Saturday, September 19, 2015

Hello everybody, this is Max Milavetz writing as your blog leader this week. The main concept I wish to focus on in the discussion is autonomy/agency in the enlightenment.
The Turner chapter presents a couple of views on this subject. First, the context in which this chapter occurs is important to consider. In the enlightenment period, the notions of individual autonomy, democracy, the scientific method, and many more philosophical views presented a new way of viewing society. As the old political systems fell under heavy critique, new beliefs about government, oneself, and the universe arose.
When applying the enlightenment values to the readings this week, one may view the situation of disabled people in the enlightenment as one in which the individual has greater agency. This can be seen when Turner talks about the “merry cripple.” Turner writes “the ‘happy’ or ‘merry’ ‘cripple’, contented with his or her lot and meeting life’s vicissitudes with a cheerful smile, was a stock figure in early modern popular culture” (69). By turning their own disablement into a comedic opportunity, disabled people exercised greater agency due to the equal “sparring” between the two people.
By joking about their disability, many disabled people “level the playing field” and earn the respect and equality of their non-disabled companions. Turner concurs that “humor was thus seen as a key means for disabled people to overcome the supposed horrors of affliction, to (re)integrate themselves into non-disabled society” (70).
In addition to “the merry cripple,” using disability as a source of national pride also helps gain agency. As seen on page 74 of the Turner chapter, a man describes his dismemberment at the hands of the French. At the end of his story, the soldier had shifted the focus from his disability to his national service. Thus, the ex-soldier’s pride in his disability and national service demands respect from the passerby.
Likewise, the same idea applies to the William Hay essay. Hay views his disability as an opportunity to learn: “The more a man is unactive in his person, the more his mind will be at work… by these he may acquire wisdom, and by wisdom fame” (69).  In this case, William Hay exercises autonomy by choosing to disregard his physical disability. He does no physical work, yet his academic life benefits everyone (he is a member of the parliament). Hay also demonstrates the capability for disabled advancement in the Enlightenment. As an upperclass member of society, Hay’s story is an example of a disabled person commanding respect.
Some questions for the week:
-       Does the context of the Enlightenment benefit, do nothing for, or hurt the autonomy of disabled people?
-       How can a disabled person exercise agency in a society that publicly mocks them? How can they earn respect? Do they need to earn respect?
-       Are jest books a reliable insight into the social trends of the time?
-       How might the opinion of those mentioned in the Turner chapter differ from that of William Hay?
-       How does the identity development of a disabled person in the Enlightenment differ from a disabled person in modern times?
220px-William_Hay_1794.jpgWilliam-Selvo-Designs-Gear-Patrol.jpg

Pictured: A portrait of William Hay, and a prosthetic arm.

12 comments:

  1. Max asks an interesting question regarding the differences in experience and opinion between William Hay and the average disabled person described in the Turner chapter. While of course Hay and many disabled people shared similar medical conditions and experienced similar response from the public, I think that there are many differences between the two that must be considered in order to determine the practicality of Hay’s suggestions.

    Simply in terms of economic status and genealogy, Hay, born into an aristocratic family, “originally trained as a lawyer.. married the daughter of a cousin of the duke of Newcastle, and entered parliament as MP for Seaford in 1734” (Turner 117). In contrast, the majority of disabled people Turner describes in the chapter act in the capacity of beggars. Additionally, of the jest books Turner cites, much of the material provided made some reference to disabled persons’ condition as destitute and lacking of money, repeatedly describing characters as a “dumb beggar” or “armless beggar” or “poor cripple” (65). Even in narratives describing those rendered disabled by action in the military, the universal condition is destitution as a result of ineligibility for state support or abandonment by family members (Turner 74-77). Hay’s position of sufficiency and employment seems an exceptional one.

    Later in his work, William Hay provides his own perspective on the role disabled people should assume, explaining, “He cannot be a soldier…a sailor…a chairman or porter…the improvement of the mind is his proper province: and his business only such as depends on his ingenuity” (28). Hay recounts that his own education has facilitated his rise to the company of his superiors and the achievement of respect from others, acting as “the barrier between the mob and the civilized part of mankind” (10). Here, we see the conflict of two contrary identifications. As a member of the elite, he exists in a position of assumed superiority, yet as a disabled person, a position of subordinacy is dictated for him.

