If you want to read about whether on not my book blurb in ableiest, scroll down. If yr. looking for poems, scroll a little further. If you want read a great post by Paul Guest go here http://paulguest.blogspot.com/. If you are looking for yoga/disability stuff go here crippledyogi.blogspot.com. If you want to here more blabbiety-blab of my perception of disability, stay here.
1.
It may or may not be bodily impairments that created the idea of the shut-in. Whatever impairments one might have, as Sunny Taylor notes, it is arguable that the body is 'disabled' by a societal construction which includes 'abled' people not wanting to be in the presence of 'disabled' people. Hence, the 'abled' people have created (historically) an archetectural landscape that is geared toward those who 'walk' without assistance. This may be a chicken/egg thing. But, it is no accident. The so-called norm doesn't want to look at the so-called disabled, which are merely reminders of their own eroding bodies. so, except forced by law, they create an environment meant to exclude everyone who is not spry and sexy. This does not only apply to people with disabilities, but parents of small children, older people, and people who are more than average weight. In a certain sense, archetecture in America is a reflection of Elle magazine!
2.
But why would the so-called abled not want to be in the presence of the so-called disabled?
a. No one who makes it to an age much older than Janis, Jimmy, and Jim will be able to stop their own bodily eroding. At some point, they will loss sight, hearing, walking. No one is immune to some form of 'crippling.' People fear this like the plague and the so-called 'disabled' are their reminders. If 'they' can keep their illusion of 'us' and 'them' they can hold onto their illusion that they will look like Kate Moss or Ashton Kushner well into their 80's.
b.
The so-called abled have not knowledge of the 'disabled.' This, again, is partially because we are strongly segregated. We are discouraged from participating fully in society. Ironically, people, without knowing what I 'have' or even what cerebral palsy is, are perfectly comfortable in making a list of assumptions about me (all wrong) to my face.
c.
People insist that abled/disabled is a dicotomy and abled is 'always' better. Yes, many, many people who are disabled are suffering from impairments and do not want to be disabled and are in pain. Others are not. The entire Deaf community, for example, is based on an idea that does not privledge hearing. If you watch a film like 'Sound and Fury' you will see how/why many Deaf parents actively do not what their Deaf children to be 'cured.' I think many people with cerebral palsy have a likewise idea. I fear that without cerebral palsy, I would not be a 'whole' person. I might be an uninteresting airhead! Disability has added so much beauty and depth to my life.
d.
I AM NOT ASSUMING (just guessing) that there is a strong division between those who are born/those who become disabled. Those born might be inclined to think of their disabled bodies as whole. Those who become disabled are affected not only by a new body, also by an mourning process for what was. To me, to say, would you rather be 'abled' is like saying would I rather be Jewish or gay or a man. How the fuck would I know?
That's all for now.
Showing posts with label paul guest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paul guest. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Paul Guest/ John Ashbery
Paul Guest has responded to my questioning of him letting Ashbery call him an invalid on his book jacket, and hence being mistaken for buying into the mainstream notion of what it means to be disabled. Guest doesn't confront the question, exactly. He does through out a number of insults throw, which is fine.
As I have said before, my bone isn't to pick with Guest. My problem is that there are very few people with disabilities in the mainstream, virtually none. So, it is alarming that when someone with a disability perpetuates the stereotype by allowing people to refer to them as invalids, which implies that we are unhealthy or to be pitied etc.. Guest states that he 'doesn't understand' this comment. Perhaps I think he doesn't. I am not sure if he's involved in any disability rights or has read any thinkers with disabilities. He still hasn't answered this question. To read people like Michael Davidson, Harriet McBrdye, and Simi Linton and disagree with them would be fine. Guest is part of a minority. If he doesn't want to represent the major ideas of that minority (that disability is largely a social construct and there is a difference between disability (society) and impairment (bodily)) that is fine, but why doesn't he want to at least acknowledge that there are other people with disabilities who have a different view? Why would he not what to hear these voices? This very attitude, that we are 'invalids' is what keeps society from treating us equal and what makes society able to resist the very same things that Guest complains about (non-accessible cabs). If we are able to convince the world that disabled people deserve civil rights, that it is more than just the personal problem, then cabs would be accessible. Note: Wheelchair users chained themselves to the street and went to jail to get the MTA to have assessible buses.
