lily.shirley

Lily Shirley Final Exam

OPTION 2: Thesis driven paper involving one or two works from the final autism unit.

Not long ago, Autism would have been considered an institutionalization-worthy disability. The disability itself is not fatal nor does the diagnosis mean that the individual will be nonverbal, violent, and antisocial. They are labeled, rather ambiguously, as being “different”. People with autism are not burdens- they are just treated that way.

Jim Sinclair, an autistic scholar, author, and proponent of disability studies, outlines the traditional and antiquated notion often surrounding the disability in his piece Don’t Mourn for Us. Sinclair touches on the way his parents reacted to his life and to his disability. He recognizes that when parenting an autistic child, there are inherent difficulties and hurdles. However, Sinclair argues that the beauty and rarity of the autistic child should outweigh the apparent challenges. It is also worth noting that any child will have their inherent difficulties, so we must treat each child with the same protection and esteem. Sinclair’s understanding of autism needs to be grasped by the neurotypical community. Acceptance of Sinclair’s perspective will allow us to move forward from these dated beliefs.

Apologies to my OBGYN, a poem written by Rebecca Foust, is also about the experience of parenting a child with autism. Instead of identifying the personal and familial model relating to autistic children being labeled as a “burden”, Foust connects it to the medical model. Both the medical and personal perspectives presented in the respective pieces convey multiple unfair stigmas, the most notable being that people with autism are only a burden, and nothing else. This is simply not the case, as argued in both pieces. Sinclair argues that an autistic human life is not death, whereas Foust asserts that death is an integral part of the human experience. Life is not death, but death means that one has lived. In dying, the only power granted to Foust’s premature child is that it is no longer a burden because it is no longer living, taking up space, resources, or money.

It is interesting and worth debate to examine Sinclair’s use of the word “alien” to describe people with autism. This term is often used to illustrate the dissimilar processes of a neurodivergent person. It has overtones of explaining them as a whole other life force, from a distant planet. If anything, this furthers the impenetrable wall Sinclair hopes to avoid.

An autistic life, even while still in the womb, is thought of as a burden. Even in communities of pro-choice minded people, it is often argued that aborting a child for the sole reason of autism is unjust and offensive. With this in mind, it is easy to understand why Sinclair would feel the need to specifically detail that autism is not death. After birth, the child still faces marginalization in a way that a neurotypical person could never comprehend. Parents often list the most traumatic experience of their life as the moment they discovered their child had autism. This forces the child into the role of an agonizing burden- a treacherous bridge the parents, not the actual child, must cross. This notion is clearly offensive and derails the recent movement of the disability positive narrative.

Not only does Sinclair explain that autism is not death, he also verifies it as “not an impenetrable wall”. Essentially, this discounts the idea that children with autism have no proper means of communication with neurotypical people, but rather, their means are simply different and more complex. When the able bodied parent, or even community, views a disabled person’s way of thinking as “different” and therefore not useful, this removes once again, the hard work of protesters wishing for inclusivity and to omit the notion of burdens.

The personal connection to society relates to the parenting of a child with a disability. Sinclair’s piece best captures the thesis of this paper. People with autism are treated differently in almost every way possible, simply because giving them improper resources is easier, and cheaper, than allowing them to explore more expensive and potentially more helpful routes. Parents, even the ones who consider themselves to support their autistic child, often marginalize them in a way the rest of society is incapable of doing. Being treated as a burden by society is one thing, but being treated as a burden by your parents is another thing altogether.

While some may wish to believe we have come far in integrating neurodivergent people properly in society, we still have far to go. We cannot dream of including people with disabilities the way they should be included when it is already hard enough to convince politicians that accessibility is essential, or to doctors that a “difficult” patient with autism should be treated with the same care and respect as a neurotypical patient. In Fousts’ deeply sarcastic apology, it is difficult to grasp the extent to which neurodivergent patients are mistreated. Fousts explains that her child, born too early and with bountiful and expensive medical issues, was treated as a burden by medical staff. She was even told she was wrong and too demanding in fighting for the baby’s life; the hospital’s resources are better used on a neurotypical baby.

The medical structure of modern society does little to encourage or uplift people with disabilities. This is extremely prevalent in Foust’s “pain in the ass” description of the care of her son. The first three stanzas start with “sorry”, reinforcing her sarcastic demeanor. If this child were able bodied, there is no doubt the mother would not even feel compelled to apologize, even if it was contemptful.

