Category: Uncategorized

Megan Hofmann’s Class Summary for Thursday, September 16th

Class, of course, began on Thursday with a quiz. Once the morbid quiz was complete, Dr. Foss reviewed the schedule our class would be following and named the readings we would be analyzing. The authors included Jasbir Puar, Chris Bell, and Toni Morrison. The class focused mainly on the two theory readings, and discussion involving these authors and their correlating articles proceeded in the same order as formerly stated. Through group discussion involving the two articles, our class concluded that white individuals remain the focus of disability studies due to a long history of marginalization towards minority groups in the field.

Class proceeded by Dr. Foss giving students adequate time to review Jasbir Puar’s article, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” from The Right to Maim. My groupmates and I discussed whether both disabled and debilitated aligned individuals fall under the same category of “disability.” Although we did not come up with a definitive answer, the group concluded that individuals with disabilities in debilitating circumstances battle unique hardships due to lack of resources. In addition, the group discussed how individuals in power remain in authority by targeting minority groups and disabling them through the act of maiming. We specifically focused on Puar’s claim, “This is what I call ‘the right to maim’: a right expressive of sovereign power that is linked to, but not the same as ‘the right to kill.’ Maiming is a source of value extraction from populations that would otherwise be disposable” (18). The group concluded that Puar point stands true, when someone becomes disabled by being maimed, they are less likely to be a threat to the group in power.

Dr. Foss then brought the class together to discuss the article as a large group. He started by stating that over 50% of police shootings are towards black bodies, supporting this claim by giving specific examples of local tragedies where black individuals have been targeted by local police. Foss then went on to discuss one of Puar’s points that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict also revolves around the intentional debilitation of a population and how individuals with disabilities in the Middle East face challenges such as transportation due to issues associated with the area’s infrastructure. The class moved on to discuss the topic from a historical stance, stating that throughout history, minority bodies were expected to attain physical disabilities, such as the bodies of enslaved people. This conversation concentrated on the topic of white fragility and how similarly to the topic of race, white fragility can relate to disability studies as well because the topic of disability can cause anxiety amongst white populations, especially when related to minority groups.

Dr. Foss then gave the class small group time to review Chris Bell’s article, “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal.” My group discussed Bell’s obvious sarcasm towards the topic of disability, and how disability studies solely focus on white disability. The group specifically considered Bell’s ten-step list that sarcastically informs the reader of easy strategies in how to keep disability studies fixated on white disability instead of becoming more inclusive. The group quickly noticed that Bell’s article, like the central points in Puar’s article, focuses on the topic of white fragility. This conversation turned to large group discussion that revolved around Bell’s ten-step list. Classmates highlighted Bell’s use of reverse psychology, claiming that by stating, “Make no effort to be more inclusive in your scholarship. Do not start today, do not start tomorrow. Wait for someone else to do inclusive work” (281), Bell is calling society to action.

Lastly, the few remaining minutes of class were used to briefly discuss Toni Morrison’s, Sula. Dr. Foss emphasized different characters and their correlating disabilities such as Eva who has one leg, the triplets who are hinted to have an intellectual disability, and Plum who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The class discussed Toni Morrison’s intentions of wanting the reader to be exposed to differing perspectives, but whose intentions instead were at times inappropriate and insensitive towards cultures that she was not educated enough to speak for. The discussion was then concluded with a duck joke and class was dismissed.

“I pledge” – Megan Hofmann

September 16th Section 02 Class Review- Rebecca Visger

At only last sixty minutes instead of the usual seventy-five and three readings on the docket for small and large group discussion this class was on from start to finish.

We dove right in at two o’clock with a reading quiz. This quiz was heavily foreshadowed on Tuesday so hopefully everyone came to class prepared, or at least aware. The quiz was the usual five questions based on the reading assigned for that class period, with three rather morbid questions dedicated to Toni Morrison’s Sula, one question referring to Chris Bell’s essay “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal”, and the final question referring to Ayisha Knight’s poem “Until”.

