I found myself extremely confused by the authorial intent behind Dickon Sowerby while reading the Secret Garden. I couldn’t help but contrast him in my mind with the equally impoverished yet in no way romanticized Indian servants of Mary. While I understand that, at that point in the story, Mary was not yet fully capable of loving, as she did not understand love, the different ways Dickon and the servants are treated both by other characters and by the writing itself are striking to me. In our last class, we all made clear our presuppositions of the racism in this story, with the treatment of the Indian servants, and the fact that India itself is described as a place of illness. However, until Dickon Sowerby was introduced, I had thought that the text was equally classist; that in associating India with poverty, that was what fueled the racism. However, Dickon is described as being dressed in patchwork clothes, with ragged hair, constantly smelling like the forest. He is a picture of poverty, and yet he is romanticized to an extreme degree, referred to as an angel by Mary and associated with the Greek god Pan with his flute playing and animal charming. I found myself reminded of the story behind the writing of the Lord of the Flies; it was written in argument to the 1858 novel The Coral Island, which depicted young British men crash landing on an island, forming a functional society, and “taming” the “savage natives”. Golding understood when writing Lord of the Flies that British youth were no different from any other race or ethnicity in that scenario, and the Secret Garden’s treatment of poverty seems close to The Coral Island. The Indian servants go unnamed, and are killed by the same disease as Mary’s parents because they can’t afford to flee, while Dickon is a godly child who can literally talk to animals. The racism is not subtle.
Tara’s Short Reading Response to Michael Davidson’s “Universal Design”
Michael Davidson’s “Universal Design: The Work of Disability in an Age of Globalization” is a particularly relevant piece regarding current events. Davidson examines the intersectionality between disability and globalization, and in doing so considers how disabled bodies become both part of public spaces, as well as being treated as public spaces. The idea of disability being spatial is fascinating, not least because it removes the, as Davidson points out, often moral associations of being disabled. Disability therefore becomes no longer a fault, but rather an inevitability based on social and geographical positioning.
Globalization is, at its essence, a game of wealth hoarding. The point of businesses developing international influence is effectively never for the sake of altruism, but rather to increase revenue. Davidson describes the “actuarial value” that is placed on disabled people—exemplified by the World Bank, but visible in daily life in a capitalist society—and establishes that in the free market “internationalization of healthcare creates—rather than eliminates—disability” (121-122). Regarding the pandemic-sized elephant in the metaphorical room, Davidson’s writing drives at the fundamental issue with both globalization and the treatment of the disabled community: those who are most at risk will, almost inescapably, will be left to fend for themselves. While a disease does not have to be disabling, people with no support network are the ones who will become disabled, whether that be physically or financially. To tie back in with the previous idea of disabled bodies being treated as public spaces available for use by society, the current pandemic panic reveals the lack of empathy for the disabled by treating the deaths of people with preexisting health conditions (such as respiratory issues, autoimmune disorders, and the simple decline of advanced age) as being inevitable and relatively unconcerning. That is to say that if only the sick and the old die, somehow, they are the sacrifice that society is willing to make. Obviously not everyone in the general public feels this way, but the general apathy that tends to be thrown about in regards to those most at risk is revealing, to say the least.
One criticism that can be made of Davidson’s text is that he lacks what I would consider to be first hand accounts of the issues he’s presenting. Most of the examples he provides are media examples, such as the films of Jibril Diop Membety, the film Kandahar, and the tape cassette “Yiriba”. He mentions the scandal with Bayer and tainted blood, as well as the traveling theaters in Africa that try to teach about the AIDS epidemic, but this lack of personal anecdotes leaves his writing to examine the performative views of disability, rather than the lived experiences of people with disabilities. The lack of first hand perspective, to me, removes some of Davidson’s credibility. Davidson’s view of disability is decidedly formed by the social model, which tends to view disability through a larger lens rather than focusing on the individual; disability is the fault of society, not any single person. While I do not believe that any of the points Davidson was making in terms of how disability relates to globalism, I do think the lack of individual experience outside of media is an oversight. While art often reflects reality, it is not the same thing. Describing the plot of Dirty Pretty Things (2003), while harrowing and pertinent to Davidson’s thesis, is not the personal account of someone who has been through the black-market organ trade. In some ways, Davidson’s lack of first-hand accounts is reminiscent of the removal of disabled voices from disability studies by focusing on stories about disabled people rather than stories told by disabled people.
