"What You Talking Bout Willis?" - Discovering the (Dis)course of (Dis)ability

I’m sure many of you are wondering what this blog, Digitally Discovering (Disability)is really about. You may have asked yourself, “Why would (dis)ability need to be discovered? Doesn't it already exist?," "Is it okay to talk about (dis)ability in this way or in any way at all?,” “Moreover, why does this word all of a sudden have a parenthesis breaking it up?,” and “Should I, too, write (dis)ability this way?” Well, within this particular blog post and subsequent posts, I hope to answer these questions and also bring up many, many more queries in regards to (dis)ability and its place within our society, particularly pop culture and all of its intricacies take note of the memes included at the beginning of every post) and within other spheres of academia. However, to begin, I’d like to take you on a journey, my journey—my great and never-ending discovery of (dis)ability studies and its domains, digital and otherwise.

Before I began graduate school and my interest in (dis)ability studies was sparked, I was hesitant to talk about (dis)ability, especially my brother’s learning (dis)ability, which I will detail in a later post. I never wanted to come across as ignorant or all knowing. I felt as though it was impossible to sound informed and yet also understanding. Now, I still sometimes face that same hesitancy. I find that I am anxious to use the words “disability,” “disabled,” and “impaired,” but I have to step back and ask myself, “Why is that? What makes it so hard for me to say or even type these words?” Corker and French, in Disability Discourse (1999) admit that, “Much of the uneasiness that we have with the current framework of disability theory stems from its failure to conceptualize a mutually constitutive relationship between impairment and disability which is both materially and discursively (socially) produced” (p. 6). Their confession reveals a common element found within our society. Many people are fearful of the “D Word,” of being different, (dis)abled, or disadvantaged, and Corker and French owe this uneasiness to social constructs, social realities that were built upon the hegemony that normalcy posses.

That’s right. I think the true problem, the origin of my (and possibly your) uneasiness derives from the power that normalcy has in our society. Let’s think about that for a second. Don’t we all use the term normal way more than we use the term (dis)ability? I constantly overhear individuals who want themselves, their future significant other, or their children to be “normal,” like everyone else, to "fit in." I find that these people, including myself, fear the “D word,” being different, but I want to know why. I ask you all: “What is so great about being “normal?!””

I crave to know what “normal” really means. Don't you? I wonder where this term comes from and who invented the word, its etymology. For an explanation, I turn to Lennard J. Davis, an American specialist in (dis)ability studies. After delving into Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body (1995), I found that his work surprised me and also coincided with many of my own theories. As far as affirmation goes, Davis includes “I do this because the 'problem' is not the person with disabilities; the problem is the way that normalcy is constructed to create the 'problem' of the disabled person” (Davis, p. 24). I echo this sentiment and also enjoy his uncertainty surrounding the use of the word 'problem.' I find this word to often be used out of context, particularly in situations regarding disability in the setting of the classroom. Nonetheless, Davis' concept still does not answer my question of the origin of “normal” and its creator.

As I continue through his work, I find something utterly shocking, Davis' own revelation that the concept of “normal” and “normalcy” is a relatively new one. He states that “normal” was originally defined as:

constituting, conforming to, not deviating or differing from, the common type or standard regular, usual and only enters the English language around 1840. The word 'norm,' in the modern sense, has only been in use since 1855, and 'normality' and 'normalcy' appeared in 1849 and 1857 respectively (p. 24). 

I had always assumed that “normal” was one of the first words ever spoken by the human tongue, as if we had been ridiculing and separating ourselves from one another since the dawn of time. Contradictorily, he finds that “normal” was created at the very start of Great Britain's Industrial Revolution to describe certain building materials and the like (Davis, p, 24).

While I find Davis' derivation of the word “normal” fascinating, I am more drawn to his concept of normalcy acting as a hegemony and creating a dichotomy between itself and the term (dis)ability. With his concluding chapter in Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body, I felt as thought he finally brings this particular concept of “normalcy” to the forefront, to the present, and expands upon how it effects mankind, specifically in the world of academia, where my expedition for understanding first began. He explains:

Further, I have been trying to show how deeply tied to the normalized body are the assumptions we make about art, language, 

literature, and culture in general. In recent years, hundreds of texts have claimed to be rethinking the body; but the body they have been rethinking—female, black, queer—has rarely been rethought as disabled. Normalcy continues its hegemony even in progressive areas such as cultural studies... (Davis, p. 158).

With this passage, Davis brings to my attention actions that have been ongoing for years but to which I have been negligent During my five, previous years of undergraduate collegiate work in the literature department of a prestigious university and even many of graduate classes with the same institution, I took classes dedicated solely to gender, sexuality, and race but never one that focused on (dis)ability. In fact, I had never encountered the topic until my first year of graduate school. I contemplate, “Why is that? Why is the body being dissected from every viewpoint except the one in discussion?”

 Originally, as I noted above, I felt as though I needed to look at stigmatization from a different perspective and begin with “normalcy.” Now, I find that the exploration of normalcy is taking place in many other academic spheres, but I ask my fellow scholars, “What about the other side to the dichotomy? Where and when did the idea of (dis)ability originate?"

Works Cited

Corker, M. & French, S. (1999). Reclaiming discourse in disability studies. In. M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability discourse (pp. 1-12). Philadephia, PA : Open University Press.

Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. New York, NY: Verso.