"Want to Learn How to Help Decrease the Negative Portrayals of (Dis)ability on Television? Step One: Be an Active Watcher." - (Dis)ability on Demand, Part Four

I admit that I don’t know a single person who doesn’t watch television. Sure, I don’t have cable, and many of my friends do not. We still watch television programs somehow, whether it be through various (legal or non) internet applications or Netflix. With that in mind, I don’t know a single person who hasn’t viewed a negative portrayal of a (dis)abled character, played by both (dis)abled actors and non (dis)abled actors. It seems as though these depictions are inescapable. Be that as it may, the authors of many of the articles I analyzed for this literature review suggest many ways that we, as a television audience and, some of us, educators can helped to change (dis)ability’s role on television or at least the way that it is perceived. 

I believe the most salient piece of advice I found was from Byrd & Eliot (1984) who, by citing Bernotavicz (1979), recommend no longer being a passive member of the audience (p. 7). I think this activity of active participation can translate into classrooms as well. Many teachers share films and video clips during class time, and these video clips and videos can be used as teaching tools even if they contain negative portrayals. Educators can teach their students to critically analyze and interpret the images they see on the screen. Students then raise questions like, “Why do these images exist in the first place? What does this say about our society as a whole?” and, most importantly, “What can we do to change these images?”

Teachers need to be aware that, yes, we have present and future television audiences in our classrooms, but we also have future creators, actors, directors, and producers, of television sitting in the desks right in front of us. Numerous pieces I included in this review also offer guidance to those in the industry. For instance, Lynn Manning, during HBO’s (2007) “Written on the Body,” contributes this personal piece of wisdom:

Spend time researching characters… A friend of mine, Dan Murphy, in Los Angeles is working together with me, and some other performers and writers with disabilities, to provide free consultation to any writer who wants to write a disabled character, or who has a question about something that’s simple and easy enough to answer (2007, p. 39). 

This service of consultation seems like an amazing opportunity for directors and producers to include accurate portrayals in their program. Yet, I wonder why many do not take this offer?

Perhaps, many fear that they do not have the time to do so, and obviously, money is not the issue. On the other hand, many may believe that their television program simply doesn’t have the place for a (dis)abled character. However, as Foss (2014) points out, “While most television programs cannot devote whole seasons to destigmatizing hearing loss and deafness, slight changes in the existing story lines could vastly improve public perception of hearing loss” (p. 897). I think that is true essence of this inequality that I have been trying to address in this review--small steps, small changes, can go along way to change the current situation.

Additionally, as Daryl 'Chill' Mitchell suggests during “Written on the Body,” “It’s about being open” (HBO, 2007, p. 41). In addition to filling a very apparent gap in the literature, this particular review and the future research that I plan on completing in the future is all about making others feel more open to the possibility of positive portrayals of (dis)ability on television and having those portrayals actually played by (dis)abled actors, the individuals who truly understand these roles. After all, they are the ones who have lived them.

So, I leave this multimedia review with the following in my mind, something I'd like to share with you as well:

Be open;

Think critically;

Ask questions. Seriously, question everything you see. As the research has proven, there’s more to what you see on the screen. 

Works Cited

Byrd, E. K., & Elliott, T. R. (1984, March). Attitude Change toward Disability through Television Portrayals with Male College Students. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Abstract received from ERIC.

Foss, K. A. (2014). (De)stigmatizing the silent epidemic: Representations of hearing loss in entertainment television. Health Communication, 29(9), 888-900.

HBO. (2007). A conversation about disability
written on the body: Part two. Dramatist, 
9(5), 36-41.

"Why are There No Realistic Portrayals of (Dis)ability on Your Show?" - (Dis)ability on Demand, Part Three

After exposing the apparent lack of roles available to (dis)abled actors and exploring why the roles that do exist are so important to television viewers, especially students and teachers, I feel as though it is crucial to give examples of the problematic and positive (dis)abled characters that have existed in the past and still currently remain on prime time television. Below, I have both provided and analyzed several studies that include samples of very prominent episodes and programs that contain characters with (dis)abilities. They are divided by genre, following the example created by chart found on Dustin Kidd’s tumblr project, Pop Culture Freaks. 