After a few of the quiz questions were repeated we broke out into the first small group session of the class period to discuss Jasbir Puar’s “Preface: Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” from The Right to Maim. My group expressed that they had had some difficulty in fully grasping the text, largely because we felt some of the academic terminology used in this piece was not clearly defined. Particularly, we had trouble understanding Puar’s definition of “debility”, which as its relationship to disability and how certain bodies are targeted for debility was the focus of this preface, made the piece as a whole difficult for us to access. Despite this difficulty we did spend some time discussing what we thought disability versus debility meant and how they relate and oppose to each other. My group also discussed how in this preface Puar both urges connection between disability, LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter, and other pride/identity movements, but also addresses how they can sometimes have conflicting needs.

After some time in small group discussion the class reconvened to address “Preface: Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” in large group discussion. The conversation opened with several students responding to how relevant the piece feels to the current activism climate and how it addresses some recent history of the Black Lives Matter movement. One classmate asked when it was published and with a quick search it was determined that the book this preface is for was published in 2017.

Discussion then shifted to address the issue of the differing and sometimes conflicting needs of identity groups, both within the disabled/debilitated/capacitated dichotomy that Puar sets forth in this piece, which we compared to a Venn diagram of overlapping and non-overlapping similarities and differences, and between the LGBTQ, Disability Pride, and Black Power movements brought up in the beginning of the text.

My group asked the class for discussion and clarification what they thought debility meant and what they made of the disabled/debilitated/capacitated dichotomy. Much of the class agreed that they had also had some difficulty understanding what exactly Puar meant by debility, but agreed that debility was caused more by social circumstance than disability. Dr. Foss then offered some clarification: Debility is caused by an intentional strategy to maim and wound a population to assert control. It is a conscious action. He also emphasized that the focus of this preface is the ways in which certain bodies are marked for debilitation, particularly black and brown bodies. A classmate then cited the second paragraph of page XV as being useful to understanding Puar’s usage of the term debility and the debilitated/disabled/capacitated dichotomy.

Large group discussion on “Preface: Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” concluded with another student calling attention to page XXIII, and questioning how phrases such as “Hands up don’t shoot!” and “I can’t breathe!” relate to disability justice. Dr. Foss responded by asking us to theorize how these phrases could be interpreted metaphorically to apply to disability, and to consider how race and disability often intersect in cases of police brutality.

As the conversation around “Preface: Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” had tapered off, Dr. Foss instructed us to break out into small groups again, this time to discuss Chris Bell’s “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal”. My group expressed some difficulty with this piece as well, but this time with fully grasping the Bell’s satirical tone. Though the satirical nature of the piece was implied by the subtitle, “A Modest Proposal”, referring to Jonathan Swift’s 1729 satirical piece of the same name, my group-mates who did not recognize reference did not feel like the tone of the piece was satirical or exaggerated enough for it to be obvious that this piece was satire without that hint. While I did understand the subtitle’s reference, I agreed that it was a confusing piece to read as the author did not employ a consistent satirical tone. Instead, Bell shifts repeatedly between a serious and realistic tone when relating their own experiences, and a more comical and exaggerated one when speaking directly to the reader with little transition. We agreed it made the piece feel unbalanced and gave us a bit of whiplash shifting between the competing tones. We also discussed how this piece related to Puar’s, especially in how it addresses how race and disability interact and need for them to be addressed together.

After spending some time in small group, it was time for large group once again. At first there was an “eerie silence”, but then discussion began when a classmate brought up the issue of the difficulties of inclusion, and the extent of which lack of minority representation at events and conferences is caused by the demographics of the area, versus the ability of minority populations to access these events. This lead into a conversation about obstacles to attending conferences and events that may not be obvious at first, especially to those in privilege.

