define disability identity

Which of these poles of disability thought do you tend to gravitate towards?

Season 1, Episode 5 of “Red Band Society"

Heading into the World Series break, ‘Red Band Society’ is on a bit of a winning streak. This is the second excellent episode in a row. More specifically, this week’s episode finally filled in the last of the gaping character and story gaps that have weakened the show since its premiere.

(Click here to read more at “Gotta Watch It!”)

The Minimum Wage, Again

Welfare reform minister: some disabled people ‘not worth’ minimum wage

Nicholas Watt, The Guardian - October 15, 2014

So, the debate over paying some disabled workers less than Minimum Wage has come up in the UK. It’s interesting how the same arguments, pro and con, rise to the surface.

I think there’s one thought that’s missing from most of these stories and discussions. While I believe that far too many disabled workers are assumed to be sub-par in their work abilities, due to their disabilities, I also think it’s pretty obvious that there are some disabilities that really do prevent people from handling a “normal” job. That’s Lord Freud’s justification for paying less than Minimum Wage, and the reason most often given for continuing the practice here in the U.S.

All of which takes for granted the idea that the only factor in determining wages should be productivity.

Yet, some of those who defend these sub-minimum wage schemes most vigorously do so because they see certain disabled workers as, essentially, needy people who require special considerations and protections. If that’s so, then why not agree that for these folks in particular, we will all just agree to pay them at least Minimum Wage, whether or not they “earn it”, strictly speaking? Presumably, the taxpayers will spend to assist these people anyway. Why not do so through subsidizing Minimum Wage, or better yet, through minutely higher prices for the products and services of companies who pay those wages? Or maybe (shocker), some of these companies that love to show off how charitable they are to disabled workers could actually just pay them a bit more and take it out of their massive profits.

In fact, we already subsidize companies that pay less than minimum … through SSI and Developmental Disability services that make up for the wage gap. And in the UK, through whatever support systems they have.

One other thing. If you have a job, do you always, every day, every hour of every day, work at your full capacity? Do you always earn exactly what you are paid?

Is Looking Normal The Only Thing That Matters?

Paralyzed bride shocks guests

CNN / KETV - October 6, 2014

(Click the link to watch the video ...)

Oh, dear. I know this is supposed to be lovely, but I found it upsetting.

First of all, I find it sad that the bride is so fixated on “walking” down the aisle rather than wheeling. She is going to enormous effort and expense for one moment. There is no indication here that this is part of a more long-term, practical improvement in her mobility. It’s just for the wedding. It’s as if she thinks that walking is the only “right” way to do it, and so she’s determined.

On the other hand, brides and grooms often go a bit overboard and obsess about making a splash at their weddings. Maybe that’s all she’s doing here, though that is not how CNN seems to interpret the story.

So, why did this video actually make me angry?

For some reason, it tapped into a well of anxiety deep inside me, and this immediately produced a very vivid picture for me. I have somehow fixed one major aspect of my disabilities … my spine is now totally normal, no longer deeply curved. Everyone I know is more excited and overjoyed about this than they have ever been for any of my past accomplishments. It’s a bigger deal than graduating from high school or college. I get more congratulations than when I got my first job. I am more admired than I ever was after any of my countless surgeries that had less visible results. The message is clear. All of my past accomplishments pale in comparison to this one, because NOW I AM NORMAL.

This scenario could never happen. There is nothing that can be done at this point to straighten my spine … or make me taller or more muscular for that matter. It’s all in my imagination. But the reaction I imagined seemed very real and very plausible, and it felt horrible. Imagining fixing one of my disabilities felt horrible. And this wasn’t an idea I thought up intellectually after hours of deep thought. It’s an emotion that hit me without warning less than ten seconds after watching this video.

Let me be clear. I have very supportive friends and family who have given me the extremely valuable gift of self-confidence and acceptance. I am not suggesting that they would react this way. I am saying that they might. That’s probably why this vision was so chilling. Seeing this woman with so much going for her yet seeming to value a moment of normalcy above everything else, made me wonder, for a moment, if everything good I’ve done in my life is really just a consolation prize. Maybe the most meaningful “miracle” I could pull off would be to be normal. Maybe my disabilities are a permanent asterisk in other peoples’ eyes.

