Final Paper – dis/lit 20

Adam’s Final Paper

Adam Cooper

Dr. Foss

Disability Lit

26 April 2020

A Different Approach at Parenting

Jim Sinclair’s Don’t Mourn For Us outlines the perception a new parent may have upon finding out their child is autistic. In three sections it highlights the struggles parents may have with understanding the disability and how it affects the relationship they’ll have with their child. I found this to be my favorite piece in the autism unit mainly because it seems like it would be impactful to a large demographic of people. In some cases the way a child’s disability, in this case autism, is handled can actually make the effects of the disability much worse than they would be otherwise for both the parent and the child. To be a good parent to a child with a disability it is essential to not allow any grief you feel to ruin the relationship with the child, understand in certain cases it is not a curable ailment, and to learn to listen. As Sinclair explains this may mean no matter what you do the relationship will not be the normal one you had imagined but that’s not to say it won’t be a beautiful relationship regardless. This piece does a wonderful job of outlining the negative effects a parent can unintentionally have on a child with any disability, not just autism and can be related to other disabilities we’ve studied throughout the semester. In order to properly care for someone with a disability it is essential to not try to divide the disability from the person but rather to adjust the style of care given to them to better accommodate them. The big issue is trying to make the child fit into a mold the parent has created instead of changing the parenting style to fit the child. The issue becomes more about the parent and child and in trying to comfort themselves a parent may do harm to their child they are unaware of.

Sinclair recognizes that grief, in the case of a parent learning their child will have a disability such as autism, can be traumatic. But the issue comes when the trauma the parent experiences overshadows the disability itself. Caring for those with disabilities requires the caretaker to devote their time to the disabled person, not to dealing with their own feelings about disability. A distant example we see of something like this is from early in the semester when we read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. If we compare Victor to the parent and The Creation to the child it becomes a pretty clear example. Victor wanted a beautiful being and had imagined that whole heartedly. When The Creation was not what he had imagined he went into a state of grief completely neglecting the creation and letting it slip further away from him without care. The Creation genuinely just wanted to be loved and cared for but Victors own grief prevented that. Obviously I’m not insinuating that those with autism or other disabilities are “creatures” or “monster-like” but the parent-child relationship is present here along with the neglect that can be found alongside a grieving parent.

The first section titled Autism is not an appendage discusses the idea a parent may have that there’s another child within the “shell” of autism. A child that can fulfill all the dreams the parent had for them. This is problematic as attempting to uncover a person within will amount to nothing. I think a large misperception of all disabilities is that there’s a normal person within the disability who’s been caught by it. So instead of starting to understand who that person is with the disability we make their lives harder by trying to break them out of a mold we’ve imagined them being in. Take for example someone born with only one leg, you wouldn’t try to cure this as it’s clearly visible there is no “cure” and a real leg will never grow there. So you change the style of care you had envisioned giving the child. According to Sinclair, this problem is present in the relationship between parent and child when navigating autism. Sinclair says “It is not possible to separate the autism from the person–and if it were possible, the person you’d have left would not be the same person you started with.” (Sinclair) This is a clear example of how parents attempting to “free” their child from autism would create a rift in the relationship. Spending all the energy you have attempting to create a new child as opposed to parenting the one you have will never lead to a new child, rather one who is neglected and may suffer from the side effects from autism worse than they would have otherwise.

Communication is huge in any relationship, especially between a child and parent. However for someone with autism, communication can be extremely difficult. This means it’s the parent’s job to accommodate this and in turn help nurture a relationship and do their part in helping their child be the best they can be. A huge part of what we can do to help anyone with a disability is to merely listen. Far too often those with disabilities are drowned out by the hustle of everyday life and it leaves them without the assistance they need. Even in everyday life it’s easy for us to not hear what someone with any disability is saying. We go about our day to day lives not considering things from their point of view, not out of intentional rudeness but due to lack of education. For someone with autism they may not be able to flatout say what they feel in a way that a parent can hear and understand without education and changing the way they parent. Sinclar says “Each of us who does learn to talk to you, each of us who manages to function at all in your society, each of us who manages to reach out and make a connection with you, is operating in alien territory, making contact with alien beings.” (Sinclair) I think the same may apply to any individual struggling with any disability. To talk and not be heard is without a doubt extremely discouraging. Functioning in a society built for those without disability is hard enough, not being heard makes it harder.