Large group discussion closed with several students expressed their appreciation of Bell’s point #7: “Pay no attention to Ann DuCille’s recognition that ‘[O]ne of the dangers of standing at an intersection . . . is the likelihood of being run over’”, referring to the difficulties of having multiple minority identities and how one identity can be focused on above the other(s) by other people.  Many students related to the feeling of having to “pick sides” of which identity to primarily present as and lean into.

We were going to break into small groups in a final speed round to discuss Toni Morrison’s Sula, pages 3-131, but class time ran out.

“Both end’s the same” in Of Mice and Men

For some reason, the quote where George answers Lennie’s question about the cards stuck out to me: 

“‘Both ends the same,’ he said. ‘George, why is it both end’s the same?’ ‘I don’t know,’ said George. ‘That’s jus’ the way they make ‘em,’” (52).

I saw connections to “both end’s the same” throughout the rest of the novel. It seems as if Steinbeck wants us to consider whether the continuation of Lennie’s life, following George from ranch to ranch, is really any different than the ending of the novel. Would Lennie’s life have ever been better had he lived? I also saw this “both end’s the same” mentality in the conversation Crooks has with Lennie when he stops by his room: 

“‘They come , an’ they quit an’ go on; an’ every damn one of ‘em’s got a little piece of land in his head. An’ never a God damn one of ‘em ever gets it. Just like heaven… Nobody ever gets to heaven, and nobody gets no land,’” (70). 

Here, Crooks reaches even beyond physical disability to a state of social debility like Puar explains in “Preface: Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!”. No one in this story is able to make something different, something better, out of their lives. It all just ends the same. Even with the “far rush of wind” in the opening of the final chapter, “As quickly as it had come, the wind died, and the clearing was quiet again” (95). 

Just something I found interesting. 

Katy Rose Price’s Class Summary for 9/14/21

Word Count: 813

On September 14th, our class was almost entirely focused on the novella, Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck. After mentioning the University’s new COVID policy regarding seating, we moved into a large group discussion of the novella, which lasted the entirety of the hour allotted for class. To get the discussion started, Dr. Foss began by prompting us to think about the title of the piece. The title is an allusion to a poem called “To a Mouse” by Robert Burns and parallels can be drawn between the themes of the novella and the poem. Both are centered around the harsh nature of life for those who are most vulnerable and how people have hopes and dreams that often don’t come to fruition. Dr. Foss then asked the class who’s read this work before and to what extent it’s been used to talk about disability, in everyone’s personal experience. While the majority of the class had read Of Mice and Men before, it had only been utilized to discuss race and gender, with the exception of a couple of people.

The large group discussion then moved to converse about Lennie’s character and its representations. We began with material from page eight of the novella in which Lennie is compared to a dog. Similar comparisons are seen throughout the novella, in which Lennie is likened to a dog or a bear. Although people felt that it was a dehumanizing comparison, there are similarities, in that Lennie is often subservient and does not have his agency. Furthermore, more similarities can be observed when looking at the relationship between George and Lennie. In many ways, George holds power over Lennie, as a dog’s master would over a dog. However, it could be said that Steinbeck is prompting readers to see that others may perceive Lennie as an animal but to critique and question that perception.

In discussing Lennie and George’s relationship as it pertained to the dog comparison, that allowed us a segue to have a more in-depth conversation about Lennie and George’s relationship and George’s overall treatment of Lennie. While many of us saw their relationship as extremely toxic and George’s treatment of Lennie as problematic, we also realized that the time period the book was written and set in must be taken into consideration. There was far less knowledge regarding disabilities, which can be seen in how George did not understand Lennie’s disability, nor did he know how to properly communicate with Lennie. While it appears that George loves Lennie, he gets extremely frustrated at times and we eventually came to the conclusion that George’s approach was flawed but his intentions may have been in the right place. We also concluded that, as Steinbeck portrayed their relationship, it was inherently problematic.

