I've now finished reading and commenting on all of your article/chapter review papers. You're now free to swing by and pick them up at your convenience.
However, I've not yet written a grade on the papers themselves or posted it on Veracross. Evil, right?
I've made this choice quite purposefully, however, and am offering a delightful incentive for a thoughtful reading and response to the comments:
Once you've read the comments on the paper and in the rubric, please email me your guess as to what grade you earned and some thoughts as to why. If you guess within +/- 2 points of your actualgrade, I'll give you a 2 point extra credit bonus!
I need all responses and guesses complete and emailed to me by Friday afternoon at 4:30 pm. After this time, I'll post all the grades, including any extra credit bonuses, on Veracross.
This week, the readings highlight the importance of intersectionality while they grapple with ideas of citizenship. Last week, we focused more on culture than the social and medical model binary. The readings this week incorporate culture into the social model mindset.
I would like to start with the Allison Carey article. She is quick to point out that hierarchies are formed around disability, creating dependency and “second-class citizenship” (38). Carey claims that the interaction of citizenship and ability is focused on rights and who gets what. She points out three concepts that are central to the theorization of citizenship in disability studies: practice, relationality, and embodiment” (38). Practice is “a…set of practices, including, constructing, and claiming rights” (38). Carey points out the ADA as an example; it was meant to allow people with disabilities to exercise their rights in the real world. Relationality is an examination of how citizens interact with one another to form social context. Embodiment examines how disability exists beyond how society constructs it while still not denying that society and citizenship create ablest structures such as the notion of the “normal body” (39). In total, Carey gives a decent overview on how disability studies interact with citizenship and broader structures of inclusion and social markings.
John Carson’s essay highlights the difference in reception of intelligence tests between the French and the Americans. While both sides were concerned with having egalitarian government, they made opposite conclusions due to a number of factors Carson highlights. Among these are control over education and societal perceptions in France and the US Army testing and creation of a modified Binet-Simon scale that added the IQ in the US.
Carson’s article raises questions about construction of intelligence tests. He argues that the need to scientifically define merit and equality in 1900s America lead to the creation of standardized testing. The goal was “that each person be afforded educational opportunities commensurate with their abilities” (183). While Carson’s article may not be fully directed towards disability studies, the problem of trying to create equality based off of some definition of ability and intelligence is clearly problematic. He argues that these tests were particularly troubling because they used a supposedly “objective and neutral criteria” that created a “social technology” (202). These tests were often tied to achieving a hierarchy in which the economy and society could run with established positions based off of a type of merit.
Douglas Baynton’s article focuses on intersectionality as well as the underlying ableism in other forms of discrimination. Baynton highlights three main debates over citizenship: “Women’s suffrage, African American Freedom and civil rights, and the restriction of immigration” (33). Baynton points out a similarity between African American and Women’s rights movements in construction of ability. In justifications for both hierarchies, two basic arguments were made. First, the group was disabled and thus not fit to gain more power or legitimacy. Second, a change in the status quo to give the group more rights would lead to increased disability.
However, perhaps the most troubling theme found in Baynton’s essay is the fact that ablest accusations and assumptions were not challenged but evaded. In the case of women’s suffragists, Baynton notes that they would argue that “one, women were not disabled… two, women were being erroneously and slanderously classed with disabled people… legitimately denied suffrage; and three, women were not naturally or inherently disabled but made disabled” (43). The African American movements paralleled this problematic evasion. Perhaps most shocking is Fredrick Douglas’s basing of rights upon perceived ability (44). Thus, African American and Feminist movements for equality ran the possibility of cementing and further legitimizing ablest notions that disability was “monstrous” or “abnormal.”
Baynton also focuses on immigration and ethnicity. He notes that societal fears and eugenics aided a movement to classify all immigrants and deny access to those deemed “undesirable.” Anybody of appearance of non-Nordic lineage ran the risk of being deemed impaired and unwanted. Baynton points out that these notions were often connected to concerns of the rich: concerns over ability were often justified over fear that those people would become “public charge” and that they presented “bad economic risks” (49). The questions over reproduction not only intersect class theory but also queer theory. Baynton argues that historians have done a poor job interrogating the use of ablest rhetoric to exclude immigrants, which has resulted in “disability [being] present but rendered invisible or insignificant” (50).