I think that's one reason why so many disabled people don’t embrace the goal of a cure, why we don’t necessarily always shed a tear when a paraplegic walks or a deaf kid hears for the first time. I have no problem with this woman deciding to go all out for an essentially cosmetic moment at her wedding. She can do what she likes, and more power to her. What bothers me is how CNN and others turn her into some kind of a hero. To me, it degrades all of the other things in her life she has to be proud of. A job in her chosen field? Yeah. Nice husband? That’s nice. BUT LOOK … SHE’S WALKING!

On the bright side, there’s a moment at the start of the video when her father says, in effect, that it doesn’t matter to him how his daughter gets down the aisle, on foot or in a wheelchair. He supports her wish to walk, but it seemed to me like he was trying to tell her something important, something she may not really believe yet … that disabled or not, he accepts his daughter and loves her as she is. That message got drowned out though by the rest of the clip, which made it even more upsetting.

Anyway, I feel better, now that I’ve got this out of my system.

Glee Re-Watch

I’m re-watching key episodes of Glee’s first season, in preparation for a Skype talk with Cheryl Green, for Friday’s Disability.TV Podcast. It wants so much to do good, but fails over and over again.

Quote:

“Handicapped ramps are expensive. But inspiration is free!” - Principal Figgins

Holy shit. That is both grossly offensive and inadvertently perceptive. We want full accessibility. What we get in abundance is inspirational videos on YouTube.

The Davis / Abbott Ad Kerfuffle

Wendy Davis TV Ad Touches On Greg Abbott’s Disability

Associated Press / CBS DFW - October 10, 2014

If Wendy Davis Thinks She Can Win an Election by Pointing Out Her Opponent's Disability, She's Wrong

Ben Dryfuss, Mother Jones - October 10, 2014

My reaction to this ad wasn’t, “Wow, that’s offensive!” It was, “Huh. That’s a bad idea."

The point of the ad isn’t that Greg Abbott is disabled, which would be no surprise to anyone in Texas anyway. The Davis campaign is saying that Abbott is a hypocrite who will deny rights and benefits to others that he has used himself.

The ad also makes a more subtle policy point that Abbott takes a very narrow approach to disability rights cases. The specific case cited in the ad is typical of how disability rights laws have been weakened over the last two decades … by gradually narrowing the definition of who is disabled. By ruling that an amputee wasn’t disabled, he denied her the right to even try her discrimination case. He shut the courtroom door on her. Abbott isn’t unique in this. It’s a pretty standard conservative approach to civil rights laws, and Greg Abbot is a conservative. It’s just a bit surprising that his own disability experience wouldn’t give him a slightly better understanding of how disability can take many forms, and that disability discrimination doesn't happen only to wheelchair users.

The problem is that this is a point better made by disability groups and people familiar with disability issues. It is a risky argument for a non-disabled politician to attempt. Plus, the Davis campaign could have made these points without using the wheelchair picture. That seems to be the sticking point. It makes the ad seem like an attempt to “use” Abbott’s disability without actually saying anything negative about it. The result is that they look like they're saying something nasty about his disability when really, they're not. That's not despicable; that's sloppy and stupid.

Disability images are powerful, and sometimes they “say” things to people that you can’t control. They should be used with great care. And liberal Democrats should never assume that their social progressivism on other matters means they understand disability issues, or that they are immune from criticism if they screw up with disability themes. Whether on not they are actually offended, Republicans will happily use the idea of offense against you. Being right and having a valid point isn’t enough.

Maybe it should be a rule of thumb for non-disabled politicians … don’t use disability imagery in political ads unless you really, really know what you are doing. And given how few people do know what they are doing, it may be best not to use disability imagery at all.

Weekly Wrap-Up

Disability Thinking, Weekly Wrap-Up. What this blog's about ...

Sunday, October 5, 2014

• Disabled TV Character Face-Off: First Round

Monday, October 6, 2014

• “Cliff Notes”
• Disabled Veterans Memorial

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

• AHS: Freak Show ... It Could Go Either Way
• Buy It: I, Claudius (the book)

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

• Problem Solving

Thursday, October 9, 2014

• Season 1, Episode 4 of “Red Band Society”

Friday, October 10, 2014

• Music For A Friday Afternoon

Saturday, October 11, 2014

• Disability.TV Podcast - Mini-Cast

Disability.TV Podcast - Mini-Cast

Just a few notes this week on two new disability-themed shows: Red Band Society and American Horror Story: Freak Show. Help support the Disability.TV Podcast by making a Paypal donation, or shopping at the Amazon Affiliate links on the Disability Thinking Blog. You can also leave comments there, or email them to: apulrang@icloud.com. Plus, take a moment to post an iTunes review or Tweet what you liked about the episode. Subscribe at iTunes or Stitcher.