One criticism that can be made of Davidson’s text is that he lacks what I would consider to be first hand accounts of the issues he’s presenting. Most of the examples he provides are media examples, such as the films of Jibril Diop Membety, the film Kandahar, and the tape cassette “Yiriba”. He mentions the scandal with Bayer and tainted blood, as well as the traveling theaters in Africa that try to teach about the AIDS epidemic, but this lack of personal anecdotes leaves his writing to examine the performative views of disability, rather than the lived experiences of people with disabilities. The lack of first hand perspective, to me, removes some of Davidson’s credibility. Davidson’s view of disability is decidedly formed by the social model, which tends to view disability through a larger lens rather than focusing on the individual; disability is the fault of society, not any single person. While I do not believe that any of the points Davidson was making in terms of how disability relates to globalism, I do think the lack of individual experience outside of media is an oversight. While art often reflects reality, it is not the same thing. Describing the plot of Dirty Pretty Things (2003), while harrowing and pertinent to Davidson’s thesis, is not the personal account of someone who has been through the black-market organ trade. In some ways, Davidson’s lack of first-hand accounts is reminiscent of the removal of disabled voices from disability studies by focusing on stories about disabled people rather than stories told by disabled people.
I Pledge.
Word count: 610
CORONAVIRUS INFO.
Please log into Canvas for some important time-sensitive information regarding our move to an exclusively online delivery of the course for at least the next three weeks, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns! Stay safe!
Allison’s Short Reading Response: Poet of Cripples
The poem “Poet of Cripples” written by Jim Ferris dictates the narrator as the poet for people with disabilities or “cripples”. Ferris himself is disabled and portrays a problematic stance on disability throughout the poem due to the poetic speaker’s heroic tone. Ferris presents a common view that he may experience as a person with disability, that is the idea of needing to be put back together and or losing control of one’s sense of power. I will argue that he uses the poetic speaker to highlight his experience of “loss” of power in his life.
The poetic speaker’s first questionable approach is the fact that he declares himself “a poet of cripples”; he takes the title along with the power to speak and be the poet for cripples. This presents the perception that people with disabilities need someone to be their poet and speak for them, that they are not capable of being their own poet. This takes the power away from the community, when they are people too and should have the opportunity to be their own poet. The poetic speaker ends the poem with “I sing for cripples” continuing the pattern of taking the power away from others simply because he thinks he needs to speak for them. The community is allowed to sing for themselves and speak for themselves, but in society people assume because they are disabled they need someone to be their voice. Society takes the power away from people with disabilities because they have this idea that because they have a disability they do not have the ability, or sometimes even the option to make their own decisions and control their own lives.
In the poem it is suggested by the poetic speaker that people with disabilities are not whole or are missing something and needed to be complete. Ferris writes that people with disabilities are “groping to be whole” and that they need or want to “become full, whole” and that it is the narrator’s duty as a voice for the community to help them. Throughout the poem the suggestion that people with disabilities are incomplete or missing something; wanting to be whole. The suggestion is problematic in the sense that it devalues their feelings and the narrator takes on the role to determine that they should not be happy with who they are and they are not like everyone else, they are only half of non-disabled people. Society creates the perception, as well, that people who have disabilities or impairments are missing something and it creates a negative association with disabilities when they are also people and are whole despite their disability. They are allowed to be okay with who they are and not feel like their life is a loss and they do not need to feel the desire to want more, no one is more whole than anyone else.