Another essential aspect of the medical model is the connection to costs. Because this is a capitalist society, money makes the world go around. In cases like Foust’s child, it is glaringly apparent that the doctors and nurses cared more about the finances than the life itself. This does not account for the beauty of life.

In conclusion, autism is not death. This overlying assumption has caused much unrest in the disability studies field, as well as the literal homes of the autistic community. If parents and medical professionals continue to view their autistic child as a fiscal responsibility rather than a human, not alien, with a heartbeat worthy of care, nothing will change. There are many things that autism is, but then again, there are many things that autism isn’t. Autism is a part of the person- it is not something in need of a cure or to be viewed as simply a hurdle to overcome. Autism is life.

Word Count:

1081

Works cited:

Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t Mourn for Us.” Don’t Mourn For Us, 1993, http://www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html.

Foust, Rebecca. “Apologies to My OB-GYN.” Fishouse, 28 June 2018,

http://www.fishousepo ems.org/apologies-to-my-ob-gyn/.

“I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work.”

LILY SHIRLEY

Lily’s Class Summary 08/18/2021

On Tuesday, November 18th and 1:59 PM, Dr. Christopher Foss came into the hallowed halls of Combs, his hair freshly cut. Dr. Foss had an exciting quiz for the class, and judging by the facial expressions of my peers, it wasn’t just difficult for me. With the end of the semester coming, we have approached the last unit, focusing on Autism. Before diving deep into our discussion, Dr. Foss reminds us of the play about a boy on the autism spectrum, conveniently playing at the Mary Washington Theatre in conjunction with our Disability and Literature class.

We began discussing Sinclair’s Don’t Mourn For Us in large groups, a piece that defines what autism is; and what autism isn’t. Sinclair details that autism is not an impenetrable wall, an appendage, and it is definitely not death. The class then discussed the calling of a person on the spectrum “alien” and how this has grown to be potentially problematic in its way of making that person feel inhuman and an outsider. Kelly mentioned the irony that the website Don’t Mourn For Us was on an inaccessible large array of colors. The class discussed that this was a relatively old website, and some of Sinclair’s ideas are dated, such as the parent claiming their child was an alien. Sinclair’s points do have some virtue, and the class knew this. For one, he outlines that to wish someone to not have autism is to wish they did not exist at all. Autism is not an appendage- it is a personable trait that makes someone who they are. The class also used personal examples to explain the harmful expectations that parents can place onto their children, potentially relating the able bodied experience to the autistic one. The class concluded that it is eugenics and ableism that cause some parents to be unsupportive. Zeb makes an excellent point about the appendage piece, relating to person-first language. A person with cancer is not cancerous, so the falsity of this word structure cannot be used to describe a person with autism.

The class also discussed the importance of asking the community what they were most comfortable being referred to, outlining the difference between someone with aspergers and someone with autism; two disabilities often confused or unjustly connected. The class moved into small groups at promptly 2:40 PM to discuss the Ne’eman piece. Katy Rose, within two seconds of Dr. Foss released us into our groups, explained her fair hatred of autism speaks and the notion of “curing” autism and the image of a puzzle piece. Essentially, this piece is arguing the importance of omiting black and white thinking, especially when speaking on a child’s mental development.

After being in our smaller groups for exactly 19 minutes, me sneezing at 2:48 three times, we all directed our attention to the documentary playing from the projector. It was about a nonverbal person’s experience with our language- the “our” referring to neurotypical people. She explains that there is an unfair distinction between the deficit of her not knowing our language, but the natuaraily of us not knowing her.

The class on November 18th had a rousing and essential discussion on the affects, personalities, and differences of conceptions of autism.

Major Paper; Lily Shirley

The Animalization of Disabled People:

Boo Radley, Lenny Small, Julia Pastrana, and other “Freaks of Nature”

Positive representations of disabled people are a modern notion often overlooked in the current social climate. Society, and standards of beauty, are not inclusive so accurate representations of any person who is not white, and not able bodied, are hard to come by. However, the disabled community still fights for just and positive portrayals in popular media, and works to include themselves in political protests and intersectional debates. Some protest the often offensive depictions of people with disabilities, comparing a piece of literature to the Fries test- the Bechdel test of this community. Positive portrayals in a piece of literature would include a disabled character being central to the plot, rather than just an object of pity or ridicule.