Reality TV - 13.7%

Beginning with the largest category, I introduce screen time had by (dis)abled individuals on reality television. I think it is quite obvious that reality television programming should posses the largest number of (dis)abled individuals featured, but I find it quite odd that the number is not higher. These television shows are supposed to be featuring reality, right? 

Perhaps this unnatural lack of (dis)abled participants speaks to the true, commercial nature of the genre of reality television.

Dr. Phil
Dr. Phil, named after the now infamous Dr. Phil McGraw, is a daily talk show that airs in the United States on every week day. Dr. Phil and his guests/patients discuss problems that may exist in their lives. In their study, “Dr. Phil, Medical Theaters, Freak Shows, and Talking Couches: The Talking Stage as  Pedagogical Site,” Eisenhauer and Richardson (2014) explore one episode in particular, “Extreme Highs and Lows,” which aired on March 7, 2006. Within this context, they divulge that “talk shows have been labeled contemporary freak shows in both academic and popular contexts” (Eisenhauer & Richardson, 2014, p. 67). During this hour of cable television, Dr. Phil interviews two special guests (a.k.a patients) Cathy and Fred, both of whom have bipolar disorder. With careful editing, repetitive use of stigmatizing language such as “psycho” and “freak,” and the introduction of controversial themes and discussion points, Dr. Phil perpetuates the hegemony of “normalcy” I introduced in my previous blog post, “What You Talkin’ Bout Willis” — (Dis)covering the (Dis)Course of (Dis)ability, and “reiterates and tacitly affirms many stereotypical perceptions already held by the non disabled viewer and internalized by the disabled viewer” (Eisenhauer & Richardson, p. 75). Moreover, the almost clinical style of the show makes the very personal act of visiting a therapist very public.

I think these controversial elements go beyond damaging the image of the (dis)abled community and questions the very makeup of our society’s model of healthcare and also professional relationships. With shows like Dr. Phil increasing in popularity, what other aspects of intimate daily life are at risk of negative exposure? What is next? 

Animated - 8.6% 
The Simpsons
The Simpsons is now the longest running, scripted television show in history, which is no surprise judging by its huge fan base. I must admit that I had never watched an entire episode of the show before reading Moritz Fink’s (2013) study entitled “People Who Look Like Things: Representations of Disability in The Simpsons.” I’m afraid that I just didn’t get the comedic appeal of the show; I was put off by it, so to speak. Ironically, as Fink elaborates with his theory of distanciation in regards to the offensive humor, I, as a viewer was not meant to (p. 256). A huge part of The Simpsons’ humor lies in its deconstruction of traditional stereotypes or cliches. Essentially, the program is a commentary on our entire neoliberalist society and urges the audience to “engage with questions of political correctness” (Fink). Models of this deconstruction often come in the form of disabled characters such as Herman Hermann (an amputee who is seen as an Captain Ahab-like character and portrayed as "paranoid" and "insane"), Robert Terwilliger, also known as Sideshow Bob (a character with wild hair and oversized feet who is intent on killing Homer), and even Homer Simpson himself, one of the main characters of the show who, at one time, attempts to pass for (dis)abled by becoming the morbidly obese character of King-Size Homer. Fink elaborates that these inclusions of (dis)abilities are “an opportunity to take advantage of the possibilities offered by the animated form” and “a motive for setting up [an] episode’s narrative” (p. 263).

While I find the critical allowance the creators of the The Simpsons give their audience avant-garde and contemplate if episodes could be used in classrooms to teach issues of social justice, I wonder if these “motives” and “opportunities” are the best way for (dis)abilities to be seen on a television screen (Fink, p. 263)?

Dramas - 3.2%

Life Goes On
Airing from 1989 to 1993, Life Goes On was the first dramatic television series in the United States to feature an actor with Down Syndrome in a leading role. Additionally, it was the first show to introduce a recurring teenage character who was HIV-positive. Acknowledging these facts, I have to ask myself, “How have I never heard about this show before now?!” Perhaps it was before the time I can cognitively remember television or maybe I was sheltered from controversial programming like and including Life Goes On as a child. No matter the reason for my past ignorance, I presently find its connections to important societal issues extremely revolutionary. To explain its radical, at the time (and, in some circles, for the present) subject matter, I refer to “Cripping Safe Sex: Life Goes On’s Queer/Disabled Alliance” (2012) written by Julie Passanante Elman. In the piece Elman reveals that:

By portraying fulfilling sexual relationships for its disabled protagonists, Life challenged heteronormative and ableist underpinning of marriage, sexuality, reproduction, and sex education and imagine transgressive queer alliances that often surpassed those of activists of its cultural moment (p. 317).

