PhilosopherCrip

It seems only appropriate that I am incredibly ambivalent about Peter Singer’s recent obituary for Harriet McBryde Johnson in the New York Times.  After all, her writing reveals that she herself was ambivalent toward the man, who lays out philosophical arguments for why parents should have the option to kill infants with certain kinds of disabilities.  Many in the disability rights movement are outraged that he was asked to write the piece because he has openly acknowledged that her parents should have had the right to kill her as an infant, if they so chose.  It does seem counter-intuitive to ask a person who publicly puts forth some of the most deeply abelist views possible to tell the story of a vitally important leader in the disability community.  However, if we take Harriet’s description of her own life’s work seriously, we see that she has come to terms with Singer as a human being and not a monster, so why should we close ourselves off from her understanding of the man and continue to demonize him?

In her book chapter about her arguments with Singer - Unspeakable Conversations, her journey toward seeing him as a human and not a monster is a central theme.  Surely, his philosophical views are not something we should stop resisting in every way we can at every opportunity, but can we afford to ignore the lessons she has to teach crip activists about focusing our outrage on systems of oppression and ideologies rather than individual people?  That is a central point of her reflections on her relationship with Singer.

RIP Harriet

She hesitates to even shake his hand upon their first meeting, but after genuinely trying to understand his ideas and how they were developed Harriet concludes: “If I define Singer’s kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him as a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently likely to be less happy, or that a life without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value.  That would make monsters of many of the people with whom I move on the sidewalks, do business, break bread, swap stories, and share the grunt work of politics.  The definition would reach some of my family and most of my nondisabled friends, people who show me enormous kindness and who somehow, sometimes manage to love me through their ignorance.  I can’t live with a definition of ultimate evil that encompasses all of them.  I can’t refuse the monster-majority basic courtesy, respect, and human sympathy.  It’s not in my heart to deny every single one of them, categorically, my affection and love” (227-8).

Key lesson: don’t demonize people for being honest about opinions that most people hold silently.  This is simply a way of scapegoating.  I do think that Harriet is completely right in this regard.  Singer and other bioethicists have become the whipping boys of many within the disability movement.  Surely, his biases are tremendously harmful to us and his arguments must be refuted.  However, these arguments are grounded in the same biases that we encounter every day of lives, even with those we hold closest to us.  Demonizing Singer does not help our cause, but makes us look irrational.

So, if Harriet is right and we cannot reject Singer as “categorically evil,” does this mean that we should uncritically accept him as a spokesman for telling the final chapter of her story in the New York Times?  One objection that I think needs to be raised is the notion that she should be defined only in contrast to him.  That is, Harriet’s life and work were important in their own right and should be remembered as such.  It seems wrong to characterize this leader within our community as only an opponent of Singer’s positions who happened to once allow herself to be tokenized and invited to Princeton (note: Harriet herself describes this experience as a tokenization).  It seems to me, her work to resist the telethon, at the very least, deserves equal air time when publicly summarizing her life. The offense is not THAT Peter Singer wrote the article, but that it did not do her justice as a force unto herself.

So, my objection to Singer’s obituary is not offense at him being some kind of monster.  This would be counter-productive to our cause in that he and others clearly responded better to Harriet’s measured argument than Not Dead Yet style civil disobedience.  This is true for philosophers as a general rule, I’d say.  If we are to silence dangerous opinions, we must do it with arguments of our own that show the opinion holders and the public at large why we are right.  Sometimes, when we are silenced we must use our collective action to get the attention of powers that be with tactics like civil disobedience.  But, once we are taken seriously by our opponents in the public sphere, it is time to move past the chanting and the arrests and address our opponents how we wish to be addressed, as fellow human beings.

I often use the word “crip” to refer to disability on this site and with those I am comfortable with, who I think can handle it.  I don’t often use it in professional settings, but even then it occasionally slips out.  Many times, I find myself having to explain how and why I am using the word.  Both temporarily non-disabled folks and people with disabilities express curiosity, amusement, horror, or some combination of these emotions in varying ratios.  I then attempt to educate and sooth them with an explanation about reclaiming language and how many marginalized groups have done and continue to do this with words that have traditionally marked them as “less than.”