Sinclair’s work goes a long way in humanizing those with disabilities, especially autism. Far too often we see children and adults alike who have disabilities as missing something. And in some cases this makes us grieve for them rather than care for them. In a parent child relationship this can have even more significant effects. Near the end of his passage Sinclair says “The tragedy is not that we’re here, but that your world has no place for us to be. How can it be otherwise, as long as our own parents are still grieving over having brought us into the world?” (Sinclair) This speaks not only about a parent and child struggling to build a relationship around a disability but also about everyone who lives around us with any disability in a world built for everyone else. There is no easy path for any parent and I’m sure I can’t comprehend what parenting is like but I think Sinclair’s work helps start to paint a more clear picture of what a parent can do to help their child and what we can do to help those around us.

Words: 1,230

I pledge – AMC

Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t Mourn For Us” Autism Network International newsletter, Our Voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 1993.

Erin Smith’s Final Paper on ‘Misfit’ by Tito Mukhopadhyay

Erin Smith

ENGL 384: Section 1

Dr. Foss

28 April 2020

Misfit: Autism and Nature Imagery

It seems very fitting that I read a story about an autistic child’s interaction with a parent right after rereading the poem Misfit for this assignment. The man was recalling a time he went to Disneyland when he was young, and he came across two other kids who were interested in his Stitch plush that he was carrying around. Happy to meet people who like the same character he does, he begins to stim by flapping his arms. The very ableist mother of the two children found the behavior abnormal and didn’t want her kids to interact with him, but the other two children were perfectly fine with it. In ‘Misfit’ by Tito Mukhopadhyay it is adults like that mother that label the speaker a misfit, but the other information in the poem says otherwise. Misfit compares autistic behaviors to images of the natural world, combating the idea that these behaviors are “wrong” or “weird” as most people see them to be.

In the first stanza, Mukhopadhyay describes the earth as “turning and turning.” One common form of stimming is spinning objects, such as tops or the classic fidget spinners that were so popular a few years back. It’s an activity that brings them entertainment and relaxation. Just like autistic people, the earth spins (on its axis). The stars don’t see any abnormality in this behavior in the earth, and they chose to leave it alone rather than bring attention to it or label it something. After all, the earth’s spinning is a natural process; why should anyone call it out? Moving back to fidget spinners, they were increasingly popular for neurotypical people for some unknown reason, but at the same time those same neurotypical people would make fun of autistic kids for using them. Fidget spinners and fidget cubes were made for those with learning disabilities that can’t allow them to sit still or focus without some kind of outlet, such as ADHD and autism, to have an inconspicuous object that lets them stim without distracting the class. Yet neurotypicals took it and made fun of those it was made for. It even became an ableist meme at one point, although the popularity of the “toy” overshadowed most of the memes. I remember from high school watching some of the mean students make fun of one of our special needs boys for having one. Yet in this poem, Mukhopadhyay takes this behavior that is often stigmatized by neurotypicals and compares it to a natural, beautiful process. He claims there’s nothing more wrong with the behavior than the earth’s spinning.

Next in the poem, the birds appear as the earth continues spinning. They flap their wings just like autistic people do when they’re excited or happy (a behavior I’m very familiar with because I do it myself. ADHD is now being considered by some people to be autism’s cousin so an overlap in behaviors is not a surprise). Mukhopadhyay specifically notes in this part that the birds know he was autistic, and yet they still “found no wrong with anything” (MUKhopadhyay line 9). They flap their wings to fly, so they see his flapping as just as natural as theirs. He’s doing what he needs to do to survive comfortably and not in a depressed state. Just like birds who have their wings clipped, autistic people who aren’t allowed to stim often feel depressed. From personal experience with stimming, when someone looks at me wrong or tells me to stop when I’m flapping, my mood drops significantly. Stimming is a natural part of autistic behavior and those who do it should not be forced to stop. After all, it’s like clipping a bird’s wings, isn’t it?