These sexual relationships eluded to by Elman, come in the form of Jesse, an HIV positive teenager, his girlfriend Becca, and Becca’s older brother who has Down Syndrome, Corky, and his girlfriend, Amanda, who also has Down Syndrome. Corky and Amanda’s interactions, though they are both (dis)abled, are often compared to Jesse and Amanda’s, like in the episode "Triangles." These four characters are made equals in the eyes of the television audience.

I find it wholly encouraging to learn that actors with Down Syndrome do find acting roles like Corky from Life Goes On. Personally, I have watched others like Nan from American Horror Story and Becky Jackson from Glee, but it is important to note that these characters are different from Corky. Nan and Becky most often serve the purpose of teaching the main characters lessons about (dis)ability, compassion, or acceptance. When will another show, like Life Goes On, exist that features a (dis)abled character that simply exists alongside his or her non (dis)abled characters counterparts?

Sit-coms - 2.1%

[Hint: I may just answer the above question below.]
The Big Bang Theory & Community
The Big Bang Theory and Community are two of my all-time favorite shows, but, when I think about these shows, my mind does not immediately jump to (dis)ability. I think of the laugh inducing plot lines and endearing characters. Therefore, I ask myself, “Is this a good or a bad thing?”

To answer my question, I turn to Shannon Walters, a (dis)ability studies scholar from Temple University, who writes that ““Getting the joke” about disability is not as simple as it seems, especially when certain terms or figures are used. Meaning is extremely flexible and even contradictory in humor” (2013, p. 272). I believe what Walter means is that instead of realizing that a joke was made using or at the expense of someone’s (dis)ability, I took the joke to mean something else entirely. It’s all about perception when interpreting comedy in television programming. 

This perception comes into play when analyzing the multifaceted roles that two characters, Sheldon Cooper and Abed Nadir, play in regards to their (both obvious and implied) (dis)abilities. To explain, in The Big Bang Theory, it is implied that Sheldon Cooper has Aspergers Syndrome. He is very resistant to change, struggles to understand sarcasm and to lie, and is excruciatingly blunt at times, but it is never explicitly stated that Sheldon is on the autism spectrum.  Contrastingly, in the very first episode, Jeff Winger, the main character of Community, “outs” Abed, the character in question, for having Asperger’s. Throughout the remainder of the now cancelled show, Abed explores his (dis)ability by means of addressing the audience and breaking the fourth wall. These two shows take these (dis)abilities, whether they be explicit or not, and shows that these characters' characteristics are “essential to the social cohesion… and work to resist the assumption that cognitive difference separates neurotypical and autistic characters into categories of “normal” and “abnormal”” (Walters, 2013, p. 274). For instance, the groups of friends in these two television shows are always bickering over petty issues, but Abed and Sheldon always work to bring the parties back together. Also, as mentioned above, Abed and Sheldon are constantly bringing to light how atypical or out of place their own friends are. Raj cannot talk to women, while Sheldon can. Jeff cannot possess a meaningful relationship with a woman while Abed can. In these ways, they are resisting dominant stereotypes about autism.

Unfortunately, one of these characters, Sheldon, also has a tendency to “problematize cognitive difference in unproductive ways” (Walters, 2013, p. 277). To explain, Sheldon has a PhD is physics, while many students with autism struggle daily in school. He presents the “ideal way of being different” (Walter, p. 277). This proves that, while productive in many ways, even the seemingly best characters have their faults.

With characters like Abed, Sheldon, and Corky, existing in the homes of millions of Americans weekly by means of television viewing, is it safe to say that our society is changing for the better, in regards to featuring (dis)ability characters in television? I would have to say yes… and no. As I have detailed in my two previous blog posts, (Dis)ability on Demand, Parts One and Two, there exists and balance of both true, positive portrayals and negative, stereotypical ones. Additionally, a majority of these portrayals (even the positive characters, such as Abed) are still played by non (dis)abled actors while (dis)abled actors could easily perform the part.

While it can be disheartening to constantly unearth and analyze these inequalities, I have found, through this literature review, that there are ways that we, as an audience and also educators can help change this inequality. In my next blog post, I will illustrate some of these actions.