Another complication presented in the poem is the use of the word “normal”. Jim Ferris presents the concept that people that are nondisabled are considered which labels people with disabilities as abnormal. Ferris simply sheds light on the issue that is brought on by society is that anyone who is in any way different or is not what society defines as “normal” they are abnormal, therefore, since people with disabilities usually stand out or are considered different they are labeled as abnormal. He blends his personal experience with disability into the poem throughout by including how people manipulate and control people with disabilities simply because they think they need to save them. However, the idea of feeling abnormal comes from within Ferris and how he is seen as different from other’s simply because one leg grew shorter than the other. Similar to how society treats other people with disabilities, there is the possibility he experienced the same otherness and incorporated it into his work to grow the understanding of viewpoints with disability.
Despite the negatives the one thing I found interesting in the poem is Ferris’s attempt at uniting everyone and creating a larger community. The narrator suggests inside everyone there’s disability and he sings for everyone, suggesting everyone is alike and it is everyone’s differences that bring them together. It also suggests that even though one may not be disabled they still have a connection to someone in life that is disabled creating that connection.
“I Pledge”
Word Count: 615
James’ Response to Frances Hodgson Burnett’s The Secret Garden
In the first ten chapters of The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett, I struggled to find exactly where I should be looking to view this text in regards to the disability lens. I was looking for a single point to narrow my focus on, but as I read I soon realized how this text intersects with disability was going to be a little less obvious than I had originally assumed.
To begin, the introduction of Mary Lennox as the main character, calling her the “most disagreeable-looking child ever seen” and saying that “her face was yellow because she had been born in India and had always been ill in one way or another” struck me as some sort of chronic illness, but now I think the terms of her negative physical features stemmed from the neglect she faced from her parents and growing up without learning empathy for others, making her appear ugly on the outside to reflect the harsh prejudices she held internally.
Before the passing of both her parents and the remaining servants at the Lennox’s home in India, Mary does not cry for the loss of Ayah, the nurse who took care of her, but she cries as the house is in a panic due to a cholera outbreak, and she realizes she is forgotten. As it was said in the text, “Nobody thought of her, nobody wanted her.”
When Mary is found to be the sole survivor of the Lennox house, she is sent to a home filled with children who tease her for her temperamental nature, calling her “Mistress Mary, quite contrary.” This is the first instance of Mary’s slow but steady realization that she is not the center of the universe, and she reacts immediately with anger. She is then taken away by Mrs. Medlock who is the one to tell her that she will be moving to England to be with her Uncle, Mr. Archibald Craven. The description of Mr. Archibald Craven caught my attention the most, as they mention his physical disability, and then immediately the fact that he was married, implying that usually people with disabilities do not get to find true love, “… an he’d have walked the world over to get her a blade o’ grass she wanted. Nobody thought she’d marry him, but she did, and people said she married him for his money. But she didn’t – she didn’t.”
Upon finding this out, Mary immediately connects the idea of her Uncle with a French fairytale about a poor hunchback and a beautiful princess. She learns that Mr. Archibald Craven refuses to come out of the West Wing of his estate following the death of his wife, and also notes it sounds like something out of a book, but did not make her feel cheerful. She does all she can to hide any outward displays of interest, and stays fast to her default setting of apathy towards others.
This attitude stays the same for the first few weeks Mary lives in her Uncle’s estate. She is rude to the servant Martha, who she compares to the servants she lived with in India, and this is one of the starkest examples of Mary’s racism and entitlement. Her rage flies wild and she says “You don’t know anything about natives! They are not people- they’re servants who must salaam to you.”
This is where I’d like to introduce the idea that Mary is a metaphor for the secret garden itself. The garden that had belonged to Mr. Archibald Craven’s wife, which following her death had been locked and forgotten for ten years, the same age as Mary. The garden was allowed to fall into disarray, growing wild without the care of the wife. Mary was also allowed to grow wild, without a loving hand to guide her towards compassion and empathy for others.
As Mary grows, so does the garden. She learns how to connect with others and how to take care of herself. She learns about different lifestyles and realizes that happiness isn’t always equated to wealth. Not only viewing this story through a disability lens, but a lens that brings issues of race and class into the light as well has really helped me understand this story so far and hopefully will continue to do so as we read more.
I pledge.