The people, the men and women, however, view his behaviors differently than the stars or the birds. They stare in a way that can only be considered disgusted or appalled, because they label him a ‘Misfit’ in the next line. This stanza is meant to reflect society’s view on autistic behaviors, rather than those of the natural world. To society, what he does is unnatural. These people that do so fail to see how his behaviors are more connected to the natural world than they think. They fail to correlate the earth spinning with his spinning, or the birds’ flapping with his flapping. To them, he just isn’t like the other kids; he doesn’t do the same thing the majority of children do. Clearly there must be something wrong with him, right? While they see only something weird and out of the ordinary, the speaker and other images in the poem see it as completely normal.

He says so himself in the next stanza when describing the blowing stim: “I found no wrong with anything” (line 15). He thinks it’s nothing more than a cool trick to blow like the wind, not another one of the odd behaviors the men and women in the last stanza thought they were. He sees how this fun trick is similar to nature, describing himself as the wind. Blowing raspberries or just blowing out air in general, they’re both traits of stimming that are often seen in autistic children. Not only does he find it perfectly fine to do these activities, he wants to share them with others. He sees it as something that other people and other children will enjoy too. And in the final stanza, he questions why anyone should stop doing these behaviors. He asks the reader, “Why stop turning and turning / When right can be found with everything?” (lines 16-17) This final question comes in direct opposition to his past repeating phrase: “found no wrong in anything.” Now rather than seeing that there is “no wrong in anything,” he sees that there is all right in everything. What he does, what the birds do, and especially the earth’s spinning, they are all part of the natural world and are all good, right things to do. Not to mention the first line could be interpreted as his wish that the men and women would see the right in everything as he does. He wishes they could consider these autistic behaviors as natural and perfectly ordinary.

‘Misfit’ is a poem about an autistic child labeled as such because of his “abnormal” behavior, but he sees himself as the opposite. Using images of the earth, birds, wind, and stars, he compares his stimming activities to the natural world and creates this picture of autism being just as ordinary as other things in the world. He disregards the view of those who consider it not to be, and instead lives on happily as his autistic self.

Word Count: 1108

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work

Mackenzie’s Final Paper

Mackenzie King

ENGL 384: Section 01

Dr. Foss

28 April 2020

The Autistic Voice

Defining autism causes much debate among self-advocates and medical professionals. The Oxford English Dictionary defines autism as “a condition which has its onset in childhood and is marked by severely limited responsiveness to other persons, restricted behaviour patterns, difficulty with abstract concepts, and usually abnormal speech development” (Rodas 9). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) gives an even more unclear definition of what it labels as “Autism Spectrum Disorder” as it gives medical professionals diagnostic criteria in the form of rigid categories. The problem with these diagnostic criteria is that autism presents itself differently among individuals. Some people with autism will show very little or no verbal communication while others may have perfect verbal skills. Many of the definitions or attempts to label autism come from sources who do not fully understand the autistic experience. Ari Ne’eman’s “Dueling Narratives: Neurotypical and Autistic Perspectives About the Autism Spectrum” and Julia Miele Rodas’ Autistic Disturbances: Theorizing Autism Poetics from the DSM to Robinson Crusoe demonstrate how damaging labels are continuously promoted as people with autism are placed in the background of these discussions.

Autistic writers will typically describe autism by feelings, experiences, and practices instead of through rigid categories. Then, autism is “what it feels, does, experiences, and says” (Rodas 10). This puts the autistic person at the center of the definition, not just categories of diagnostic criteria. Rodas notes that autism scholars will usually resist strict definitions of autism because no one truly knows what autism is. While autism is likely physically located in the body, there is no blood test or specific genetic marker that signifies autism. In this respect, the autistic body cannot be separated from the autistic voice. In “Dueling Narratives: Neurotypical and Autistic Perspectives About the Autism Spectrum” Ari Ne’eman states that “in a society that values equality as a means of social justice, the idea of each individual created equal is often misinterpreted as each individual created the same” (Ne’eman). Self-advocates continue to strive for support and acceptance for people with autism in society. Disability is thought of as a social construct. According to this social model of disability, the label of disability then reflects how an individual is able to function in a specific environment and is then not related to any intrinsic characteristics related to the individual. This means thant people labeled as having a disability are being defined by their relation to the rest of society, taking the ability to form an identity away from these individuals.