Baynton and, to some extent, Carson, both produce an incredibly compelling argument for intersectionality. The importance of intersectionality has been a strong theme in this class, and Baynton only furthers this importance. Without intersectionality, movements to combat problems like sexism and racism will be grounded in the need to simply distance from accusations of disability that makes “discrimination against people with disabilities so persistent and the struggle for disability rights so difficult” (51).
Other interesting Things:
Here is a video of Baynton giving a talk. It’s a bit long but has some very interesting parts:
This chart displays the markings immigrants could receive at Ellis Island. Note that mental health issues are not marked with an M but with a big X.
Class interactions occur in the articles in many different ways: commercials, labor force creation and distinction, class criticism, etc. Overall, how does the intersection of class and disability most substantially interact with American citizenship?
Baynton argues that scholars should be concerned with ablest notions in other identity struggles. In the Carson article, people like Bagley, Lippman, and Dewey criticized the new education system. While they may not be identity activists, are their any ways in which their criticisms harbor ablest notions?
Were there any downsides to the French conception of a republic in the lens of disability history?
Baynton focuses on ablism in immigration policy in the last third of his article while Carson claims that intelligence tests were never applied to determine immigration status (Carson 201). To what extent did policies governing ability influence immigration into the United States?
In what ways does a sole focus on intersectionality and/or the social model detract from analysis of policies regarding American citizenship during the early 1900s?
In light of our in-class conversation today and the issue of cochlear implants, I thought it might be interesting to post a few videos about both what cochlear implants sound like for those who use them, as well as what some people's experience has been like with them.
Finally, here's an excerpt from the film, The Sound and Fury, addressing one family's struggles over whether to get cochlear implants for their children and some of the controversy surrounding these pieces of assistive technology.
This week’s readings present a shift from our reading of disability as a social and medical model and instead grapple with cultural ideas of disability. Baynton provides the definition for deafness as “those who cannot understand speech through hearing alone” and Deafness as a cultural practice, which is not entirely dependent on “the audiological condition” (48). For this week’s discussion we will need to make a clear distinction between the two different terms as well as discuss the different implications of the terms.
The Edwards and Burch articles both to try to answer the question of how Deaf culture developed, focusing on educational institutions. Edwards argues that the development of educational settings for deaf children lead to the development of the Deaf culture for a few reasons. First, through sign language “the students would learn a common language”(Edwards 60). This language proved central to a new identity especially due to the fact that many children believed “that they were the only deaf person on earth” (53). This new language provided an effective method of communication for deaf populations instead of the almost individualized gesture systems used in towns where there were very few deaf people. Thus sign language both provided a standardized communication system, but also led to the development of “a sense of shared identity and distinct cultures” (Baynton 50).
Edwards and Burch also discuss the development of oralist and sign language focused curriculum. Edwards argues that in America, the sign language approach was superior in part because it helped to unify Deaf communities, but also because it was an effective gateway to learning English as “sign language, as the students described it, became the vehicle for learning English” (74). This system proved far more effective, considering how the twentieth century American oralist approach resulted in “the average deaf adult read[ing] on average at a fourth-grade level” (75). By learning both sign language as well as English, deaf students learned to read and write in English as well as communicate proficiently in both English and sign language.
Burch alternatively argues that the sign language approach, while successful in Europe and America, was not successful in Russia due to cultural and political reasons. In order for social integration into the larger society, “Deaf Russians not unreasonably looked to oralism as a solution to their tangible handicap” (Burch 396). In comparison to the US where most would argue that “deafness could not be corrected” but, “ignorance could” (Edwards 72), the oralist approach was seen as less effective for integrating deaf students into the larger society. These differing cultural conceptions of disability led to the development of different educational systems and later differences in Deaf culture. Burch also indicates that the dual adoption of oralism in public settings and sign language in private settings fostered a different image of Deaf culture in Russia that did not display its cultural values in public.
Lastly, I would like to address a more modern issue discussed in the Baynton article. Baynton argues that the development of new technologies like cochlear implants act “as ‘cultural genocide’” and can be classified as “’ethically offensive’” (51). Although the World Federation of the Deaf, one of the largest NGO’s promoting Human Rights of Deaf People in conjunction with the UN, argues “for a community defined by the use of sign language rather than deafness” (51), these medical treatments appear very problematic and could signal the end of a culture by eliminating the need for sign language.