Word count: 723
Mackenzie’s Response to Carver’s “Cathedral”
Carver’s short story, “Cathedral,” recounts a man’s experience with his wife’s blind friend, Robert. The speaker of the story details his feelings toward Robert and the interactions that they share during a night at his house. Carver’s “Cathedral” reflects the notions of unease and misunderstanding that often surround the topic of disability.
This is the speaker’s first experience with a person who is blind, and he expresses great discomfort at the idea of being around Robert as he states that “a blind man in my house was not something I looked forward to” (Carver 209). The speaker’s discomfort with Robert’s blindness is reflective of society’s general discomfort with disability, and for the speaker, this discomfort is mostly due to a lack of experience and knowledge about disability. The speaker has formed expectations for how Robert should be and is surprised to find him with a beard and without a cane or dark glasses. Due to his lack of experience with people who are blind, Robert has formed a representation of what a blind person should be like based on how blindness is typically depicted on television or in readings. To find that Robert did not meet these stereotypes was startling.
After the speaker’s wife falls asleep on the couch Robert and the speaker are left to watch television together. The channel lands on a piece about cathedrals. After the speaker fails to describe how cathedrals look, Robert suggests that they draw one together. The speaker reluctantly agrees, and they begin working on a drawing of a cathedral on the back of a shopping bag. He describes how Robert’s “fingers rode my fingers as my hand went over the paper. It was like nothing else in my life up to now” (228). In this moment, the two men find themselves connecting. The speaker closes his eyes and as they work together, and he gains a little more understanding of Robert. It becomes more of a partnership than the speaker teaching Robert about cathedrals; however, even through this new sense of understanding, the speaker continues to dwell on Robert’s disability. Previously, the speaker thought about how Robert’s relationship to his wife must have been and pities Robert’s wife. He thinks about how it must be difficult to marry a man who could not see her, assuming she would never be complimented or fully understood by her husband. This sense of pity is echoed in the end. The speaker keeps his eyes closed after completing the drawing of the cathedral and explains that he knew he was still in his house “But I didn’t feel like I was inside anything” (228). Though he appears to learn that Robert is more than his disability, he still has difficulty moving past the fact that he is blind and continues to focus on all of the things Robert cannot do.
Overall, Carver’s short story portays a man’s first experience with someone who is blind. “Cathedral” illustrates the discomfort that many able-bodied people feel when confronted with disability. This may be due to lack of experience, a fear that they could become disabled someway themselves, or wanting to appear respectful without knowing how. Once he is more able to move past his prejudices, the speaker and Robert are able to form a more genuine relationship.
word count: 548
I pledge
extremely late post about Dolphus Raymond
howdy everyone, I initially typed this up in Google Docs, and until now would have bet money on my having already posted it to the blog. As I am currently typing this, you all know that is not how things played out. Enjoy an a very late and very passionate rant about my least favorite character in To Kill a Mockingbird
It is easy to hate Bob Ewell because he is an easy man to hate. He was written that way; he is a literary condensation of vitriol, hate, and racism. I would call him a caricature, but we live in an unfortunate enough world that there are people like him in real life. However, he is not the worst character in TKaM. That would be too easy. No, in my mind, the worst character in the book is Dolphus Raymond.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a dated book, whose at-the-time progressive views and themes are centrist at best when viewed under a contemporary lense. Though this is apparent in multiple aspects of the book, I am focusing on Dolphus Raymond, the spineless coward. Mr. Raymond comes from money. His is an old, storied family, which would have reasonable power and influence in Maycomb, were he not a lover to a black woman and father to her children.
Maycomb is under the illusion that Dolphus is a drunk; he is constantly drinking from a brown paper bag, and acting outwardly inebriated. This is, however, a ruse. He is a sober man, who just happens to love a black woman and be happy with her. There is nothing inherently wrong with this way of living, and he knows this. However, the issue comes in the way he handles the prejudice of Maycomb.
Dolphus, as previously stated, comes from wealth, which is likely a large part of why he can get away with his life as a quote unquote vagabond and drunkard. He claims he does this to preserve the peace in Maycomb, but all he does is actively choose not to challenge their racist perception that only a chronically drunk man could enjoy the company of people of color enough to seek them out. It is possible that this could be to protect his wife and children from the scorn that they would receive from the town, by allowing them to not gather too much attention to themselves. However, instead they live as the family of a drunk man, still looked down on by the town, still forced to face the harshness of prejudice and racism everyday.