When it comes to discussions about autism, people with autism are generally not in the center of the discussion. Films like Autism Every Day (2006) furthers the idea that autism happens only to people surrounding the person with autism. This places all of the power for form identity in the hands of non-autistic hands and not in the individual. Lauren Thierry, the producer of this film, criticized President Bush for taking a photograph with a young man with autism who scored repeatedly during a high school football game and received a lot of media attention because of his talent. Theirry stated that this sent a message that people with autism will be okay as long as they can find a certain skill in which they can excel; however, she had also told the parents depicted in her film not to provide any type of therapy for their children or maintain their homes in the few days leading up to filming. This then promoted the idea that autistic children can be seen more as tradegies, further encouraging the notion that autistic children will fall into one of two categories: tragedies or prodigies. This is not an accurate representation of the reality of most people with autism, but films such as Thierry’s Autism Every Day are motivated by fundraising instead of accurate portrayals of living with autism (Ne’eman).

Jenny McCarthy further promoted the idea of autism as pathological with her memoir Louder Than Words (2007). In her book she portrays autism as a tragedy when her son receives his autism diagnosis. Actions she previously thought were cute soon became signs of autism and represented something she now views as tragic. Because of her high profile she became popular in autism discourse, furthering the idea of autism as pathology. The describes learning about her son’s autism by saying that all of the “things I’d thought were personality traits were in fact autism characteristics, and that was all I had. Where was my son, and how the hell did I get him out?” (McCarthy 66 qtd. Rodas 16). Again, this reaction illustates the inability to look at the individual. Jenny McCarthy’s entire view of her child is altered by his diagnosis. Her son is not trapped by his diagnosis, it is a part of his identity. When the people around someone with autism try to create a label or define who that person is based on the diagnosis, it takes that person’s voice and individuality. Autistic people, just like people who do not have autism, are able to express themselves in a variety of ways and through a variety of identities (Rodas).

The diagnostic criteria present austism as something that is categorical and easily defined, but that is not the reality for many people with autism. Autism affects people differently. These categorizations make it easier to try and place people within the label of autism, but this then takes the voice away from those individuals. Organizations, such as Autism Speaks, or films such as Lauren Thierry’s Autism Every Day continue to set the tone that autism is a condition that needs to be treated. These are not accurate representations of life for many autistic individuals and futher promote the labels given to autistic individuals from non-autistic sources who do not truly understand the autistic experience. Self-advocates are correct in their pushing to be at the center of discussions on autism, not merely placed into the background while non-autistic people place labels and make assumptions about what it means to be autistic.

Word count: 1004

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work

Shelby, Libby, & Meredith’s Final Paper

Libby Wruck, Shelby Steele, Meredith Miller

ENGL 384-01

Dr. Foss

April 28, 2020

Reading Victor Frankenstein as Autistic

Autistic characters often appear in Victorian literature, although there was no concept of autism during that time. By retrofitting a modern diagnosis to a piece of gothic literature, we are making the claim that a character is autistic, not an autistic person. This means that the characteristics that we associate with autism are not necessarily accurate to the real life experience of autism, nor should these stereotypical characteristics be used as a reference for real people with autism. Using Stuart Murray’s “Autism” as a baseline on the current knowledge of the condition and as well as the current diagnostic materials found in DSM-V we make the argument that Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein” can be read as autistic.