The conversation then moved to the disturbing final scene of the novella, which took up the remainder of the class. Dr. Foss asked the class to consider how it would feel to be Lennie and to have that kind of ending. Likenesses can be seen between Lennie’s death and the death of Candy’s dog, as both were supposedly “put out of their misery” and shot in the back of the head. Additionally, just as Candy remarks that he wishes he was the one to have killed his dog, rather than letting a stranger be with his dog in his last moments, everyone else wanted to kill Lennie, but George makes sure he is the one to do it. This raises the question: is Steinbeck ultimately wanting readers to sympathize with George and having to kill his companion or does he want readers to pause and consider that Lennie’s death is not the same as that of a dog’s?

We then discussed a question that Dr. Foss raised, about how the ending would change if it was Crooks that George shot, instead of Lennie, without warning. If that changes readers’ perception of the ending, what does that mean for how we view Lennie? Does that mean we see him as less than? It’s a difficult question to answer and the class was unable to come to a clear consensus. However, we did agree that Lennie should not have been killed for something that he didn’t understand was happening, especially considering the accidental nature of Curly’s wife’s death and Lennie’s lack of ill intent.

Overall, the class had a fruitful and thought-provoking discussion about Of Mice and Men that offered insights into Lennie’s status as a disabled character and how he was perceived and treated as such. What readers draw from this novella depends on how they interpret Steinbeck’s portrayal of Lennie and Lennie’s death, as well as his portrayal of Lennie and George’s relationship. This class functioned as an introspective view into the identity of disability in this time period and offered a valuable portrayal of characters who could be considered disability aligned.

Lisa Gisselquist’s Class Summary for September 9th

On September 9th, the class discussed several pieces including “Introduction” from The Biopolitics of Disability by David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder and three fairytales by Oscar Wilde entitled “The Fisherman and His Soul,” “The Happy Prince” and “The Star-Child.” Though there was a poem reading assigned for this class, we did not have time to cover it. The class was broken into three main parts: Professor Foss explaining the terms from Mitchell and Snyder piece, large group discussion of said piece, and small group discussion of the fairytales. The first section helped to provide clarity to the Mitchell and Snyder piece through a discussion of the terms; based on this information, the second section then discussed the ramifications of neoliberalism in the modern world before we split into small groups to discuss how the characters in the fairytales could be considered as disability-aligned.

To help ensure comprehension both for the following discussion and in general, Professor Foss began with a discussion of Mitchell and Snyder’s piece, specifically all of the terms involved. The first term, biopolitics, designates processes of managing population resources through demographic record-keeping at the state level. This connects to neoliberalism, in which people, especially those with disabilities, are being channeled to have a consumer identity. It argues that all of the disabilities can be ‘solved’ by one product/medicine or another. Society is being driven to think that we have shifted away from eugenics and institutionalization and have become a more accepting society. In reality, disabled people are pushed to believe that they need to normalize themselves by using products, as neoliberalism wants. Finally, ablenationalism, the last piece of the puzzle, joins nationalism with the opportunities of ability that come with being a citizen. This simple explanation helped to lead the discussion into the actual specifics of how this is found in today’s world.

The large discussion centered around the general experience of the students with neoliberalism. Many students mentioned their own struggles with feeling like they needed medication and how they were concerned that they might become addicted to it. The conversation also turned to some of the problems with neoliberalism. For example, neoliberalism sells advantages that were not available in previous societies and are not available in most third-world countries. Furthermore, some people believe that medication saved their life to make them who they want to be, but for many others, medication does not work. This leaves them as outcasts in a supposedly ‘accepting’ society. One student even questioned how we could form solid conclusions when it comes to a certain disability or mental illness when the conditions are different depending on the person. The professor responded by bringing up how a lot more money went into curing Alzheimer’s and cancer than went into mental health research. Towards the end, one student asked whether drug addiction and alcoholism would be considered a disability. The general consensus was that it would be. For the most part, this discussion centered around students struggles living in a neoliberal society, which further supports the authors’ point about its failings.