Works Cited

Eisenhauer, J. & Richardson, J. (2014). Dr. Phil, medical theaters, freak shows, and talking couches: The talking stage as pedagogical site. Journal of Literacy & Cultural Disability Studies, (8)1. 67-80.

Elman, J. P. (2012). Cripping safe sex: Life Goes On's queer/disabled alliances. Bioethical Inquiry (2012)9. 317-326.

Fink, M. (2013). "People who look like things": Representations of disabilities in The Simpsons. Journal of Literary & Cultural Studies, 7.3(2013), 255-270.

Kidd, D. (2013). Disability Demographics by TV Genre [chart]. Retrieved from Pop Culture Freaks 

Walters, S. (2013). Cool Aspie Humor. Journal Of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 7(3), 271-288.

"What If I Told You That Television Impacted Society's Views?" - (Dis)ability on Demand, Part Two

David Kurs, who spoke up in HBO’s (2007) “Written on the Body” states that, “It [a (dis)abled role] needs to be there on a token level, as well as on a meaningful level, because sometimes it’s very evident that they [producers] don’t know what to do with these people once they’re on the show” (p. 39). Many, including myself and Kurs, believe that these roles featuring (dis)abled characters need to be included. Obviously, that’s why I completing this review. Anything can help the dismal situation I illustrated in “(Dis)ability on Demand, Part One,” right? This overwhelming agreement originated from the argument that (dis)abilities are generally excluded from representation in the media (Haller & Zhang, 2013, p. 321).

However, I wonder, “At what costs do these particular, possibly negative roles come with?”

(Dis)ability studies scholars and activists alike take issue with these more problematic character portrayals. For instance, Donaldson (1981) speaks to these negativities when he writes that “prime time television is not exerting a significant influence in shaping positive societal attitudes toward individuals who are handicapped” (p. 415). Moreover, Perepa & Samsel (2013) find an even greater deficit and claim that “television programs lack positive representation altogether, of those with disabilities and special educational needs” (142).

Taking into account the overwhelming evidence that very little or no positive representations of (dis)abled characters are aired on television, it is impossible to deny the impact (both good and bad) this fact has on all students and teachers, whether (dis)abled or not. Below, I will individually dissect the repercussions felt by each party of the education system.

Non (Dis)abled Students
Alison Wilde (2010), in her study, “Spectacle Performance, and the Re-Presentation of Disability and Impairment," found that many non (dis)abled young people wanted to “watch T.V. sometimes for the normality of it, just to laugh for five minutes” (p. 38). With this being the case, why is it important for non (dis)abled students to view television programming that contains (dis)abled characters and actors? 

To answer this question, I bring to light a study conducted by Byrd & Elliot (1984) in which they presented eight grade and collegiate freshman males with two portrayals of the (dis)ability found on television, a professional film developed by the American Foundation for the Blind entitled What Do You Do When You Meet a Blind Person? (similar to this video, I am sure) and an episode of the popular sitcom Mork and Mindy. The researchers found, after administering a pre- and posttest judging attitudes toward (dis)abled individuals, that viewing these programs, particularly the first, “may effectively reduce anxiety in a non-disabled person which would be detrimental to interaction with a disabled person (Donaldson, 1980)” (p. 6).

Thus, the exposure to such programming eases tensions that may arise during an initial encounter between a (dis)abled person and a non (dis)abled person. With this in mind, I hypothesize that this type of introduction should begin to occur at a very early age. Coincidently, many children’s programs, such as Sesame Street, have taken action due to this call for inclusion, and have regularly featured children and adults with (dis)abilities. 

(Dis)abled Students
As previously included above, (dis)abled youth are not being exposed to enough positive role models, in the form of (dis)abled characters and actors, who enjoy comfortable and productive lives in accordance to the mainstream view of today’s society. According to Donaldson (1981), these young people “may, therefore, not envision such adults roles for themselves” (p. 415). This pessimistic framing of (dis)ability perpetuates preexisting prejudices against the (dis)abled community, does nothing to advance the (dis)ability rights movement, and reinforces self-hatred felt by people with (dis)abilities (Haller, 2010).