Our modern understanding of autism is based on the facts that were given by Murray. It is agreed that the knowledge on autism is based less so on the definitive signs and symptoms and many autistic people present various traits. Many of the symptoms have become stereotypes, so we use the book by Murray to separate the harmful stereotypes from the variations of Victor’s experiences. Although autism is relatively undefinable as the experience is varied, we use patterns of traits that are found in autistic people in modern times to create this diagnosis. We admit to not being medical professionals; we make this ‘diagnosis’ as an observation using our acquired knowledge on the condition. Some traits that can be grouped into a social interaction category are of atypical relationships or negative relationships with those who are neurotypical, either heightened or lack of empathy, and overall discomfort in social situations. Similarly, we outline some behavioral traits as special interests, isolation, a lack of sense of personal danger, the prominence of masking, and atypical reactions. Masking is a common autistic concept where an autistic person hides their autistic traits in an attempt to blend in with neurotypical society.

One of the most defining aspects of Victor Frankenstein’s character, is his construction of the creation. He spends the years leading up to his creation studying vigorously at school, “Two years passed in this manner, during which I paid no visit to Geneva”(Shelley 22). He is hyper-fixating on this project at the cost of his social bonds with his family and his own health. Frankenstien’s need to complete his experiment at all costs can be associated with the modern interpretation of autistic men’s special interest with STEM, though this is a stereotype. Frankenstein can even be read as a savant, a harmful stereotypical trait the media associates with autistic men.

Frankenstein does not have typical responses to death and the human body, “Darkness had no effect upon my fancy, and a churchyard was to me merely the receptacle of bodies deprived of life, which, from being the seat of beauty and strength, had become food for the worm. Now I was led to examine the cause and progress of this decay and forced to spend days and nights in vaults and charnel-houses. My attention was fixed upon every object the most insupportable to the delicacy of the human feelings”(38). He only views a body as a body, not a person who has lived. This lack of empathy and connection between a body and a person reveals some of the workings of an atypical mind. Frankenstein tries to mask when interacting with the creation; “I thought that as I could not sympathize with him, I had no right to withhold from him the small portion of happiness which was yet in my power to bestow” (129). He does not agree to make the creation a wife out of sympathy for his plight, he does it because he does not want the creation to keep bothering or threatening him. This lack of empathy can be found in people with autism, not to coincide with a lack of empathy in autistic characters with evil actions, though this connection will be touched upon later.

Even Frankstein’s responses to social interaction fit under the purview of autism. Early in the book, he describes his social comfort as “It was my temper to avoid a crowd and to attach myself fervently to a few. I was indifferent, therefore, to my schoolfellows in general; but I united myself in the bonds of the closest friendship to one among them” (24). Victor is content with his few friends and has little desire to make more, this can also be read as him either not knowing how to make more friends or his classmates not being able to understand his behavior. Because of his lack of typical empathy as shown above, his relationships with his family are damaged because they are unable to understand this lack of interaction with them as not indifference, but rather an inability to understand their desire for this interaction.

With the modern knowledge of autism, the traits of Victor Frankenstein portrayed in Mary Shelley’s novel hold an austistic narrative. Many autistic stereotypes are viewed as negative in both fictional works and reality; however, stereotypes are what must be used in reading characters as every case is different. The common public perception of autism results in a stereotypical expression of people with autism in all forms of media, including literature. A reading of Victor Frankenstien as autistic gives insight into the negative portrayals and stereotypes associated with autistic people. Throughout the novel, Victor makes decisions neither the characters nor the readers fully understand, resulting in the villainization of the character. This is because the other characters and the readers expect a neurotypical response, while Victor is unable to react in that way. Because of this, the creation is given a more sympathetic narrative, despite Victor losing his entire family and best friend as well as people’s inability to sympathize with Victor’s neurodiversity. The stereotypical autistic traits Victor portrays have a direct correlation to why he is read as evil and often viewed as the antagonist of the novel. Much of the treatment for autistic people is determined by public perception of autism that is fueled by stereotypes. Thus, making Shelley’s use of stereotypes to be both negative and positive.

Word count: 1022

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work.

