I almost forgot to blog about this, but Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies got me thinking about what's "normal" in terms of bodies. The idea of a "normal" body has bothered me for ages, because everybody's more or less got something "wrong" with them, be it cerebral palsy or a latex allergy or even just asthma. I can't imagine there's anyone out there in the world with an absolutely "normal" body; that body seems to be created simply through defining other bodies as "wrong" or incomplete.
So why make this distinction in the first place? Of the four approaches to disability Eli Clare outlines in the essay, I think medical is probably the most difficult to negotiate. With charity, we can recognize the problematic pity and its negative effects; morality is obviously problematic but perhaps in general fairly recognizable/avoidable. But from a medical perspective, if a problem CAN be "fixed," then shouldn't we fix it?
And even if, in the case of diseases like CP, medication can potentially make someone's life better - improve their quality of life, lifespan, etc. - it is then increasingly difficult to make peace with one's own body, because taking medication in some respects does seem to be "admitting," in a way, that there is indeed something wrong with it. Diseases and disabilities that can be treated or medicated or simply regulated in general make it difficult for people to accept their bodies as "good" or positive; instead, it is the negative aspects, what people can't do, that are focused on.
I am not saying we shouldn't treat what we can or that disability is a positive thing. But saying there are ways to make a condition more manageable and saying that there is something wrong or bad about their bodies is, I think, a different thing. Clare accepts that his or her (I am unsure of the author's gender) body is "irrevocably different," and it is - most people don't have CP. And CP is a difficult thing to live with; it would be even if we were to only view it in terms of its tendency to separate those who have it from those who don't. But that a lover is able to say to Clare, "I love your CP" is a very powerful thing. It becomes, then, not a matter of simply living with it or coping with it. I don't know if it's a matter of acceptance, exactly, but I thought that bedroom scene was a very powerful moment within the essay. Thoughts, anyone?
I struggled to grapple with this text as well. Clare's ability to "adore" her "irrevocable difference" is certainly a powerful moment, as the characterization of disabled bodies as "bad" that all of the dominant models generate almost corners disabled folks into focusing an albeism as a coping mechanism. Though it is hard to envision the benefit of abandoning treatment, it seems that Clare's peace with her condition presents the possibility that simply living with illness, and, in doing so, not acknowledging (even passively) the assumed misfortune of one's body could be productive. I think that Halberstam's commentary on our societal investment in reproductive time, which leads us to "pathologize modes of living that show little or no concern for longevity" probably plays a role in why this productive possibility is so hard to think about.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKelsey,
ReplyDeleteYou raise some good points about whether the medical approach to disability is as inherently bad as Clare seems to suggest it is. Our view of medicine has almost become common sense in that we believe that anything hampering our ability to function as "normal" human beings is a problem that should be fixed. Normal here of course probably means the majority of humanity who have full service of their limbs. Perhaps Clare's belief in this approach as flawed has to do with his own cerebral palsy. Following the medical approach, this begs the question: If a problem in the body cannot be fixed and is indeed a condition like CP, can we view it as something other than a problem? From his opinions in "Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies" Clare doesn't seem to want his identity to be built around his disability. Instead, it seems as if he has made this "problem" into just another aspect of himself, a default rather than a hinderance, and perhaps this is the position he is ultimately arguing for us to take regarding our perceptions of disability.
Right, exactly. It just makes me wonder why we have a fictionalized "normal" setting for human beings. Medication to alter those outside the norm is inherently problematic if applied to everything, because people are always going to differ from one another.
ReplyDeleteI do think ableism is, in general, a little strong for what it is, in that (again) everyone's got something "wrong" with them, some aspect that makes it hard for them to function, even if it's only a minor one or one that applies only in certain situations. Then again, Clare's not attacking ableism so much as arguing that however everyone is, that's what is "natural" to them (rather than trying to force them to become "normal" and assuming that being normal is the natural setting for people).