For the remainder of class, we broke into small groups to discuss Oscar Wilde’s fairytales. In my small group, we started by discussing “The Star-Child” and how the transformation of the Star-Child into a disabled character was a punishment for pride and prejudice until he learned his lesson. This made the discussion of him being the ‘disability-aligned’ character difficult. How could his actions cause or cure disability? We then turned briefly to “The Happy Prince” and discussed the possibility of the Happy Prince having a mobility issue that caused him to need the sparrow to do things for him before moving to “The Fisherman and His Soul.” In this tale, we thought that the mermaid and the Sea-folk were the disability-aligned characters. However, we struggled to make sense of the role that the soul played in the story or how the fisherman could become ‘disabled’ and join the sea-folk but then recover on a whim. Our final conclusion was that if this story was looked at as a disability-aligned story, the witches’ involvement with the devil; the implications that the Sea-folk, as the disabled characters, had no souls; and the role of the soul in the story made it difficult for this story to be advocating for the disabled. However, as Oscar Wilde probably never intended them to be taken this way, they still serve to create a discussion of the treatment of disabled people (exp. The rejection of the sea-folk by the priest).

Throughout the class, there were two main themes: Neoliberalism, and whether characters were disability-aligned. The general consensus of the discussion of Neoliberalism was to detail some of the larger issues that it creates. As for the disability-aligned characters, Oscar Wilde’s fairytales, similar to Frankenstein, can convey lessons to the audience but become problematic when carefully examined. Overall, this class served as a fascinating discussion of the Mitchell and Snyder piece while also continuing our evaluation of disability-aligned characters.

Word Count: 831

Tristan Barber Class Summary for 9/7/21

Word count: 1113

For our September 7th class, we discussed four pieces of literature: “Frankenstein”, Oscar Wilde’s “The Birthday of the Infanta”, Oscar Wilde’s “The Selfish Giant”, and Robert McRuer’s “Introduction: Compulsory Able-Bodiedness and Queer/Disabled Existence”.

Dr. Foss opened up the discussion with a subtle reminder to post to the website for potential extra credit – and I will also subtly remind you myself to do so. Moving from that, we jumped directly into our discussion of the ending of Frankenstein, with particular care spent on the disability-aligned nature of the characters. The class immediately established the conversation with a rather apt pop-culture comparison: Frankenstein and Jeff (The Creation) share a similar dynamic as Tony Stark and Ultron. Both characters are selfish, shirking responsibility throughout the novel, with a particular focus on revenge and a failure to turn blame inwards. Both characters started out relatively pure, with Frankenstein from a peaceful family and Jeff having been created with a heart, both claiming the other corrupted themselves. Even so, it was agreed, “Cool motive, still murder.” This led the class to agree that both could be seen as “disabled avengers”.

Referencing Walten’s involvement in the story, Frankenstein’s personal exploration can be seen as a cautionary tale, helping Walten travel a better path without risking the deaths of even more innocent lives. Jeff, however, attempts to excuse his actions with his visage – using “deformities” as an excuse. Victor similarly can be seen as a negative stereotype reinforcer if we see his own personality traits as an extension of disability. After the long narrative told to him by Frankenstein, Walten starts to empathize with Jeff, their own conversation showing that stereotypes may overpower personal opinion.

The question lies, however. Is Frankenstein, the narrative, progressive? The answer was “maybe”, with many points going in the progressive aisle (at least, more progressive than other stories of the time). Jeff is shown as a thinking, feeling person rather than a dumb monster. He’s shown as an academic, fighting what stereotypes we can locate in other narratives of the era. Neither character is used as a plot device for an otherwise normative story – something we see in a lot of contemporary media. Victor himself is shown as potentially inwardly disabled while outwardly passing, defying some stereotypes of the time as well. Lastly, neither disability is “cured” at the end of the story, with both characters retaining their identities, defying the common trope of “disability cure = moral cure”.