Young students read books with potentially problematic depictions of disabled people, in opposition to the wishes of those in the disabled community. Authors uses the “r” word and overcommitt to the supposed hilarity of dumb or feebleminded disablity aligned characters. With such widespread depictions, it is hard to break free of the representation so prevalent in our favorite classic books, such as To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men. While both of these works were revolutionary in their time, and have truthfully been eye-opening in many ways, it is essential to move forward and recognize the harmful connection of disabled men and women to simple or violent animals. Afterall, both previously mentioned titles quite literally have animals in the name.

To Kill a Mockingbird has acted as a mode of “wokeness” for white saviorism, and the animalization of characters like Boo Radley and Tom Robinson have reflected the true impact of the text. Of Mice and Men, often seen as a problematic work in Disability studies, goes as far to equate Lenny Small, the gargantuan and small brained man to a disabled dog who gets shot in the head- a fate similar to Lenny’s at the end of the novel. It is not uncommon to have a crazy dog shot in a book with disability aligned characters- a character in To Kill a Mockingbird also shoots a rabies-infected, crazy dog. And in fact, those dogs often act as a metaphor for those “animal” characters. Of course, popular books are not the only example of the raw animalzation and connection to the disabled body- it is extremely apparent in twentieth century freak shows and the gawking of a man who looks vaguely lobster or bear-like. It is essential to discuss the impact of such depictions, and offer a more inclusive view of the disabled body and mind. It is time to forego the offensive characterization of the disabled man to animals.

Many older white women of the baby boomer generation claim that Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is a literary piece essential to the newfound inclusivity of discussion. However, Atticus Finch, the father and lawyer central to the plot and central to “saving” Tom Robinson, is often seen as too powerful, and as though the black characters would flail pointlessly without his strength. Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman, is compared to a harmless mockingbird, but only after his death. Earlier in the book, Atticus explains that it is a “sin to kill a mockingbird”, and later, Mr. Underwood, the town news source, states “it is a sin to kill a cripple” (Lee, 220.) The juxtaposition and relative sentence structure shows that these two phrases were meant to be compared- Lee encourages the audience to see Robinson as a bird. Robinson is a disability aligned character who injured his hand at a young age in a cotton gin accident, rendering it essentially useless. When trying to escape from this wrongful imprisonment, Robinson is shot many more times than necessary, showing the racism and ableism of that time period.

Boo Radley, is described as “frightening” and “animal-like” in his mannerisms. The Maycomb county folklore centering around Boo does little to depict him as the careful, kind, and empathetic character the readers find out he truly is. Jem, Scout’s older brother, and Atticus’ son, emphasizes the horror involved in the crime of Boo stabbing his father with a pair of scissors- then later explains that Boo “dined on raw squirrels and any cats he could catch, that’s why his hands were bloodstained” (Lee, 10).

While the differences between Tom and Boo are apparent, the two animals that they are represented by does little to reflect them in a positive light. Tom is the innocent, sweet, little, weak, bird, but only after being shot seventeen times and unfairly imprisoned based on racist falsities. Representing Tom as something that can only be helped by the able bodied white man furthers his animalization as a delicate mockingbird. Boo, depicted as a wolf-like, dog-like, and bear-like dangerous man, can not elegantly break free of the restraints Lee places on him as a violent animal and freak of nature.

John Stienbeck’s Of Mice and Men, a classic tale of “friendship” and farmhands, commits to the idea of Lenny as a poor, innocent puppy. Lenny is viewed as both harmless, as he is unintelligent, but also as harmful, as his body is towering and extremely strong. Steinbeck takes little time to compare Lenny to an animal- on page four, the first time the audience meets Lenny- he describes his walk as similar to “ the way a bear drags his paws”. This is not the only time Lenny’s movements are described as bearlike. On page hundred, Stienbeck does it again, outlining Lenny’s stride as akin to a “creeping bear moving.” Lenny is also described as a terrier, a small but mighty dog, when George Milton, his best friend, makes him set a mouse free from his grip. George is described as his master, as any loyal dog should have an able bodied master. George often infantilizes Lenny, and in the end of the book, makes a life or death decision for him, much like Candy, another farmhand, does for his old sheepdog.