When I use the term with other crip activists, I operate on the assumption that we are using the term in the same way with the same meaning.  Over this winter break, I have finally gotten around to finishing the very compelling autobiography of Harriet McBryde Johnson (started it last Spring), who also uses it as a word of choice when referring to people with disabilities.  It was this reading that made me question whether this term is used with a consistent meaning in the disability movement.

While describing her trip to Cuba, Harriet writes about the structure of their disability movement and the different organizations that have formalized it “One is comprised of people who are deaf and hard of hearing, one is of blind and visually impaired people, and the third, ACLIFIM, Asociacion Cubano de Limitados Fisico-motores, is made up of people with “physical-motor” disabilities, what we call crips” (156).  This definition of the word crip shocked me and seriously undercut the assumption that everyone in the disability world used the word in the same way.  Here I was two-thirds of the way through a book that I think has become an instant classic of crip culture, realizing that this luminary was using the term in a very different way.  What was even more disturbing is that I think Harriet, who has taught me a great deal with her writing, is using the term in a way that is not quite right somehow.  I’m not sure if I can argue that my use of crip is objectively and absolutely correct, but I do want to say that it has some important advantages.

My new vanity plate! Crip Power Baby!

First, let’s make the distinction.  The difference in usage is subtle, but it seems like Harriet wants to attach the term to a particular biological category, whereas my use is broader and more grounded in a social or political identity.  I have had discussions with many friends in the disability community that run the gambit of diagnosis and our usage does not distinguish between biological types of disabilities.  I have friends who are Deaf that identify as crips and use the word to describe themselves as part of a community and a social movement.  Unlike Harriet’s usage, you do not have to have a mobility disability to qualify, but rather a particular worldview.  To me, crips are people that have disabilities and that recognize the stigma and marginalization they experience in their daily lives for what it is, and choose to defy it.  So, more people can fall under the category than just those described by Johnson.  I think this is a better way of defining the term because it allows for a greater solidarity across disability types.  It focuses on the common experience of marginalization and common interest of liberation, rather than differences that have segregated us in the medical-human services complex.

Further, my usage of the word may be broader in its biology, but it is more narrow in its politics.  In her chapter about her MDA telethon protests, Harriet refers to a man that acts as her foil on a televised talk-show about the telethon as an “establishment crip.”  Clearly, this is a jab at his authenticity as a real member of the crip community, and so there must be something political about the term for her too.  However, the fact that she can identify him as a crip of any variety tells me that, for her, the term is more about biology than ideology.  I don’t think a person deserves to weild the title until they have seriously considered disability as a social system of oppression and begun to work toward the good of the crip community, as such.  It would be a stretch for an MDA Telethon defender to qualify.  Again, I prefer this usage because it emphasizes our community as it defines itself in its defiance of oppression, rather than is defined by the medical establishment, which is the lynchpin of the system of that oppression.

This is not to deny that crippiness in particular and disability identity in general is bound up closely with biological difference.  I don’t think that my use of the word crip could apply to a person that didn’t have some kind of physical, sensory, cognitive, or emotional difference of some kind, even if it wasn’t formally diagnosed by a physician.  I guess my point is just that our use of the term should move away from the biology as much as possible so that we can truly reclaim it on our own terms.

Not that he or anyone remotely close to him will read this obscure web-log post, but I wanted my first post since going into the “hibernation” of finals season to be in honor of the Honorable David Paterson, governor of New York.  Recently, SNL did a sketch with Paterson as its subject.  I was busy frantically writing a seminar paper last Saturday and missed the show’s live airing, but caught it on youtube more recently.  Admittedly, parts of the sketch are quite funny, particularly the parts where their portrayal of Paterson “craps on New Jersey.” 

