This will be a quick post in which I try to check my own privilege. My last few posts have torn into Jerry Lewis pretty hard, while an earlier one warns against demonizing public figures who have bad, yet common opinions about disability. While I don’t agree with Peter Singer’s reasoning or conclusions regarding disability policy, I quote Harriet McBride Johnson’s line of thought that we ought to not demonize people like Singer for holding the opinions he does because they are common opinions. That is, his philosophy is based in a social ignorance about disability and so it wrong to use him as a whipping boy or symbol of our opposition. He is a human being that is just as flawed as the man on the street (or post office, or kitchen table, etc.) that, more silently, concurs with his opinions. For more on this, see below.
So, why is it that I am so quick to agree with Harriet about Peter while being so quick to condemn Jerry? Ought we not grant the same benefit of the doubt to Jerry? Is this a failure to treat likes alike? Harriet does the same thing in her book, Too Late to Die Young. Jerry’s condemnation is so fundamental to her story that she named the entire thing in honor of her realization that his bigotry was grounded in ignorance (she believed for many years that she would die young because of the tragic imagery of the MDA Telethon). Yet, as I argue below, the major point of Unspeakable Conversations is that we need to rage against ideologies and systems of oppression without demonizing individuals.
Have Harriet and I both got it wrong? Do we extend our common courtesy to Singer because he speaks our language? He has very dangerous opinions, but he dresses them up in the language of measured, rational argument and so they are somehow more worthy of our respect? Lewis is a bloated, aging comic with a hot temper who supplies us with an abundance of sound bites. Singer is much more palatable with his gentle mannerisms and endowed chair at Princeton. At the end of the day, their basic beliefs about disability are STRIKINGLY similar. Jerry thinks chair users need to become good at “being a half a person” and Singer believes we have less opportunity to satisfy our preferences and enjoy life. Isn’t this almost EXACTLY the same thing? Surely, both men influence public opinion in a big way, one with a telethon being beamed into millions of households and the other by teaching the ruling elite at Princeton. Why then, do Harriet and I respond so differently to these two men?
It’s possible that it is just a matter of privilege. That is, I have my own biases about social class, age, and education that make me more likely to have respect and perhaps empathy for Singer but not Lewis.
Maybe, for Harriet it was a strategic move rather than a matter of prejudice? I think in Singer’s case we may have hope of having a measured debate with him, changing his mind and the mind of his followers with our superior arguments. For Lewis, with his crude words, we may have a better chance of taking him on with protests, petitions, and perhaps an arrest action or 2. I obviously have no idea whether Harriet ever considered this conundrum she has set up, but do see how Singer would appear at least on the surface as more persuadable. Lewis responds to criticism with anger and threats that we need to stay out of public view, while Singer invites his opponent to have a public dialogue. So perhaps it is not the difference between demonizing one man while defending the other but rather reacting with a style that is strategically the most likely to work? Or, am I again just justifying my privilege in a new way?
January 20th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Joe, a really interesting post; a couple of questions/suggestions -
.
- perhaps its not a question of demonizing one man while defending the other; on the one hand, demonization and rigorous, unnuanced criticism tends to generate defensive self-representations and functions as simply a dismissal of that persons argument rather than an engagement or actual transformation of it (lately on some disability blogs, I have read many such responses to Singer and Lewis; Longmore for example. In a sense, their demonization of him gives him -Lewis- more power). Regardless of the repugnant aspects of Lewis’ position, there must be some value in it, some relevancy some insight - perhaps, for example, its value lies in the insight it provides into the ableist and phallocentric imaginary. On the other hand, to simply defend a position is also problematic, not in the least because all texts/positions have problems, weaknesses and contradictions. unrealistic; all texts/positions/arguments have their problems and weaknesses. Why not, instead of demonization or defense, why not look for what is yet to be developed in them.
- I’m wondering; what does Lewis’ bloated body and age have to do with his position. I’m not sure I understand the relevance.
- You suggest we might change Singer’s mind by using our superior arguments. I don’t mean to be picky, but whose arguments are you referring to. And change his mind in what way - what do you have in mind?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Linda,
1. Good points. I need to think about them more.
2. That is my point! His age and look and mannerisms have NOTHING to do with his positions. They have to do with my prejudice. The difference between Singer and Lewis are constituted by such things, not differences in ideology. So, this post is an attempt to think critically about whether I am myself being bigotted against Jerry in my response to him.
