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,