    This duality which Hay embodies constitutes the main difference between himself and the majority of other disabled people. Much of Hay’s argument on the disabled person’s role revolves around privileges that are not available to the greater population regardless of disabled or nondisabled status. His exhortations for education require a self sufficiency and wealth that are out of reach of most disabled people likely because of their disability itself. Thus, while Hay does provide an inspiring viewpoint on the role and utility that disabled people may fulfill in society, the practicality of his assertions are lessened by his own exclusive, upper class status.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When discussing the difference between Turner’s chapter and Hay’s essay, the importance of perspective cannot be overlooked. Told from the viewpoint of a person with a physical deformity, Hay personalizes his essay about living a life within social confinement and stereotypes. On the other hand, Turner writes objectively about those certain stereotypes.

    Beginning his argument, Turner emphasizes how “both popular and genteel culture disability was ripe for exploitation,” more specifically being the root of cultural jokes during the 18th century (61). Like Stella Young, disabled people were once again objectified for the entertainment or social acceptance of the non-disabled. However, this time, objectification came in a different form, not glorification as Young experienced it.

    As Turner argues, the objectification came in forms of demeaning jokes.

    Turner first argues that popular culture at the time believed that disabled people “were resentful of their condition, and constantly searching for opportunities to revenge themselves on the physically whole.” This belief created the notion that ‘crippled’ were dangerous and willing to harm those who had what they lacked because they were full of resentment.

    Turner continues by describing how many enlightenment thinkers used this stereotype to justify ostracizing people with deformities on the basis that they are social outcasts. By isolating them as the ‘others,’ society could easily exploit using jokes as a comical tool of oppression.

    Turner then highlights a few ways in which people with physical deformities were degraded– associating them with animals, questioning reasoning behind marrying a impaired person, and emasculating a man in marriage.

    Secondly, as Max pointed out, disabled people were forced to objectify oneself into a joke in order “to reintegrate themselves into non-disabled company” (70). The only way ‘deformed persons ’ could fit in with society would be to take part in the demeaning action of laughing at his/her ‘freakish’ nature.

    Lastly, in response to the humiliation associated with physical disabilities, Turner offers the idea that all of these negative portrayals of disabled people paved the way for sympathetic depicts of them. He suggests that the impairment became seen as a pitiable manner, which enabled the pairing of tragedy and suffering to disability.

    Although Hay’s essay supports many of the claims presented by Turner, he offers a different perspective on this idea that all disabled persons suffering. Tuner brilliantly emphasizes the way in which society views and categorizes ‘deformities,’ yet ignores the viewpoint of somebody actually living in those social confinements.

    Hay is that perspective. Although Hay economic and aristocratic background differ from the beggars Turner talks about, both suffer through the same expectations and stereotypes associated with physical deformities. Simple because Hay has wealth does not mean he remains jealous and resentful towards the ‘physically whole.’ This is where Turner and Hay disagree: Turner views ‘deformity’ as a hindrance causing undeniable suffering while Hay argues that he does not experience continual suffering resulting in his belief that a disability is not enough of to take all the happiness out of life (20).

    However, Hay’s most important argument rests in his point that physical disabilities have benefits and is not simply a thing to be looked down upon, which Turner suggests it has started to represent. While society deemed disability as lesser and inferior, Hay argued that all they are deprived of is beauty and strength (59), which he suggests can actually be a benefit. Although he cannot gain glory from the sword, he is free of physical expectations, which actually enables him to spend more time gaining mental glory.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regards to Max's question about the differences between Hay's and Turner's opinions, Hay's tone is more outwardly bitter and Turner's hides his irritation in regards to society's take on disability behind a mask of an accepting tone.

    Hay states that they "taught [him] to be ashamed of [his] person, instead of arming [him] with true fortitude to despise any ridicule or contempt of it" (7). Here Hay openly blames society and uses strong words such as arming, ashamed, despise, and fortitude, to make his opinion strongly noted and so as not to hide behind niceties in the way that Turner does.