3. I guess the arguments I am thinking about are Harriet’s. She has some really good ones that she has leveled at Singer in the past. They are grounded in the social model and challenge the basis of his judgment that crips don’t have the same opportunities for enjoyment as everyone else by pointing out that any such difference is socially constructed. Racism and sexism also limit opportunities for enjoyment, but are not taken as naturalized by Singer, as disability is. This, of course, undercuts the position of a preference utilitarian like Singer when it comes to disability.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Linda, regarding the first bullet point of your response, have you read any American Pragmatism? That sounds a lot like James, Peirce, Dewey, etc.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Here’s one big difference - Peter Singer isn’t being honored for his humanitarian work stemming from his bigotry, while Jerry Lewis is. Peter Singer is usually thought of as a cold hearted bastard, even by people who agree with him from less rational points of view, while Jerry Lewis is seen as a caring “father figure” type for his work with the Telethon. It’s easy to argue logically with a guy who makes rational arguments, no matter how much you disagree, but when someone gets credit for being helpful to disability rights while at the same time tearing them down, that’s an entirely different situation.
I understand your concerns over class prejudice. I worry about the same thing on a regular basis - do I prejudge people for their accent, or their command of the English language? Do I assume an intelligence level based on clothing, cars, or even stature? Yes, sometimes I still make those automatic judgements, but I also usually recognize them quickly and do everything I can to eliminate them. Jerry Lewis, rather than just being a person with less education, and potentially less intelligence than Peter Singer, is someone who is getting credit and recognition for something that he absolutely does not deserve. It’s like (and yes, this is a very extreme example, but it’s easy and the best I can come up with without opening a new window and googling a better one) giving Hitler an award for helping clean up the Jewish Ghettos while he’s gassing and burning them. That’s a dramatic difference than deciding not to hate someone who is attempting to have a rational discussion and is just painfully wrong…
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
I think it’s great that you’re checking your own privilege. For me, though, I’m willing to cut Singer more slack b/c he’s not really an equal opportunity bigot, which in my mind means there’s an opportunity for redemption. Lewis, on the other hand, has proven himself to be bigoted about more than disability. He uses homophobic slurs regularly and mostly unapologetically (his half assed apology after last year’s telethon felt really forced and not at all genuine). There’s also audio of him floating around the internet using racial slurs. In my mind, that’s three major strikes against Lewis. I think you do make an important point about classism and ageism, and I think it’s really important to check yourself on a regular basis, however, I’m tired of excusing homophobia because of classism. One ism never justifies another. I think it’s ok to recognize that someone needs education, but Lewis has had access to information about all of the communities he’s offended, yet he stubbornly refuses to dialogue about or with any of them.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Mike and Hill, I see your (similar) points and think I MAY partially agree. It is similar to what I am saying in my last paragraph I think. Singer seems to respond to dialogue, Jerry does not.
One thing I am trying to wrap my head around is your point, Hill, about multiple prejudices. Are prejudices the type of thing we can add to each other so that Singer has a lesser sum than Jerry and so they deserve differential treatment? Also, I don’t think I was excusing his bigotry based on social class/education/age/etc but trying to explain and evaluate why it is I was treating these 2 differently. I didn’t mean to indicate (but see how one could read the post this way) that Jerry deserved gentler treatment but merely that they, perhaps, deserved similar treatment. Perhaps the answer is to treat Singer more harshly?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I’m not completely sure where I stand on the aggregation of multiple prejudices. Part of me thinks that, yes, multiple prejudices should be aggregated and held against you in toto. There’s another part of me, though, that thinks that a person holding multiple prejudices just doesn’t understand privilege and maybe if they did, they could apply it to the entirety of the way they view things. I think maybe the thing that just gets me about Jerry is his steadfast stubborness to hearing/considering differ viewpoints and engage in dialogue (which you discuss). This whole conversation brings up an interesting question - should all prejudices be held against their holder equally? Would this mean that we would judge a former Nazi who worked in the death camps on the same level as someone who didn’t vote for Obama simply because he’s a person of color? And what implication does the answer have for organizing and social change movements?
January 1st, 2011 at 5:20 am
This product does what it says it will. Just like any conference pill you inactive have of a piece with eat vigorous and function absent! Just stick with it