However, the sketch was quite upsetting in their caricature of this articulate, politically savvy leader as a bumbling idiot, merely because he happens to be blind. Typically, SNL is funny in its mockery of politicians because it picks up on personality quirks and contextual absurdity to poke fun at them. For example, Will Ferrell’s famous southern drawl, silly smirk, and ill-imagined SAT words made “strategery” a favorite of my generation. More recently, Tina Fey’s spot on impersonation of Sarah Palin in several opening sketches, with her winking, apparent ignorance public policy, and outright annoying “folksy” demeanor surely had a much bigger influence on people’s political sensibilities than a short spot on Weekend Update, after the show is half over.

Governor David Paterson of New York

So, why would Palin and others keep silent, while Paterson risks the appearance of being an oversensitive, bitter blow hard? The answer is simple, this SNL was not about Governor David Paterson, it was about disability. The sketch does not pick up on any personality quirk of Paterson’s as an individual, but stereotypes him as a blind man. Holding charts upside down, wandering about in front of the camera, and generally appearing confused, these jokes were not about Paterson but about blindness. It is as egregious as if SNL decided to mock Barack Obama, not for being a media darling, as they did, but for being a black man, complete with those stereotypes. I am not trying to engage in the “oppression olympics” here, but mean to point out that this sketch spent a good deal of time mocking a stereotype of disability, not a particular political figure.

Paterson’s response was simply heroic. It is unquestionable that speaking out against the SNL sketch was against his political interest. The associated press reports that Lee Miringoff, an expert pollster that gauges public reaction to politicians, said that the reaction against the skit was “unwise” and explained “I can’t recall the last time a politician has reacted negatively to being lampooned on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ . . . It humanizes them. At least your name is on the marquee.” What this Miringoff doesn’t get is that Paterson was not trying to react in a way that would serve his political interests. What is “unwise” politically can be straight-up valiant when you look beyond the narrow political picture. For once, a politician was not thinking just of himself, but of his community.

Governor Paterson took a strong stance in support of the disability community, showing his moral medal as far as I am concerned:

“Now that [Alaska Gov. Sarah] Palin’s not around, they seem to have run out of material . . . The idea of a person rolling around the stage in a chair, being disoriented, can’t find anything, bumbling, in a sense looking like a clown is a way disabled people are portrayed all the time. . . . The perception that disability equals inability to be responsible is totally wrong . . . There is only one way that people could have an unemployment rate that’s six times the national average — it’s attitude . . . And I’m afraid that the kind of third-grade depiction of individuals and the way they look and the way they move add to that negative environment . . . I don’t mind that they make fun of me, but I thought it was important to speak up for those who don’t have a voice and don’t have a job.”

These, my friends, are the words of a true hero of Crip Town. He is not merely a politician who happens to have a disability. He is one of us.

Thank you David.

I’m not sure if the government “officially” designated October as Disability History Month, but it is widely celebrated as such in the disability activist community.  In some states (like NC and soon to be MI if all goes well), the public schools even teach a disability history curriculum during the month of October by mandate of state legislation.

If you have time, this is a good time to pick up a book about the history of the disability rights movement.  The industry standard is No Pity by Joseph Shapiro.  A more focused, but still fascinating and important book is activist and attorney Harriet McBride Johnson’s biography Too Late to Die Young. I was very lucky to be able to see Harriet speak and have her sign my copy a few years ago and am sad that I will not get to see her speak again now that I have read her book — she passed over the summer.

I can’t figure out how to embed a google video right into my page like I can youtube, but here is a link to a VERY well made short film about some major figures in the history of disability activism.  It summarizes the stories of Ed Roberts (visionary founder of the Independent Living movement), Wade Blank (original organizer of ADAPT, which uses grassroots non-violent direct action activism), and Justin Dart (my favorite Republican - except my dad - who is responsible for educating the entire country, from the grassroots to the president, about his vision for the inclusion of crips in mainstream society, which eventually became the ADA).  These are the heros of “crip town” and some of the patriots we should aspire to emulate.