From there, we moved on to Oscar Wilde’s piece “The Birthday of the Infanta” and his other piece, “The Selfish Giant”, starting with small group discussions. My group initially identified the story as having parallel to modern “Freak Shows”, later moving on to the characterization of the cast. The two characters that show the most emotion are the Dwarf and the King, both sharing humanity that the rest of the cast does not. With this, we agreed that the story was progressive-ish, as the princess was the real monster in the end, with a general theme being “beauty is on the inside”.

For the second piece, “The Selfish Giant”, my group began the conversation with the idea that the Giant had anger issues and required an “angel” to keep him company. From there, we discussed the possibility that the kids only appreciated him for what he could offer to society (the garden), with class and capitalist themes. Lastly, we discussed the Giant and the little boy, and how they got along – and the idea that the other children may have avoided the Giant’s touch, unlike the little boy. The Giant also seemed similar to the children, as he didn’t want to share his space, which is a bit immature.

While our small group did discuss the academic piece, I’ll save that for the ending of this summary, and jump straight to the group discussion of the two pieces I mentioned previously. In Infanta, we discussed the judgment the Dwarf underwent – based solely on his outward form, with no space in the world for him. Again, inner beauty vs outer beauty. However, there were some potential problematic aspects of this story. Firstly, he is portrayed as somewhat simple-minded is problematic, however, this is offset by his capability elsewhere. Secondly, it feels incredibly unrealistic that the Dwarf wouldn’t know what he looks like, and using that as a device to kill him is certainly not what we want in a progressive story. The Dwarf seeing himself as a “monstrosity”, even though he likely wasn’t taught this, may play into the idea that “everyone knows instinctively that disabled people are lesser beings”. He’s also not a fully realized character, seemingly killed off only to teach a moral lesson. The cactus also threatened violence against the Dwarf, using terminology that the rest of us would use to describe the cactus itself. Moving on, we ended that discussion with the agreement that this story was also one of class – where one cannot have a plotline of a disabled person as a romantic rival for royalty (heresy at the time). The Infanta was, in her own right, a “freak” – put on stage only as a spectacle, with parallels to freakshows. Lastly, her use of “play” in the quote “let those who come to play with me”, referencing the dwarf, may show that she has some recognition of her part in the narrative.

The class discussion of the Selfish Giant was short, but to summarize: it was potentially progressive, with his physical difference helping him interact with the kids. The Christ-child shows him his real worth, with divine sanctioning – potentially also being disability-aligned through his stigmata, which are marks of disfigurement. This ended the class period, but as I mentioned before, I’ll backtrack for one last paragraph.

My group explored the Robert-McRuer piece through the lens of history and sociopolitics.  We noted the interesting parallel between compulsory able-bodiedness and compulsive heterosexuality, noting that heterosexuality is only a “norm” in more recent times. Indeed, heterosexuality was only relatively recently defined. Many cultures in history didn’t place this importance on normative heterosexuality. In particular, recent thought on heterosexuality is informed through the dogma of Cold War era geopolitics – the Cold War as a fight against the irreligious Soviet Union, and the radicalization of American “traditionalism”, “products of their time”, bigotry as a means to an end, creating both an in and out-group. We touched on the movie however briefly, noting that the character only regained his humanity after he was “cured”, which is indeed problematic. To end the discussion, we noted that homosexuality was, up until very recently, seen as an illness, and it is still stigmatized to this day despite contemporary movements.

Welcome to ENGL 384, Disability and Literature (and to the dis/lit website)!

Hi, everyone!

Your Canvas course is now published.  I will read through the syllabus and calendar on Tuesday, our first day of class, but you are welcome to browse it beforehand, of course, and send me any questions in the interim.  Also, all of your assignment sheets already are posted under the Assignments tab, if you are interested in checking any of that information out.

While the classroom will be the primary site of our conversations, this separate course website will serve as a second vital course space.  In addition to functioning as a repository for the aforementioned syllabus and assignment sheets, you will be posting your written work to this website, and using its blogroll as a crucial place for class participation/discussion outside of our synchronous meeting times. Please add the site to your bookmarks tab for easy access.

See you on Tuesday!  Best–Dr. Foss