Despite the compelling consequences, these negative roles still exist and have created three major stereotypes, as viewed by (dis)abled individuals. They are: “supercrips, [the] disadvantaged, or ill victims. Among these dominant media representations, most of them are stigmatizing, except the supercrip model” (Haller & Zhang, 2013, p. 329). Personally, I have seen the “disadvantaged” and the “ill victim” on various occasions, as many programs feature the “non (dis)abled savior” who assists the (dis)abled person to come to term with their (dis)ability, to change their negative attitude, and to stop feeling sorry for themselves (HBO, 2007, p. 36). 

Nonetheless, I am intrigued by this “supercrip model,” its phrasing, its meaning, and its implications (Haller & Zhang, 2013, p. 329). To elaborate on my thought process, my mind immediately jumps to (dis)abled superheroes (combining two of my research interests!), such as DC Comics' Oracle and Marvel's Daredevil, because the creators of this thought-provoking term elaborate that, “In the supercrip model, people with disabilities are represented as “superhuman” because they achieve unexpected accomplishments or live a normal life just like people with no disabilities (Clogston, 1990)” (p. 329). With the fun and unique possibility of the “supercrip model” for directors to pursue, I wonder why these characters are still hard to find or to exist really?

[Hmmm… I see an investigation of the “supercrip model” in my future.]

Educators, Both (Dis)abled and Non
It has been proven in various studies across the world that teacher’s beliefs may influence their behavior in the classroom, their teaching practices, and, eventually, their expectations from their students (Kagan, 1992). Additionally, there are numerous studies that support this view in relation to children with disabilities, whether it be exhibiting pity or lowering one’s expectations (Clark, 1997; Gibbs, 2007; Brady and Woolfson, 2008). Unfortunately, I have found this to be true due to my own experiences as both a teacher and a student. From these memories, I learned to always keep my beliefs and biases in check, but it is always so easy?

Interestingly, I found research conducted by Perepa and Samsel (2013) that takes these previous studies on teaching practices and expectations toward (dis)abled students and adds a focus on media. Their findings, included below, are quite interesting:

However, while they feel that their teaching practice is not influenced by what they view on television and in films, the vast majority acknowledged that their understanding of disabilities was. This seems to raise a contradiction, as all teachers agreed on the importance of the media in shaping people’s perceptions, and therefore attitudes to those with disabilities, and yet they claim that there is no such impact on their own attitudes or expectations towards their students (p. 143).

In fact, it isn’t always so easy. As Perepa and Samsel (2013) divulge, television programming does influence educators’ perceptions of students with (dis)abilities, whether they realize it or not. It is important to note that this change does not always happen in a negative matter; these changes can also be educated and informed. 

Still, one must proceed with caution. 

Byrd, Byrd, & Dillion (1980), citing Liebert (1975) as their source, claim that “the more frequently you observe a disability in a certain light, the more convincing that observation becomes and less likely one is to see differences among individuals with the same disability” (p. 67). While a portrayal may be beneficial and its frequency of exposure high, it is, the educator’s responsibility to realize that every child is different, is an individual with their own, personal positive attributes, even if he or she has a (dis)abilities. 

Obviously, “…characterizations are used to strengthen or weaken cultural identifications and to articulate, negotiate or maintain patterns of exclusion and inclusion between people” (Wilde, 2010, p. 42). That is why it is important that students and teachers realize what they are watching influences the way they are thinking. They must analyze these “push-Pull” tensions that can occur during these positionings in the media and become critical readers of popular culture texts and audiences of popular culture images like the ones shown of (dis)abled characters on television (Alvermann, 2012, p. 7).

Next, I will include and analyze a collection of academic pieces that feature specific examples of these negative and positive portrayals of (dis)abled characters (played by both (dis)abled and non (dis)abled actors) in television and become a critical reader of popular culture texts myself.

Works Cited

Alvermann, D. E. (2012). Is there a place for popular culture in curriculum and classroom  instruction? In A. J. Eakle (Ed.), Curriculum and Instruction, Vol. 2, 214-220, 227-228. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brady, K. & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influences their attributions for children’s difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78. 527-544.

Byrd, D., Byrd, K., & Dillon, C. (1980).

Television and disability. Journal of 

Rehabilitation, October/November/December. 

67-69.

Byrd, E. K., & Elliott, T. R. (1984, March). 

Attitude Change toward Disability through 

Television Portrayals with Male College 

Students. Paper presented at Annual Meeting 

of the Southeastern Psychological 

Association, New Orleans, LA. Abstract 

received from ERIC.