Rachel Mullins’ Final Paper on The Infantilization of Adults with Disabilities in Literature

The representation of individuals with disabilities in literature has come a long way ince the beginning. In more recent times, there has not only been a striking increase in the representation of the many different kinds of disabilities in literature, but also an increase in the accuracy of the representation of the disabled characters and their disability. Nowadays one can find this inclusion and representation in almost any genre. It seems like many of the most important steps have been made, and are currently being made, to allow all different voices to be heard and different bodies to be seen. However, one unfortunate theme continues to resurface throughout both old and new works. This very common type of misrepresentation of disability is the infantilization of disabled characters. To infantilize is defined as “to make or keep infantile” and/or “to treat as if infantile” (Merriam-Webster). The infantilization of characters with disabilities, either by the original writer in their representations or descriptions of the disabled character or by their interactions with other characters in the piece, can be seen in slightly older pieces such as Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck and some more recent pieces such as The Wedding of Tom to Tom by Keith Banner. In the end, this infantilization takes away from the actual realities of so many disabled individuals, and it also has the potential to be translated further into the real world by the readers of these works as they interact with individuals with disabilities.

To begin with arguably one of the most famous works involving a disabled character, the theme of infantilization in John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men can be found aplenty in the character of Lennie. This piece is still being studied in Middle and High Schools across the country. The sorrowful story follows two men, Lennie Small and George Milton, as they are heading to a farm for work. The reader learns that Lennie and George are on their journey looking for work because Lennie had been involved in some sort of altercation with a girl from the last farm that they had worked at. Also revealed throughout the beginning of the story is that Lennie has some sort of cognitive disability. The reader comes to learn what motivates the two men to continue; they want to make enough money to own their own farm someday with a lot of rabbits for Lennie to pet and take care of. As they find work on yet another farm on their way through Northern California, more characters are introduced, and the audience gets a little more in-depth information regarding Lennie and the characteristics and nature of his disability.

Lennie’s character is definitely representative of infantilization. Lennie is repeatedly characterized as child-like throughout the novel, both outright and through the descriptions of his character and his actions. He is referred to as a baby multiple times. Lennie is described as “[b]lubberin’ like a baby” and being “[j]us’ like a big baby” (Steinbeck 43, 129). These comments are made by George, the person who is closest to Lennie and knows him the best. Slim also says to George that “[h]e’s jes’ like a kid, ain’t he.” and George of course agrees with this statement (Steinbeck 79). In addition to being outright described as a ‘baby’ and a ‘kid’ by other characters in the novel, George also calls him a “good boy” on two different occasions (Lawrence 4). This is much like one would praise a small child when they do something right. These examples all have in common the fact that they represent how Lennie is seen through and interacted with in the eyes of the other characters in the story. In addition, there are instances of the infantilization of his character that can be found in the descriptions of his actions by Steinbeck himself. In their piece called Is Lennie a Monster? A Reconsideration of Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in a 21st Century Inclusive Classroom Context, Clare Lawrence mentions that “Lennie’s obedience (and at times his disobedience, transparent to George), his mimicry of George’s actions and his enthusiasm are all childlike” (Lawrence 4). The aforementioned mimicry occurs while at a small pool of water near the beginning of the story. Steinbeck writes that “Lennie, who had been watching, imitated George exactly. He pushed himself back, drew up his knees, embraced them, looked over to George to see whether he had it just right. He pulled his hat down a little more over his eyes, the way George’s hat was” (Steinbeck 37). Also, at one point while speaking to Slim, and a few other times in the story “George draws on Lennie’s childlike qualities to make him seem less threatening” (Chivers 4). This is done “in order to maintain employment”, because George needed to make sure that Lennie was trustworthy in the eyes of the other characters. (Chivers 4). Steinbeck’s classic Of Mice and Men shows how infantilization can be represented through interactions between characters as well as author description of the individual disabled character.

It is important to note that this theme of infantilization is not limited to older works such as Steinbeck’s. The subject can also be seen in works written more recently. One good example can be found in Keith Banner’s collection of stories called The Smallest People Alive. Within this collection is a story called The Wedding of Tom to Tom. The story is narrated by a worker at a group home, but the story mostly follows two of the residents, Tom and Tom, or as they are often referred to in the story, Tom A and Tom B. Tom A and Tom B are in a romantic relationship with each other, and the narrator tells the story of beginning her job at the group home and being introduced to them in the start, and following all the way to the end of the story as Tom A and Tom B are married and go on their honeymoon. Along the way, there are other important characters such as the narrator’s ex-boyfriend and other minor characters, but for this analysis the most important characters are Tom A, Tom B, the narrator, and the other workers at the group home.