    Turner mentions that the stock character in society was a "'happy' or 'merry' 'cripple'" with a "cheerful smile" and the cheerfulness Turner describes said character with masks the fact that underneath it all, this person is a stock character which would disappear in day to day life which is somewhat sad (69). Furthermore, Turner also later reveals the underlying displeasure with a disabled person's role in society as he says that "Being 'merry' in this way was also advocated as a means of allaying the fears of the more sensitive members of society such as women and children when presented with a 'deformed' or disabled person so those 'who were at first frightened at him, will afterwards be as much pleased with him'" (70). The words deformed, fears, and frightened, all have negative connotations which give this excerpt describing the ways that the merriness of a disabled person helps to alleviate the fears of society, a sarcastic tone because the merriness almost feels forced and fake when it is used merely as a tool. Thus we see Turner's underlying bitter tone.

    Although Turner and Hay both highlight the problems with 17th and 18th century attitude towards disabled people, Hay does it more outwardly in comparison to Turner who still addresses the attitude with a bitterness it is more hidden under an official tone but also one that accepts the thinking of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Max questioned about the differences in identity of a disabled person during the Enlightenment versus a disabled person in modern times. I will be commenting on a few subtle differences in the identity of a disabled person today versus a disabled person in the Enlightenment. Turner subtly highlights a few of these startling comparisons.

    Turner discusses the idea of disability as comedy during the Enlightenment, writing throughout chapter 3 different manipulations of comedy. Turner addresses two main perspectives; the first that “jokes countered the rudeness of those who seek to mock or patronize the ‘afflicted’, and in doing so harnessed the subversive qualities of laughter” (72) and the second that “they also presented the view that the stigma of impairment–and by implication the other problems that it carried–could be made to disappear a witty retort” (72). Both of these views held the common belief that laughter could be used to overcome disability ridicule via disability ridicule. However, these two perspectives are far more complex than a simpler one Turner offers: Disability was exploited as entertainment because it made “whole bodied people” feel superior and decreased their fears of disability. All three of these exploitative phenomenons are seen in modern times, especially in television and other forms of media (a modern Jest). Reality TV especially exploits disabled people as entertainment (for example: “Little People, Big World”) however the result can be a combination of or one of Turner’s three explained perspectives.

    Turner also alludes to the idea of acceptance of disability during the Enlightenment. However, acceptance was not geared towards able-bodied people accepting disabled people, but rather disabled people accepting themselves as disabled. Turner writes, “Disability was thus presented largely as a problem of personal overcoming, where the burden of ‘acceptance’ rested firmly on the shoulders of the ‘afflicted’” (72). This idea of disability is starkly different than a common modern idea, which highlights a person’s individual identification of themselves as disabled or not. Although this idea is not fully accepted, it is widely appreciated in modern times. These two ideas differ drastically because the first idea was based on the socially constructed definition of disability and the second was based on the individual's definition of disability.