Dolphus Raymond could make a change. He could look at Maycomb and say “you are wrong. Your ideas and your racism are wrong.” But, like Atticus Finch, he looks at this deep-rooted evil, and he chooses to play along. He avoids any conflict, which could lead to betterment of the society as a whole, in favor of preserving the status quo.
Drinking out of a bag, and defending a black man on trial, are only band-aid solutions that fail to reach the root of the problem, which is the white people who see this as a problem. Without directly addressing these people, no real change is made. Anyway Dolphus Raymond is a spineless loser and so is Atticus for never confronting Alexandra and saying “get that racist BS out of my house you monster”.
The Secret Garden: Spring Reading
The weather has been great this week and I’ve finally been able to enjoy my readings outside. The Secret Garden was the first read outside. Fitting, too, considering the weather changes in the text.
This read was literally succulent. I love the language and how it picked up on the minuscule things- like how she’d fight against the wind who’s force is like an invisible giant. Or the subtle ways Mary’s eyes would light up when she discovered, well, humanity-sympathy-humility.
Compared to her “socially acceptable” looking parents, Mary was born a disagreeable looking child. I looked at the first chapter with a feminist lens especially – because the qualities that deemed her unworthy were characteristics that a woman, in general, are socially expected to have – beauty to woo, be chased, desired, like her mother. It’s so wrong to put those expectations on a baby – those expectations deprived her of the experience of parenthood. Despite that, I think her Ayah did an ok job of raising her. She raised Mary correctly when you think about the standards of wealthy individuals in general. She was made to be spoiled and wasn’t ever made aware of her apparent “ugliness” or the pity people held over her. It is awful to me that this kind of thing happens. When I think about persons with a disability, people will purposefully try to filter or even hide their disability from them. As if their own disability could hurt them more than the people who shut them into a box. Therefore, she couldn’t find out why people disliked her so much or why kids had more fun than her. She simply reciprocated what she knew.
Lastly, I love the use of the “Moor” and how it is like a metaphor for her own growth. Martha as a character is great for Mary’s character development. She learns that every meal should be appreciated and to make use of the environment around her, as well as basic respect in conversation. I also think Martha fleshes out a lot of other problems like racial stereotyping and class privilege.
Without knowing, Martha makes assumptions about Indians as a collective and keeps calling out their “exotic wonders,” like elephants and whatever else. She keeps saying how she and her family can revel in how interesting this country is. A lot like gossip.
Then, there are contrasts of “humble living,” talk about kids who are lucky to fill their stomachs, and kids who wear rags for clothes but still play and laugh. Martha talks about this and helps Mary have insightful moments.
#forfunblog
Abigail’s Response to Jhumpa Lahiri’s “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar”
In “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar,” Jhumpa Lahiri explores the different and complex relationships that disabled people, particularly disabled women, may have towards traditional gender roles. Through both Bibi’s own ideal of marriage and the responses of those around her to this dream, Lahiri questions the underlying assumptions that people make both about the power of marriage, its importance, and its unattainable status for disabled people.
At the start of the short story, the unnamed narrator, a friend of Bibi’s, notices that Bibi longs for a husband. She primarily expresses her desire in terms of gendered expectations: she wants to have the full experience of a wedding and married life, complete with the protection of a husband and the duties of a housewife. Bibi’s desires stand out because disabled people are often desexualized and infantilized, seen as perpetual children with no sexual, romantic, or social agency. She herself recognizes and laments that no one will ever take her out on a date or marry her. As a disabled woman, she is locked out of the same gendered expectations that stifle her able-bodied peers. The stress and pain of being cut off from such a common institution, of being seen as undesirable for marriage, leads to a worsening of her condition.