While it may seem like the story is far from infantilization due to some parts of the story, there are definitely plenty of examples of Tom A, Tom B, and other residents being treated so much like children. To begin, when Raquel (another worker at the group home) saw Tom and Tom sitting next to each other in the living room the morning after the narrators first shift, she said to the narrator that “’If you let them do that, they don’t know when to stop. They’ll get so into each other they’ll not know when to quit” (Banner 58-59). Raquel is letting the narrator know that there is an ongoing and perhaps unwritten rule to keep Tom A and Tom B away from each other if possible. This is to keep them ‘under control’. The manager, Kate Anderson-Malloy, even decides to relocate Tom A to prevent the two from seeing each other so much (Banner 63). Despite all of this, Tom A and Tom B do eventually get married. However, their entire wedding, beginning with the actual decision to have the ceremony at all and also including things like when it is to take place, where the ceremony occurs, who is invited to the ceremony, what the two grooms would wear, and the location they go to spend their wedding night is decided and planned for them directly by the staff at the group home. While the narrator does say that she had a discussion with Tom B about the wedding before it was actually planned, it never would have been able to happen without the support of the group home staff. Despite all of this, it can still most definitely be seen as a vast improvement over something like Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in terms of the representation of the characters with disabilities. Banner provides a look into the intersectionality between disability and sexuality and makes way for possible discussions about the cross-over between disability and other categories like race and gender identity.

No matter how minor, infantilization of disabled characters has occurred in the past and still occurs in literature as evidenced by the two works previously discussed. This has many potentially problematic implications for the real world. Beginning with the fact that the representations of disabled individuals in literature could affect how a reader might interact with someone in real life. While the work may or may not be fiction, the impact on the reader is most definitely real. Perpetuating these negative and untrue stereotypes is dangerous. According to Stevenson et al., “Adults with disabilities in general, and those with developmental disabilities in particular, have long been treated as childlike entities, deserving fewer rights and incurring greater condescension than adults without disabilities” (Stevenson et al.) The connection between stereotypical representation in the media and real life treatment is very real, and “[t]he stereotype of the “eternal child” has burned a disturbing path through history and continues to wreak havoc in arenas ranging from employment discrimination to forced sterilizations” (Stevenson et al.). As Stevenson mentioned, the many different stereotypes, specifically that of the “eternal child” affect the real life treatment of individuals with disabilities, and the infantilization of disabled characters in literature (both past and present) continues to perpetuate these extremely dangerous ideas, regardless of the intent.

It is easy to see the many instances of the infantilization of characters with disabilities in literature from the past and the present. This infantilization represents itself two ways. The first is through the interactions that the other, mostly non-disabled, characters have with the character or characters with disabilities. The second is through the descriptions by the author of the disabled character. Descriptions of their appearance, actions, thoughts, etc. can perpetuate the ideas of infantilization. Two specific pieces of literature which exemplify these concepts are John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and Keith Banners short story The Wedding of Tom to Tom from his collection The Smallest People Alive. There are a lot of potentially very dangerous implications that can arise from the perpetuation of these stereotypes that can be translated into the real world, such as “employment discrimination [and] forced sterilizations” (Stevenson et al.). Because of this, authors should consider reevaluating the descriptions of and actions of their disabled characters so as to make sure they are represented truthfully.

Word Count: 1758 Excluding Header, Title, and Works Cited

Works Cited

Banner, Keith. The Smallest People Alive. Carnegie Mellon University Press, 2004.

Chivers, Sally. “Disability Studies and the Vancouver Opera’s Of Mice and Men.” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, 2003, pp. 95-108.

Clare Lawrence. “Is Lennie a Monster? A Reconsideration of Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in a 21st Century Inclusive Classroom Context.” Palgrave Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1–8.

“Infantilize.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infantilize. Accessed 22 Apr. 2020.

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men. Penguin Books, 2017.

Stevenson, Jennifer L, et al. “Infantilizing Autism.” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, 2011,