Because Lenny is both strong of muscle and weak of mind, it is interesting to compare the differences in the wide array of animals Stienbeck compares him to. It is no secret between the characters of the book that Lenny could easily kill any of them- but those same characters treat him as one would treat a small, idiotic terrier. Stienbeck goes as far to equate his personality as both bear-like and tiny puppy-like. Those two animals could not be any farther apart in terms of size and capability. However, Lenny is both meek and boisterous, as are both the animals stated.

The connection of able bodied people and the racism affecting our world is also apparent in these connections. While some wish to “reclaim” their animalazaion as a disabled person, we must recognize the racist roots that animalization clearly has. It is not uncommon for black men and women to be described as ape-like, and in blackface shows, the actors would often make monkey sounds or pretend to throw their feces. Much like the reclamation of the “q” and “n” slur in LGBT and black communities, some disabled people involved in freakshows took advantage of their inherent “animalness”. Percilla Bejano, a notable example of such reclamation, was involved in many freakshows and exploited her hairy body and freak of nature appearance. She later married the “the alligator” man, and the two had a happy life together, working as two animals in love. It is possible that Bejano was insulted by her animal name, but at least maintained some autonomy.

Otis Jordan is another example, a black man billed as amphibian-like, who wished to be referred to as “frog boy”. He enjoyed his life on the road as a disabled performer. Jordan pointed out that, given his condition, there wasn’t much else work he could get, therefore, the freakshow was a positive, money-making experience for Jordan.

Animalization in freak shows can be an overly negative thing. P.T Barnum, whose name is synonymous with the circus, was at the forefront of exploiting disabled people, making them an “animal” entertainment, rather than a human. Circus shows, like the one Julia Pastrana was in, perpetuated the animalization of people with disabilities and placed them in unsafe environments in order to pursue their career. Pastrana, described as the “ugliest woman alive”, had a case of hypertrichosis, which covered the body and face in copious amounts of hair. Pastrana was billed as the “ape-women ”, because of her hair and naturally feminine figure. Because able bodied humans found her so enticing, after her death, she was embalmed with her recently deceased son, to be gawked at for years to come. Even after her death, Pastrana had no peace.

In the theory piece, Beasts of Burden, Sunaura Taylor describes hands as “human” and mouths as “animal.” Her point in detailing this is that able bodied people often view the use of one’s mouth to open things, or to move objects around, as disgusting and improper. Taylor’s ideas are revolutionary- as she does explain in further detail the essentiality of some disabled people using the animal to describe oneself. Much like some overweight people are fighting for the word “fat” to be used as a descriptor rather than an insult, Taylor admits that some of her movements are rather animal-like, and it would not necessarily be unfair to describe them as so. However, she does recognize her privilege in being a white woman comfortable in her animalization.

Essentially, the problem then lies with the able-bodied making decisions for the disabled. George places himself in the role of executioner for Lenny , and Lee and Stienbeck take on the important role of describing a person with disabilities. Pastrana had her whole life planned out by a man of more power, capability, and “normalcy”. This is simply not the job for an able bodied person. All people, including disabled people, must have a say in their depictions, be masters of their fate, especially their mortality. Taylor, Bejano, and frog-boy can do whatever they like with their bodies and physicality, but authors and able bodied characters can’t decide for them.

Animalization is popular in modern media, and even in the books that every child reads in order to pass a required class. It is ingrained in our minds to compare man and animal, and even more so when the man is overly hairy, or his appearance is otherwise aberrant,and thus, doesn’t fit into the abelist ideals of America. Aversion to normalcy is seen as wrong, offensive, and unsuitable, and this is prevalent in classic literature.

It does not matter how it makes the able bodied feel when talking about the disabled body. The disabled body should have say over their bodies and reflections in art and books.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime

On Friday afternoon, I attended the UMW production of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, a play that centers around a disabled character, Christopher. The beginning of the play starts out with a cruel murder of a neighbor’s dog, and the plot surrounds Christopher’s detective work to see who the killer is, which reveals truths about his own lie. The depiction of Christopher was an interesting one- the play and book is infamous for it’s relatively inclusive motifs, it has settings of over-stimulations and tries to explain how a person with autism may think. The actor who played Christopher, however, did not have autism. I found this to be an interesting choice. We have discussed in the class that an able bodied person should not act as a disabled person, and here it happens on our own turf.