After one particularly harsh seizure, a doctor concludes that marriage will indeed cure Bibi. With the prospect of a man loving and marrying Bibi, the narrator suddenly begins to notice her beauty. She describes these new observations as “apprais[ing] the pleasures she could offer a man,” demonstrating that she views Bibi’s desirability through the lens of male gratification (Lahiri 162). The narrator’s attitude toward Bibi subtly shifts in another way alongside this newfound appreciation for her beauty; she and her friends begin teaching her in romance and marriage. Even though the narrator mostly refers to it as a way “to distract her” and doubts if anyone would actually marry her, this shift in treatment likely helped Bibi (Lahiri 165). With their coaching, Bibi is now more a part of her peer group, no longer lamenting her lack of prospects but actively seeking out a suitor and making herself desirable. The idea that Bibi may be a marriage prospect changes her self-perception and that of those around her, revealing how important it is for a woman to be seen as romantically and sexually appealing to receive respect and interest in a patriarchal society.
“The Treatment of Bibi Haldar” reveals an important member of intersectional feminism: the disabled woman who is prohibited from partaking in the same marriage and family life that her abled peers are pressured into. The experience of womanhood is not universal, and Bibi’s struggle for romantic fulfilment is both a product of a patriarchal society that devalues single women and the product of an ableist society that fails to see disabled people as romantic and sexual beings in their own right. It is impossible to speculate on how much of Bibi’s desire for a man is based on her society’s definition of a woman as a mother and homemaker, and how much of it is a genuine desire for romantic love.
Word Count: 524
I pledge
Daniel’s Response to To Kill A Mockingbird
“-I pledge.”
Harper Lee surrounds many of the events within To Kill A Mockingbird around the theme of stigmatization. Throughout the novel, Lee expresses a lot of disdain to the corruption and injustice that many of the African Americans go through; however, in a more subtle fashion, she also tries to address the hardship that the disabled and impaired endure. She depicts this in the character of Boo Radley. Throughout the novel, Scout and Jem constantly wonder about the identity of Boo Radley and why it is that he never comes out. By the end of the novel, both Jem and especially Scout comes to gain a more mutual understanding of their neighbor. Boo Radley ultimately represents a disabled minority in To Kill a Mockingbird as seen in Scout’s changing perception of him and his mannerisms when approaching Jem’s unconscious body.
Harper Lee demonstrates to her audience how disabled people are misunderstood using the character of Boo Radley’s relationship to Scout. Initially Scout expressed a lot of suspicion towards Boo Radley, wondering why it was that he would not leave his house. However, after she finally gets the chance to meet him when he saves her brother’s life, she contemplates how “Boo was our neighbor. He gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch, and our lives” (Lee 320). Scout realizes how much she has misunderstood Boo Radley. While initially she saw him with an air of mystery, she realizes that he was a person just like anybody else. This shows how people with disabilities tend to be misunderstood because all that most people see is the disability instead of the person themselves. Scout contemplates this when she reflects on what Atticus had told her: “One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them” (Lee 371). Scout applies this to her changing perception of Boo Radley when she learns that Boo is not as strange as he may seem after saving Jem.
Boo Radley’s experience around Jem’s body also exemplifies that he may suffer from a disability, which is why he kept himself enclosed within his own house. When Boo was trying to touch Jem, Lee describes “Boo’s hand hovered over Jem’s hair” (Lee 319). From the word choice of “hovered,” Boo was clearly nervous about touching Jem. This and the fact he refused to leave his house may translate to Boo having some kind of anxiety disorder. Scout even comforts Arthur that it is ok to pet her brother, saying “ ‘You can pet him, Mr. Arthur, he’s asleep…You couldn’t if he was awake’” (Lee 319). The fact that he needed some kind of reassurance shows that Arthur may have a condition that is related to fear or Agoraphobia. In this, Harper Lee is using Arthur Radley to make a statement about mental illness.
All in all, while she does make a lot of commentary on the negative condition of racism, Harper Lee also tries to touch on mental illness through the character of Arthur Radley. Even though Arthur does not play a very prominent role throughout the story, the way that Harper Lee utilizes him shows that she is trying to tell a story about the stigmatization behind mental illness as well. Through the character of Arthur Radley, Harper Lee was able to demonstrate how the misunderstanding of disability is pervasive throughout society.