Questions to Consider:
How does a cultural reading of disability and Deafness differ from other readings of disability history?
Is deafness a disability? Can it be classified as a disability in other cultures or countries?
What defines a culture? Can other disabilities classify themselves as a culture? Should other disabilities be classified as cultures?
Do medical treatments for deafness qualify as “cultural genocides?” What are the benefits and drawbacks to these procedures intended to cure deafness?
How do educational norms (such as those of oralism) benefit or harm Deafness and Deaf culture?
How does an intersectional lens change our reading of Deaf history?
Other interesting things:
This is one of the logos for Gallaudet University. Named after the founder of the American School for the Deaf discussed in the Edwards article, it is the only higher level institution specifically designed to accommodate deaf students in all programs. The school experienced a large controversy when students began to protest in 1988 demanding for the next president of the school to be Deaf. After a week of protests, the president stepped down and was replaced by a Deaf president.
Below is a picture of the protests from the Deaf President Now march in 1988. Many scholars argue that this protest helped lead to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
This is a link to an interesting Youtube video regarding etiquette in Deaf culture. I like this video because it highlights some very different cultural standards as well as provides some useful tips for interacting with Deaf people. Note, look at the top comment on the video. I think it’s pretty ironic.
Sorry it took me a bit to put this post up. Looking forward to our discussion this Wednesday!
-David
As you continue to work on your article or chapter review essays for next Wednesday, I wanted to pass along the rubric that I'll be using to evaluate your essays and give you feedback.
I adapted the rubric from the description of this assignment that appears in the Disclosure Document. So, for those you who haven't had a chance to revisit those instructions, here they are again: Article or Chapter Critical Review – In consultation with Mr. Kogan, select an article or book chapter about any topic in disability history to critically review. Your essay, which should be 900-1200 words, should analyze the effectiveness of the article as a work of disability history. Work to address some of the following questions in your review:
What is the central argument of this reading?
How does it employ the methods of disability history?
How does it re-read a familiar past in a new light?
How effective/persuasive is the argument?
You need to select your reading for this assignment by Oct. 7 and the review is due on Oct. 21.
Based on those instructions, then, here is the rubric:
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this assignment. I'll look forward to seeing everyone in class next Wednesday!
The readings this week represent a slight shift from the focus of the two previous discussions, which were heavily centered around physical disability in history. This week the readings are focused around three major themes:
1. The rise and normalization of the asylum in Antebellum America as a means of managing mental disability.
2. Productivity and how a society with a focus on material production is bound to react very differently to people that don't produce anything and cannot manage their own property.
3. The philosophical implications of asylums and how that correlates to the wishes of the able to control and suppress deviance.
The Moran article is an apt place to begin in establishing why asylums became the dominant method of managing the disabled. The major factor in determining insanity in Antebellum America was the ability to sustain control of their property (219). If someone was incapable of managing their property then they could be declared insane using a writ de lunatico inquirendo. Moran uses evidence from these writs to describe the slow rise of the institution and how people, particularly men due to their ownership of property, were sent to asylums so the institutions could restore their ability to control their dependents and property (222). Throughout the 19th century slowly people begin to put more emphasis on the family and community's inability to "correctly" treat a disability (230). Deep conflicts about what the best way to treat insanity are divisive in Antebellum America, as shown by the Brown family (235). Often Americans decide that institutionalization is unnecessary and that managing the disabled on a communal level is sufficient. Moran finally argues that the emphasis in Antebellum America on agriculture and industry created the need for a highly organized manner in which the society could control and distance itself from "insanity" (238).
The Foucault article takes a critical stance on what Foucault regards as The Great Confinement. It is not only the mentally disabled that are put into "houses of correction" but anyone who does not contribute to society in a productive way (in this case productive meaning someone who produces materials that can be sold to create economic capital) which included the poor and criminals (43). Foucault says the age of confinement begins in the 17th century after the creation of the Hospital General in France, which was supposed to put an end to the illnesses that caused high levels of unemployment (46). Foucault goes even further to argue that confinement is an attempt of those in power to control and separate the non-working and working population (46). The intent is not only to control the people who are deviant in society but also to physically confine and separate them from the rest of the productive working population. The understanding of madness changed during The Great Confinement from one that was beyond the understanding of human experience to a condition that was a product of idleness (58).
