PhilosopherCrip

This term, I am taking a seminar that examines the key writing of German philosopher Martin Heidegger.  Like all of the German philosophy I have read so far, his style of writing is nearly incomprehensible.  Hopefully, I can boil one of his key ideas down into something that can help us understand the way disability was addressed during the most recent Presidential Debate, without being as unreadable as he is.

Heidegger’s idea that I think may be useful to us is “the They.”  The They is - in simplest terms - the unexamined set of boundaries that mark off the limits of what we can think and how we can act as social creatures.  Heidegger argues that, because we always exist in relation to other persons, the possibilities of our existence are constrained by those relationships.  If we all exist in relation to some community and never in true isolation (even if we are rejected by a particular community, our existence is still along side it and relating to it in various ways) then the different possibilities for how we live are limited by our relationship to this community.  Heidegger writes: “We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, see, and judge about literature and art as they see and judge; likewise we shrink back from the ‘great mass’ as they shrink back; we find ‘shocking’ what they find shocking.”

At first, it is tempting to understand this They as a type of conformity or group think.  Maybe Heidegger is arguing that there is something about being human that makes us want to conform to the broader social opinion?  This doesn’t quite seem to get the notion quite right though because the They is not the social community itself or the standards we conform to.  Rather, it is our human way of existing as the type of creature that thinks and acts in relation to a social environment.

McCain and Obama at the 3rd Presidential Debate

While watching the most recent presidential debate, I think I may have stumbled upon an example of how the They works to limit how we act and react in a social environment. A question came up about the qualifications of the vice-presidential candidates, and John McCain took the opportunity to mention his running mate’s supposed expert knowledge about and passion for the benefit of “special needs families” because she has a newborn son with Down syndrome - the adorable and semi-famous Trig that acted as prelude to my last blog post. Specifically McCain grumbled in his mavericky way: “by the way, she also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we’ve got to find out what’s causing it, and we’ve got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children. She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I’m proud of her.” Amidst Obama’s response to McCain’s general claims about Palin, Obama countered with “And I think it’s very commendable the work she’s done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John.”

This entire exchange from both candidates is fraught with what I would see as a false understanding of the reality of disability. It is tempting to believe that they have merely conformed to a bad way of thinking about and acting toward our crip community.  One such false understanding is that the implicit, unquestioned premise of both candidates’ description of disability is that it is a biological harm that needs to be cured with medicine rather than a social harm that should be mitigated through the restructuring of society. Another, related premise is that the needs of people with disabilities are somehow “special” or different than those of your average human being – access to transportation and housing and education and the basic necessities of life. Another premise that may not come through as clearly to the reader of the text rather than a viewer of the televised debate was the notion that people, especially children, with disabilities are deserving of our pity. The candidates screwed up their faces into soft frowns to show how much the situation of these poor souls troubled them, and Obama quickly agreed that Palin had done “good work” in this area, the possibility of questioning her credentials in disability policy never crossing his mind – despite that fact that she has no leadership experience within the disability rights movement and no demonstrated knowledge of the major contemporary policy issues facing this generation of Americans with disabilities (see my last post).

I would argue that this is a clear example of the They constraining the possibilities of how these candidates exist in relation to disability. To mimic Heidegger’s style: we think, act, and emote toward disability as they think, act, and emote toward disability. Not even considering their status as candidates for the most powerful job in the world, the McCain and Obama sitting on that stage as average Americans moving through this social world did not even have the possibility of relating to disability in a more appropriate way because of the relationship of the They that had controlled them. If my story stopped here, it would seem as if I, as a person with a disability who has experience with the disability activism, culture, and theory, had managed to find a new way of thinking and acting that authentically defined my own possibilities in this area. I had a grasp on the proper way of thinking, acting, and emoting about disability because I came from a purer, advantaged viewpoint. I may have had these thoughts cross my mind for a moment before my phone began to buzz with text messages from friends who were reacting to the ableist rhetoric of the candidates in the exact same way.  That is, they were upset that the candidates were heaping pitty upon these faceless, nameless “special needs children” with the same words and mannerisms that the average American uses when they encounter us and react.  Surely, this was the They at work, defining how these candidates could think, act, and feel about disability.  Of course, a careful observer would realize that, as my friends and I echod each others’ outrage in a predictable way, we had our own They that was setting the boundaries of how we confront these situations. My possibilities were still constrained by the They and I was shrinking back from the ‘great mass’ as they were shrinking back.

So my question is: how do we know when what moves us is not this invisible tyrant of the They, but a genuine personal thought, action, or emotion.  As crip activists, how do we get beyond preaching to the choir and begin to clear new ground?