Clark, M. D. (1997). Teachers’ response to

learning disability: A test of attributional 

principles. Journal of Learning Difficulties, 

30(1). 69-79.

Donaldson, J. (1981). The visibility and 

image of handicapped people on television. 

Exceptional Children, 47(6), 413-416.

Gibbs, S. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of 

efficacy: Beliefs that may support inclusion 

or segregation. Educational and Child 

Psychology, 24(3). 47-53.

Haller, B. A. (2010). Representing disability 

in an ableist world: Essays on mass media. 

Louisville, KY: Avocado Press, Incorporated.

Haller, B. A. & Zhang, L. (2013). Consuming 

image: How mass media impact the identity of 

people with disabilities. Communication 

Quarterly, 61(3). 319-334.

HBO. (2007). A conversation about disability 

written on the body: Part two. Dramatist, 

9(5), 36-41.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research 

on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 

27(1). 65-90.

Perepa, P. & Samsel, M. (2013). The impact of 

media representation of disabilities on 

teachers' perceptions. British Journal of 

Learning Support, 28(4), 138-145.

Wilde, A. (2010). Spectacle, performance, and 

the re-presentation of disability and 

impairment. Review of Disability Studies, 

6(3). 34-53.

"So You're Telling Me That Non (Dis)abled Actors Play (Dis)abled Characters?" - (Dis)ability on Demand, Part One

In 1978, Mankiewicz and Swerdlow, in their seminal work, Remote Control: Television and the Manipulation of American Life, claim that television was the most powerful institution in our society at that time. Today, over thirty-six years later, I think their statement still rings true. Certainly, our technology has expanded quite a bit to include other forms of entertainment, including cellular smart phones, laptops, tablets and the like. The list could truly go on and on, and, with this endless amount of devices, we, as members of a digital age, have created this power, this need, to be "always on" (Rushkoff, 2013, p. 85; italics added for emphasis). However, no matter the number of other devices that we all may possess, millions, perhaps billions, of people still turn on the television each evening to tune into their favorite programming. I believe there is real power in this routine as well.

Yet, I wonder where this power derives from? Why do we feel this need to turn on the television? Is there something more than the value of amusement at work here? Many theorists have attempted to answer these very queries. Stonewall’s Citizenship 21 Project (2003), suggests that, “Many people use media, primarily television, as a source of experiencing reality, especially when they lack first-hand experience of an issue presented on screen.” Others, like Byrd, Byrd, & Dillon (1980) hypothesize that “We watch programs into which we can project ourselves” (p. 68). While both of these theories make genuine claims, I find the latter to be the most prevalent in my own television viewing preferences. Whenever I watch an episode of any of my never-ending favorite television programs (Game of Thrones, True Blood, The Walking Dead, Witches of East End, Orange is the New Black, American Horror Story, Big Bang Theory, etc.), I always position myself with the character I find most relatable (Sansa Stark, Sookie Stackhouse, Maggie Greene, Ingrid Beauchamp, Piper Chapman, Zoe Benson, Penny, etc.).

This is often a very simple task for myself to accomplish, but I fear that this connection may not be easily found for members of the (dis)abled community. I think back to all of the various shows that I have watched throughout my relatively short life, and I find it hard to count more than five (dis)abled characters that appeared regularly on these popular programs that I viewed (Nan from American Horror Story, Becky Jackson from Glee, Artie Abrams also from Glee, Gil Grissom from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation... That's it.). Victoria Lewis, as transcribed in “Written on the Body,” a written account of a symposium held by HBO for actors, writers, directors, and filmmakers held to discuss how to write about (dis)ability, echoes similar claims, that “the fact that these roles are few and far between” (HBO, 2007, p. 36).

Despite the appallingly low number of roles, some do exist, but many are not true portrayals of the (dis)abled experience. This fact is extrapolated upon David Kurs when he, also in “Written on the Body,” states:

Roles get cast here and there that may not be authentic. But because there’s a fear among actors that they might not get another role, another opportunity, even a deaf actor will play a non-authentic character; the roles are so few and far between that they’re grateful to get them. So that’s a struggle as well. I mean, you know, it’s work! (p. 37).  