Carlson establishes the importance the concept of institutionalism has to disability studies at large. Carlson argues that separating people with disabilities from other "normal" people is a phenomenon that goes on much longer than the physical asylums have existed(109). The Bethlehem hospital (pictured below) established in 1247 was one of the first hospitals in Europe that became an institution that dealt with the mentally ill.
Carlson also argues that there were many reasons for confinement into an institution and that it was not just mentally ill people who were institutionalized but also anyone who went into a special school to "correct" their disability. These institutions often sought to morally rehabilitate the inhabitants that lived there (110). The institutions create disability and lead to an overall stripping of the identity of people with disabilities. The motives behind institutionalizing people with disabilities are complex and often misunderstood or oversimplified by scholars engaged in the field of disability studies. Carlson finally argues that even though the deinstitutionalization movement happened in the 1970's that the underlying features of what they call "institutionalized ableism" are still firmly rooted in global culture (112).
Major Questions: What are your thoughts on the interactions between the Carlson article and the Foucault chapter? Do you think that the people of the 19th century accept and flock to the idea of Asylums as Carlson indicates or that as Moran indicates people are more hesitant to accept that practice? To what extent do you think the concept of property management and productivity spur the turn to asylums? Why was the response to mental disability in the 19th century so perceivably different from physical disability? What underlying cultural factors influence this? When did the age of confinement begin? Has it ended?
What are the interconnections between asylums and the medical model of disability?
I'm looking forward to reading all of your responses.
-Maddie
Note: I apologize that this was not up before the weekend. I hope that it was not inconvenient for all of you to have a substantially shorter amount of time in which to respond to this.
If you've not yet found a reading (article or book chapter) for your review essay, I hope this post will provide you with some valuable resources that will help you make a selection. For ease and simplicity, I think there are two main ways to go about locating a good reading:
Scouring professors' syllabi to see what others have taught and to then pick one of those readings.
Strategy #1:
We'll start with the Google Search engines. I imagine that you're all familiar with these resources from your work on the Sophomore Symposium. If you're searching for topics ("asylums," "deafness," "autism culture," etc.), then putting those into the search field and adding applicable modifiers (date range, names of historical periods, regional limitations, etc.) will hopefully yield some worthwhile results.
Google Scholar, however, has some neat features that might help you based if you want to build on some of the material we've already read this semester.
For instance, you might have found Dea Boster's article about slave resistance particular interesting and hoped to explore some other aspect of the intersection between disability, race, and slavery for your review assignment. Go ahead and enter Boster's name into Google Scholar and you'll get pertinent search results:
As you can see above, I've circled a link that will take you to all the other publications that have cited these original sources. This information can help you understand how influential particular scholarship is, but will also point you to scholarship that drew on the original article you found interesting. Boster's work, as you can see, doesn't have a ton of citations, in part because it's relatively recent scholarship.
For the sake of comparison, drawing on earlier scholarship from someone like Foucault will give you more options of other sources that cited the original book or article.
As you can see, in Foucault's case, there are many more options. He is, after all, a pretty big deal.
(and he had a spectacular hairstyle sensibility)
Strategy #2:
Scouring syllabi from professors who teach disability history courses is another great way to see how others structure these courses as well as find some potentially interesting readings.
Come and talk with me! We can discuss what you might be interested in and I might also have some suggestions for you. If you'd like to talk, however, let's do it soon as you need to make a selection (and post your choice in the comments of the previous blog post) by Wednesday, Oct. 7.
I hope these suggestions prove useful for you. If you encounter an article or book chapter that looks interesting, I might be able to hunt down a copy of that reading for you; please be in touch and let me know. Good luck!
I will follow this post with a more detailed one that addresses some of the ways you might go about finding potential articles or book chapters to serve as the focus for your review essays (which are due on Oct. 21).
Nevertheless, I wanted this write and publish up this post so we can have one central location for you to post your article selections. Once you've figured out what you're going to read and critique in your review essay, please include those details in the comments of this post.
As with bibliographies, make sure to include all the vital details re: author, title, publication, date, etc. Here's a quick guide if you're looking for a refresher.
And by the time you've dug around, selected, and article/chapter and posted it here, the text you select will feel as good as if you'd given it this Valentine!