    There is a striking correlation between the identity of a disabled person during the Enlightenment versus modern times. Therefore, it is probable that many of the Enlightenment ideas about disability were the seeds for modern perceptions of it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Max asks if the jest books represent the thinking present during the enlightenment and I respond by saying some of the implications in the jest book show how people thought of disability during the Enlightenment. The setup for characters in this jest book and any respect shown is representative of the Enlightenment thinking of disabled people as requiring sympathy. The characters in these jest books were often soldiers who had become disabled in war and yet somehow still stays happy. The result of this character not being born with a disability are two things one, he is able to compare disabled to being abled bodied; and two, he has earned his disability in an "honorable" way as perceived by society. This however, lowers those who were born disabled because they are seen as receiving their disability in a less accepted way by society. The accolades given for just being able to be happy implies that being disabled is such a negative experience that you are unable to achieve a simple human emotion. However, there required drink to reach this certain merriment also implies that under the jest the disabled person might be unable to handle their disability without substance. This portrayal of the drunk and disabled makes the disabled seem weaker in the eye of the public and also requires more sympathy because their inability to handle their own disability the public believes caused their drunkenness. Another reflection in Enlightenment thought is that they need to be merry and harmless and seen as entertainment so that they won't receive any violent attacks upon them just for their disability.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After the class this morning, I really liked the discussion on who gets to define disability during the Enlightenment and how intersectionality shaped disability at this time.
    I thought Sophie’s point in particular was interesting: does agency really exist if those who define disability (in this case, only in physical terms) and dictate how it should be lived (embracing the butt of the joke) are those with power and (with the exception of William Hay) able bodied? I thought it was a great political survival strategy to become “merry” or retort back to a heckler with more ridicule (“I am but little, for I had but one Father, it may be you had more” [Turner 72]). This was a creative tactic to negotiate an ignorant ablest structure that enabled people with disability to get by. However, that type of survival leaves in place most of the abuses of the society (things like violent stereotyping portrayed in the media, ridicule of disability in popular jest books, and the class distinctions tied to disability). This was the biggest flaw with the jest books; if they are a good indicator of the social trends at the time, the problem is the domination of disability discourse by the much more able bodied rich elite.
    The second problem (that I’ve been hinting at) with the definition of disability at the time is that the rich made it at the time. In popular culture, it was never simply the “disabled” but the “disabled poor” (73). This is important because the problems faced by the poor were on the street or in the working-person’s average day; this meant that the debate over disability happened in the mansions of the elites and the vast majority of those with disability had their social definitions decided for them. This is not to say William Hay’s Deformity: An Essay was bad. Despite his social position (Patrick’s post details this very well), his essay was “a landmark publication” that is revered “by modern Disability Studies Scholars” (117). That being said, intersectionality is still an important component of disabilities studies and defining disability.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The class discussion yesterday focused on the question of agency with regards to humor, and how humor provided a means for the disabled to overcome a certain set of barriers that existed as obstacles to integration in society. However, I have to disagree with the notion that jokes provided sufficient agency for disabled people to be truly integrated into society.

    To answer Max's question about the reliability of jest books, I think the answer is not ambiguous at all when Turner says, "Jest books themselves frequently retailed material from earlier publications, making them unreliable indicators of social attitudes at any given moment...the picture that emerges is one which emphasises (sic) continuity rather than change" (64). Even if the Enlightenment focused more on rationality and compassion, jest books were extensions of earlier times and are thus unreliable at describing social attitudes at any given time.

    In my opinion, the underlying question that no one has really addressed with regards to agency at the time is the extent to which the medical model of disability can truly create agency. I think the medical model of disability can never truly achieve integration within society because disabled bodies are always marked visibly as "other" just as a result of their physical appearance. Turner outlines multiple instances in which humor accords with a focus on the body, such as when we writes, "the notion that anybody of sound body would choose a 'deformed' or impaired person as a partner was treated with astonishment by authors of comic literature" (67). The "butt" of the jokes Turner outlines are a result of physical deformities rather than social stigma.

    Turner also writes, "Humour was thus seen as a key means for disabled people to overcome the supposed horrors of affliction, to (re)integrate themselves into non-disabled company" (70). Here is a clear example of the notion that disabled individuals had to activate their own personal agency to overcome barriers to integration. The medical model of disability also emphasizes the individual in overcoming physical barriers to achieve integration.

    I recognize that Turner outlines how humor was useful for some of those people in "holding up the attitudes of the non-disabled to scrutiny" (71). However, this seems to me to be a smaller sort of "survival strategy" rather than a true means of integration. I disagree with the notion that disabled people could ever be truly accepted into a community as a result of being the "butt of the jokes" for two reasons.

    First, it never questions the social aspect to disability, which also answers Max's question about the differences between Enlightenment attitudes towards disability and contemporary ones. Contemporary society focuses more on the collectivity of society rather than individual tales of "overcoming."