While I have come to know that the life of an actor, especially in television, is certainly not easy, I realize now that the life of the (dis)abled actor is definitely more difficult. Additionally, as Wilde (2010) elaborates, these same “unauthentic” roles may only be a supporting or subsidiary character—the type of role we may not even recall when thinking about a program days, and most certainly years, later (p. 41). These roles, though scarce, simply are not memorable and revolutionary like the type of characters the (dis)abled community needs to change current stereotypes that exist.

Moreover, I have noticed that many of these roles for (dis)abled characters, whether small or large, are not always played by (dis)abled actors. I wonder why this could possibly be, because, as I mentioned above, (dis)abled actors find work so scarcely and will essentially take anything they can get (HBO, p. 37). To expound upon this unusual phenomenon, I believe that a further review of the preexisting literature on this matter and its impact on society, particularly within the realm of education, is in order. 

This and the three subsequent blog posts will contain said review, which I have entitled (Dis)ability on Demand. Furthermore, this review will be presented in a somewhat untraditional, multimedia format filled with pictures and links to relevant videos and website, as featured briefly above. 

Works Cited

Byrd, D., Byrd, K., & Dillon, C. (1980). 

Television and disability. Journal of 

Rehabilitation, October/November/December. 

67-69.

Citizenship 21 Project. (2003). Profiles of 

prejudice: Detailed summary. London, England: 

Stonewall. Available from 

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/pdf_cov

er__content.pdf. 

Foss, K. A. (2014). (De)stigmatizing the 

silent epidemic: Representations of hearing 

loss in entertainment television. Health 

Communication, 29(9), 888-900.

HBO. (2007). A conversation about disability 

written on the body: Part two. Dramatist, 

9(5), 36-41.

Mankiewicz, F. & Swerdlow, J. (2978). Remote 

control: Television and the manipulation of 

American life. New York: Ballantine Books. 

Rushkoff, D. (2013). Present shock: When 

everything happens now. New York, NY: Penguin 

Group.

Wilde, A. (2010). Spectacle, performance, and 

the re-presentation of disability and 

impairment. Review of Disability Studies, 

6(3). 34-53.

Y U Interested in (Dis)ability Studies? - Impetus for My Interest

I realize that I have not yet divulged why I am so interested in the field of (dis)ability studies. Now, I must confess that I have a very close relationship to the (dis)abled community. I, myself, am not (dis)abled, but my younger brother, Spencer is. I’d like to share our, mine, his, and our families’ story with you. I’ve shared this story many times and via several platforms, but I still think it is important to share my past in order for others’ to understand my present and future work.

When I was seven years old, my brother, Spencer was born, and I immediately found my best friend within this eight pound 9 ounce cherub. Spencer was a typical baby boy. He cried frequently and drooled far too much, but that is what one expects from a baby, right?. It wasn't until he reached the age of two that my parents (and I suppose myself, but I was in denial) realized that something was not quite right. His speech wasn't progressing as we all thought it should, and he would not even acknowledge or respond to any vocal communication that was directed towards him. Additionally, Spencer began to develop strange habits. I still vividly remember watching him sitting on the living room floor, staring the ceiling fan, and gazing at one single blade going around and around and around. He wouldn't move for hours. It was as if he was looking at some bigger picture—one that we all couldn't see. I believe this curious routine was the impetus for my parents to seek outside help. They were afraid and confused, but I now know that these emotions are just a taste of the world my brother experiences every day when he travels outside the comfort of his home. 

Many months, tedious observations, and nerve racking scans followed our initial recognition of Spencer's odd behavior, and he was eventually diagnosed with Pervasive Development Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified, or as others call it, “classic Autism” (Autism Speaks). This discovery may have happened over fourteen years ago, but it still affects my brother's life to this day. Spencer is a high school school sophomore, and he is academically behind his peers, although he is a year or two ahead in age, and, I concede, worldly wisdom and apathy. Spencer tells me that he has no friends, sits alone at lunch, and is constantly bullied due to the stigmatization that I feel is caused by his (dis)ability. Since his diagnosis, my family and I have struggled to explain Spencer's disability to ourselves, others, and most importantly, Spencer.

Last semester, I was asked what I was passionate about—something I could research for a graduate class. My initial thought was my family; they are and always will be my first priority. However, I was unsure how I could really combine my personal life with my academic work. After much discussion with one of my mentors, I realized that I had always wanted to know more about my brother’s (dis)ability, so I could better understand him, become even closer to him. That is when this work began.