Music For A Friday Afternoon

I’m working on this week’s podcast episode, so I don’t have anything disability-related to blog. Anyway, it’s been awhile since we had a musical interlude.

Season 1, Episode 4 of “Red Band Society”

Four episodes in, and this is the first time I have been completely absorbed in ‘Red Band Society,’ my mind and emotions fully engaged in something other than nit-picking. The show finally began to fulfill it’s promise when Leo got up to give that impromptu roast of Kara, at what was supposed to be a treacly tribute at her high school prom.

(Click here to read more at “Gotta Watch It!”)

Problem Solving

I keep posting these AmputeeOT videos because they are so well done, entertaining, and watching them really de-mystifies this particular type of disability.

Buy It: I, Claudius (the book)

From the Amazon.com listing:

"Considered an idiot because of his physical infirmities, Claudius survived the intrigues and poisonings of the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and the Mad Caligula to become emperor in 41 A.D. A masterpiece.”

This book and it’s sequel, Claudius The God: And His Wife Messalina and the BBC miniseries take ample artistic license, but Emperor Claudius really did have disabilities, most likely polio and epilepsy. Claudius is one of my historical heroes, and should be for everyone born with disabilities.

AHS: Freak Show ... It Could Go Either Way

I see that promotions for American Horror Story: Freak Show now include interviews with some of the actors who will portray the “freaks” … two of whom are actors who have the disabilities they portray. This is an interesting strategy. It suggests that at minimum, Ryan Murphy and company are aware that their subject is potentially offensive, and they want to reassure potential viewers that it won’t be, or that watching it won’t be morally questionable. If they care enough to address this, it might mean they care enough to at least try to be provocative without being offensive.

Hiring disabled actors does put AHS: Freak Show on the “right” side of a debate going on almost entirely within the disability community … how much it matters whether or not disabled characters are played by disabled actors. There are issues of representation of course, but even if you’re not tuned in to the philosophical questions, there’s the more concrete fact that there are thousands of disabled people trying to make it in the entertainment industry who not only face barriers playing “normal” parts, but they don’t even get cast for important disability roles. In this respect, AHS: Freak Show might be more progressive and admirable than, say, the short-lived Ironside remake, a much more obviously “respectable” show, which could have easily hired a disabled actor and didn’t.

On the other hand …

Actual Freak Shows of the late 19th and early 20th century advertised themselves as scientific and educational, and to a lesser extent as employment opportunities for physically disabled people who would otherwise be destitute. They pushed these arguments deliberately so that audiences could give themselves permission to enjoy essentially “low” entertainment (laughing or gasping at “freaks”), without guilt. Is that what the AHS: Freak Show producers are doing here? Are they telling us that it’s okay to watch whatever awfulness they are about to present, because hey, these actors are happy and employed?

The other potential problem I get from the interviews is a possible confusion over what freak shows were and what we today realize they could have been or maybe would be today. The actors talk about the freak show being a family, of giving them a sense of control and power with their bodies. While that may occasionally have been true in actual freak shows, I suspect it was very rare. Viewing freak shows of the past through today’s disability and diversity paradigms is interesting, but it may be very misleading. I’d hate to see some kind of freak show revival because people get the wrong idea about what they really were. Empowerment and exploitation can happen simultaneously, but the exploitation doesn’t go away just because you manage to perceive some empowerment there.

Just to be clear, for those who may be completely oblivious as to why this show might be disturbing. "Lookin' at freaks" is equivalent to staring at disabled people you encounter in real life. Even in the olden days, people knew there was something distasteful and ugly about gawping at disabled people as objects of morbid curiosity. It is not the same thing as healthy curiosity, or appreciation of difference, especially when it is in a TV show where "horror story" is in the title. Plus, even though the actor interviews are legitimately interesting, it doesn't mean everyone with a disability has a fascinating life story they're just dying to share with you while in line at Starbucks. That's what this controversy is about.

Of course, it’s all going to depend on the actual content, what the show itself says. Any subject can be done well and can express human decency. My concern is that American Horror Story’s brand is sensationalism, and only occasionally includes actual ideas. That’s worrisome. However, I will watch tomorrow night, and I will do my best to keep an open mind. It could be terrible. It could be wonderful.

I am also planning to watch Carnivale, a series from several years ago set within a traveling carnival, and including, I believe, at least a few disabled characters who are in that carnival’s freak show.