    Second, the notion of the merry cripple reifies the social hierarchies that exist between disabled and non-disabled, because those who got to laugh at the jokes were the able-bodied, and the disabled were engaging in those jokes to "appease" that group of people. Turner explains, "'Sentimental' representations of disability required the production of 'innocent' disabled characters deemed worthy of compassion" (73). Humor was a tool to achieve compassion, but it required the production of a "good cripple" who is innocent and in need of protection and affirmation by the able-bodied population.Thus, while humor may have prevented more violent forms of stigmatization, it was never truly able to create the agency necessary to challenge the underlying structures that produce ableism in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I did some more research and tried to remember the major points of the enlightenment thinkers and how that would connect with the concept of disability. We did talk about the shift of how people viewed the disabled. They went from, everyone that has a disability is cursed by god to, there are some people with disabilities who are acceptable in society. These people that are accepted into society may only do so under two conditions, they must mock themselves and their life experience, and they must be innocent.
    The enlightenment is generally perceived as a time that there was an intellectual culture that fostered many impressive ideas. It fostered science, greater literacy, and scholars like Kant and Descartes. Hobbes and Locke, the two major philosophers, theorized on social contracts and the state of nature. I think if we critically consider their ideas of personhood it is obvious that even their basic ideas of what it means to be a person who could participate in the social contract excluded the disabled. The irony is that the basic ideas of both, however, Locke's theories especially should include the disabled, but it is created so they can be stigmatized. An article I came across in my research by Stacy Clifford called "The capacity contract: Locke, disability, and the political exclusion of “Idiots”" they argue that the way Locke rejects this group of people in his theory seriously undermines Locke's pursuit of equality.
    In essence, the softening view of the disabled is made convenient and spurred on by emerging modes of thought that create justifications for why the disabled aren't within a definition of citizenship. So I would argue that even though there were now "good cripples" and "bad cripples" which by definition must have been an advancement because some disabled people had the capacity to be good when before there were normatively bad The Enlightenment was not really any better for the disabled.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Continuing with Tuesday’s discussion of agency during the Enlightenment, I would argue that joke books as discussed in Turner present a warped view of disabled agency. As Jaden cited, the books were “unreliable indicators of social attitudes at any given moment...the picture that emerges is one which emphasizes continuity rather than change” (64). In part because the joke books were representative of past cultures and not characteristic of the time ,but as well because these jokes fail to account for the point of view of disabled populations, these books provide an inaccurate view of disabled agency in the Enlightenment.
    Particularly problematic with these joke books is that the depiction only comes the joke writers and does not represent disabled agency from a first hand account. As societies during the Enlightenment “viewed disability as a source of fascination, entertainment, and fear” (Turner 60), we only receive a very prejudiced view of disabled populations. These joke books were then used to replicate the common societal conceptions of disability in part to replicate cultural ideas, but also to make a profit, as someone (I believe it was Jack) pointed out in our discussion. In some ways these joke books may serve as an apt representation of societal conceptions of disability as they would need to represent the societies values to be profitable, but as the books were not unique to the period, they appear to not fully symbolize Enlightenment values.
    Further, these joke books neglect to account for real depictions of disabled populations and present only stereotypical populations. In specific regards to the “merry cripple” we see a conception of disabled people as fitting cleanly into a cultural stereotype instead of real accounts of disabled populations. This is further shown when many jokes that Turner cites in his article reflect disabled people as solely the butt of the joke, “stigmatizing the ‘other,’” and “taking the form of ‘subliminated aggression’” (63). These jokes provide an inaccurate account of disabled populations as they only account for able-bodied views of disabled people and do not provide real historical context.
    Lastly, I would like to address a part of the article that our discussion unfortunately did not address, the role of disabled women. Turner argues that joke books and other forms of satire made it so “disability assisted in married women’s subordination”; however, disability also “could endanger men’s patriarchal authority” (68). Disabled women could be easily controlled due to physical dependence, but at the same time men with disability would be considered weaker in the society because they would not be able to control their wives. These intersectional ideas eventually manifest themselves “by making loss of virginity in a woman analogous to physical impairment in men” (68). Peculiarly, the society that satirizes and makes fun of disabled populations also makes these disabilities synonymous with sinful sex acts performed by women. Why then does the society not also satirize women who have lost their virginities? The most predictable answer most likely involves religious values, but can open up more room for research and discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. After Tuesday's discussion, I became especially intrigued with the line of discussion that revolved around the question of whether there was an "enlightenment" regarding views of disability. I think that after the readings, many of us began to question how the descriptions that Turner provides fit into the narrative of the Enlightenment. I think that many of us were being to pessimistic and generalizing about this question. I think that this view that disability did not undergo a period of enlightenment simply because there was no dramatic change in society's views regarding disability is flawed and too reductive.

    Turner discusses this idea toward the end of his chapter when he claims that, "rather than seeing the period as one of wholesale transformation, the material examined in this chapter points to more subtle variations in the mode of expression in which disability was presented, set against the backdrop of more enduring systems of representation" (80). I think this quote interacts very well with Maddie's post above. Turner's argument is not that there was a total transition during the Enlightenment that elevated disabled people to the status of the "normal." Rather, I think that Turner is trying to argue that the Enlightenment demonstrates a shift in the ideas regarding disabled people; a shift that allowed for a more nuanced perspective of disability.