Throughout that same semester and the one following, I delved into (dis)ability studies and its relation to children’s and young adult literature, specifically multicultural children’s literature (as (dis)ability has its own culture within itself). It was until this summer, when I enrolled in course entitled Popular Culture in Literacy Classrooms and Other Educational Venues, that I began to expand my research and combine this interest in (dis)ability studies with my passion for popular or ‘pop’ culture. By the way, this was one reason I included memes at the beginning of all my posts; I want this collaboration of pop culture and (dis)ability to be felt throughout the blog’s entirety. Furthermore, I felt as though it was important to take my work in this direction, because, as Alvermann (2012)  states, the “the politics of identity construction are alive and well” in classrooms, particular those that critically dissect and use popular culture artifacts (p. 7). I see that (dis)ability deserves a place in these discussions on and explorations of popular, right alongside race, gender, sexuality, class, and the other, various self-identifiers.

Works Cited

Alvermann, D. E. (2012). Is there a place for popular culture in curriculum and classroom instruction? In A. J. Eakle (Ed.), Curriculum and Instruction, Vol. 2, 214-220, 227-228. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Autism Speaks. (2014). What is autism: PDD-NOS? Autism Speaks. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/pdd-nos

“One Does Not Simply Define (Dis)ability” - Still Searching for Meaning

Two other authors in Disability Discourse  (1999), the text featured in this previous blog post, Swain and Cameron , were possibly the most influential in my understanding of the term (dis)ability. I truly had an epiphany when I read their contribution. They write, “The discourse is predominantly around the labeling of rather than by disabled people—that is, self-referent labeling—except when this is understood as an acceptance of labeling by others”  (p. 68). I realized that, for my whole life, I had been labeling individuals with words they had not chosen, titles I handpicked myself. They had no say in the matter. I am not a (dis)abled person, yet I felt entitled to label (dis)abled individuals as such. 

I felt that this self proclaimed privilege derived from my own social surroundings, as Corker and French (1999) previously explained. I had never asked my brother if he would prefer if I didn't call him “weird” after he exhibited any of the typical signs of his Autism, I never once interrogated any of my peers in primary school what they would like to be called when my friends whispered the word, “retarded” behind their backs, and I am sure administrators never once questioned students in special education programs whether they would like to be labeled “special.” The ones who are labeled hardly ever object; they simply “accept the labeling by others” (Swain & Cameron, p. 68).

Although, there has been a movement fostered by the social media model of (dis)ability that, “denies that any particular attributes or functioning of individual bodies should be thought to constitute a 'problem' or 'disadvantage' apart from the social environment within which the individuals live” (Corker & Shakespeare, 2002, p. xii). This denial of the problematic/disadvantaged definition created the postmodern spelling of (dis)ability or dis/ability. The separation within this word also further represents the wish for the (dis)abled identity to be seen as “multiple, fluid, and interactive” (Schaller, 2008, p. 5) . This new somewhat disjointed definition is inspired by the work of Hubert J.M. Hermans and his notion of the “dialogical self,” which stemmed from theories originated by William James, and Mikhail Bakhtin. Hermans (2006) creates an elaborate theater metaphor that led me to clarification. This image details actors placing their beings at different places, interacting with one another in several “forms of dialogue: agreement, disagreement, negotiation, opposition, and conflict” (Hermans, p. 148).

While somewhat confusing, this new definition, whether it be dis/ability of (dis)ability is a way for those with a (dis)ability to take ownership of a title that was created for them. Now, this terms is created by and for themselves and expresses many facets of their individuals not simply their difference.

This is why the (parentheses) are now included in some individuals' use of the word (dis)ability. I choose to use them for these reasons. Will you?

Works Cited

Corker, M. & Shakespeare, T. (2002). Foreword. In M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. xii-xiv). New York, NY: Continuum.

Cameron, C. & Swain, J. (1999). Unless otherwise stated: discourses of labeling and identity in coming out. In. M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability Discourse (pp. 1-12). Philadelphia, PA : Open University Press.

Hermans, H. J. M. (2006). The self as a theater of voices: disorganization and reorganization of a position repertoire. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 147-160.

Schaller, J. E. (2008). Reconfiguring dis/ability: multiple and narrative constructions of self. Pastoral Psychology, 57, 89-99.