Guest notes, "That I'm not really cognizant of a word's weight or that I am aware in the most calculating, self-hating ways." But, he still hasn't addressed what the word means to him or why he thinks it's relevant when applied to him or the fact that (historically) people with disabilities are trying to dispel this myth. He hasn't explained, in short "Why?" Does he not see negetive value in the word? Would a woman be called 'bitch' on her book and not explain why it's appropriate?
The way Guest is shown in media seems to imply that he thinks his disability is the greatest tragdy of his life and he would give anything to be able-bodied. While I am not sure this is his perspective, he has done little to confront people like Mary Karr or Ashbery who imply this. And his publisher has made the perceived horror of disability into it's primary marketing point - which is unfair to Guest and other people with disabilities.
Many, many, many other people with disabilities do not want to be pitied or cured. We are happy/comfortable with our bodies. We don't want to be regarded as invalids.
NB
Dear Curtis, RE Eigner, ok. You win.
As I have said before, my bone isn't to pick with Guest. My problem is that there are very few people with disabilities in the mainstream, virtually none. So, it is alarming that when someone with a disability perpetuates the stereotype by allowing people to refer to them as invalids, which implies that we are unhealthy or to be pitied etc.. Guest states that he 'doesn't understand' this comment. Perhaps I think he doesn't. I am not sure if he's involved in any disability rights or has read any thinkers with disabilities. He still hasn't answered this question. To read people like Michael Davidson, Harriet McBrdye, and Simi Linton and disagree with them would be fine. Guest is part of a minority. If he doesn't want to represent the major ideas of that minority (that disability is largely a social construct and there is a difference between disability (society) and impairment (bodily)) that is fine, but why doesn't he want to at least acknowledge that there are other people with disabilities who have a different view? Why would he not what to hear these voices? This very attitude, that we are 'invalids' is what keeps society from treating us equal and what makes society able to resist the very same things that Guest complains about (non-accessible cabs). If we are able to convince the world that disabled people deserve civil rights, that it is more than just the personal problem, then cabs would be accessible. Note: Wheelchair users chained themselves to the street and went to jail to get the MTA to have assessible buses.
Guest notes, "That I'm not really cognizant of a word's weight or that I am aware in the most calculating, self-hating ways." But, he still hasn't addressed what the word means to him or why he thinks it's relevant when applied to him or the fact that (historically) people with disabilities are trying to dispel this myth. He hasn't explained, in short "Why?" Does he not see negetive value in the word? Would a woman be called 'bitch' on her book and not explain why it's appropriate?
The way Guest is shown in media seems to imply that he thinks his disability is the greatest tragdy of his life and he would give anything to be able-bodied. While I am not sure this is his perspective, he has done little to confront people like Mary Karr or Ashbery who imply this. And his publisher has made the perceived horror of disability into it's primary marketing point - which is unfair to Guest and other people with disabilities.
Many, many, many other people with disabilities do not want to be pitied or cured. We are happy/comfortable with our bodies. We don't want to be regarded as invalids.
NB
Dear Curtis, RE Eigner, ok. You win.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Paul Guest/ John Ashbery
In a blurb for Paul Guest's new book, Ashbery calls the book 'invalid's rage.' My question, why would Ashbery say such a thing and why would Guest let him? Invalid (or in valid) in my book is one of the most offensive terms (short of retard) that a people with a physical disability can be called. It would be likened to putting a blurb on Ashbery's book calling him a crotchety old fag. And it is untrue. While I am conflicted about Guest's work, I hold him in the highest esteem as a person. Not only is he attractive, friendly, smart, and warm but he has also gone far, far beyond where most able-bodied ports will: books with Ecco, a good professor job, and so on. Guest is in no terms an invalid, So, I wonder what's going on. For starters, I think the politically correct police need to give ole John a good kick in the head. He's a poet, after all, doesn't he know the power of words? Perhaps I am stupid. Perhaps it is mean ironically. If so, will other get the joke?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)