    An example of this shift can be seen in the change in people's views towards the reproductive capacity of disabled people. While describing a scene from a jest book that discussed the question of whether a disabled man was the father of a child, Turner notes that "anxieties about reproduction were never too far from eighteenth-century comic portrayals of the impaired" (67). Many people felt hesitant about whether or not disabled people should, could, or even wanted to reproduce. The overwhelming majority of people felt hesitant when approaching the subject of the reproductive desires of disabled people because disabled people were viewed as less than, which implied that they were unable to reproduce in a "productive" fashion. However, Turner notes a different perspective that emerges in the Enlightenment. As Turner discusses the story of Manupedirus and Stumpanympha and its discussion of sex and reproduction, he concludes that "the text's suggestion that disabled people has sexual desires and willingness to address positively the issue of reproduction were unusual and offered a challenge to conventional medical wisdom" (79). The act of discussing the reproductive potential and desires of the two characters was by itself a demonstration of a transformational moment in history. Rather than accept the prevailing medical view that disabled people could not and should not reproduce, this story challenged the view by suggesting that disabled people not only wanted to reproduce but should do so.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think this change in perspective fits rather neatly into the narrative of the Enlightenment. Maddie is correct in saying that the Enlightenment was a period of a changing scientific rational and a questioning of pre-existing doctrines and perspectives. Disability views within the Enlightenment period clearly reflect these characteristics of the Enlightenment, as they demonstrate an analysis of the biological processes of disabled people. Furthermore, by suggesting that disabled people should and could reproduce provides a certain level of "normalcy" to disabled people, thus challenging conventional beliefs.

    As the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire himself once said: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Rather than reject the idea that an enlightening occurred for disability because it was not a complete and total overhaul of the system, we must accept that it was a good moment for disability. As I have explained above, there are moments within this time period that suggest that people were more aware of disabled peoples' desires and needs. Rather than reject these good moments and focus solely on the prevailing, discriminatory representations of disability, we must analyze the Enlightenment as a moment of awakening that demonstrated a more nuanced approach the idea of disability. This moment which allowed for people to become, overall, more receptive of disabled people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Turner sets out to counter universal explanations of how disabled people experienced society during the Enlightenment. Though one could easily dismiss the depiction of disabled people in joke books and in society as a whole as creating "objects of pity" (79), the reality of the portrayal of disabled people reflects the complexity of the time. For example, even when disability suggested the need to treat certain individuals with more humanity, "sympathetic portrayals of disability required more negative stereotypes of foolish or violent disabled characters in order to cast certain disabled types as being more worthy of compassion" (80). Even in moments of sympathy and connection with disability, people still managed to create hierarchies and generate negative images by portraying certain disabled people as dangerous.
    Though certain joke books could generate positive images of disability, those images found traction by making disability on display and "visibly conspicuous while being politically and socially erased" (81). Disability could thus become exotic and an object to commodify by abled bodied individuals who could have a laugh. Then these abled bodied people could sympathize with disabled people and take pleasure in the pity evoked in comic portrayals" (64). The figures portrayed in these jokes acted as stock figures, proving that even happy portrayals of impairment became used as generic material for entertainment and for the benefit of abled bodied people. Disabled soldiers represented a shift towards the image of heroism, yet even that portrayal denied military men of their "manliness" (76).
    Hay represents the quest for finding agency in a society that takes pleasure in objectifying portrayal of others and creating "outsiders." His focus on disability as "confining rather than defining" (116) marks a departure from trapping disabled people into a narrative of deficiency and bad luck. However, as many have mentioned, Hay's privileged upbringing makes it more difficult for him to find "solidarity with the wider mass of people with disabilities" (120). His more radical views make sense given that in his upbringing, he found himself as the object of the joke less often than some of the disabled people on the streets. His text also ignores the position of women, showing that though the text marked an important transition away from disability as a curse, it left out many of the people who found themselves most impacted by social stigma of disability like beggars and women.

    ReplyDelete