Author: ryoung4

Rebecca Young’s Final Paper

Rebecca Young
Dr. Foss
ENGL 384
May 2, 2019

Of Mice and Misrepresentation: Infantilization and the “Idiotic Autistic” in John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men

It is undoubtedly clear that literature in all forms acts as a vessel for societal beliefs and perceptions to be communicated through. Not only do the stories and characters in literature mimic those we see in real life, though, but the literary tales influence and reinforce societal beliefs as well. Thus, it is crucial to critically examine such works in order to gain an understanding of both the society reflected within that literature and the potential ways the literature can influence society on its own. This is especially true when considering works which discuss such critical topics as disability and its place in society. In the particular field of disability studies, the reinforcement of societal perceptions is key to any discussions of literary representation. We must, then, analyze such literature closely in order to best understand the roles of literary works in forming and perpetuating these perceptions. This can be done in many ways and for countless works of literature, but the case this essay will be examining is that of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, focusing on the representation of autism in Lennie’s character. By analyzing Of Mice and Men’s Lennie through the lens of autism, we can recognize and problematize the prolific stereotype of the burdensome “idiotic autistic,” especially in the context of infantilization.

Before critically analyzing the kinds of representation of autism seen within a text, one must first analyze whether or not autism is represented in the text at all. As autism is found across a broad spectrum, and is not always easy to diagnose, this can be a difficult process. Additionally, it can potentially become problematic to diagnose fictional characters with autism when it is not a diagnosis specifically given to them within the work. In doing so, one risks making decisions based on assumptions or stereotypes, which can then perpetuate negative beliefs of autism and disability in general. When done carefully, however, and with the understanding that one’s analysis can never be concrete, analyzing literary characters through lenses of autism can allow for an ultimately beneficial reading of the text. In the case of Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, we see autism represented in the character of Lennie, one of the story’s two main protagonists.

Lennie’s character is clearly represented as disabled throughout the duration of the book; by reading him through a more specific, targeted lens, however, he can be seen as a distinctly autistic character. While the diagnosis of “autism” was not seen in the society in which Of Mice and Men was set, we can take contemporary knowledge of the autism spectrum and analyze Lennie in its context. In doing so, several of his specific character traits align with diagnoses of autism, such as his sensitivity to touch, challenges focusing on and following conversations, and difficulty acting in social situations. From this information, it is reasonable to analyze Lennie as a character with autism.

By reading Lennie as autistic, the entirety of Steinbeck’s book can be more effectively analyzed in the broader context of disability studies; this is specifically applicable to disability studies when considering the stereotype of the “idiotic autistic.” Throughout the book, Lennie is considered an “idiot” (among other terms) by essentially every other character he encounters. Because his communication and socialization skills are different from those of the “normal” characters within the book, he is perceived by others as simply incompetent. This perception of autistic individuals as “idiots” is an incredibly harmful stereotype when evaluated within the greater context of disability studies. Not only does it define the person by a single characteristic (their disability), but it further extrapolates assumptions about their existence based on this single trait. Thus, instead of viewing autistic individuals as whole people, they are diminished to something less human entirely, and automatically devalued as members of society.

In addition to being dehumanized as an alleged “idiot,” Lennie’s character is incredibly infantilized by those around him. For the same reasons that he is considered an “idiot” by other characters, he is treated like a dependent child. This further reinforces the belief that disabled individuals are burdens to those around them, another prominent stereotype of the disabled community. These are stereotypes which both reflect the society in which Steinbeck was writing and the society in which we currently live, as we can still see these beliefs in contemporary treatments of disabled individuals. In all of the aforementioned cases of stereotyping, individuals with disabilities are looked down upon as lesser, unintelligent, and wholly dependent beings. This is especially true for those with autism or intellectual disabilities and is understandably problematic, especially when considering the influence literature has over societal beliefs.

As stated previously, literature both mimics the society in which it was written and influences the society in which it is read. Thus, the treatment of a single character in Of Mice and Men has the power to affect the treatment of real individuals in the world around us. When characters like Lennie are viewed as pitiable and burdensome idiots, other individuals with autism are more likely to be seen this way as well, further reinforcing this detrimental cycle of stereotyping the disabled community. While it was “acceptable” to view disabled individuals in such a light during the 1930s, when this book was written, the story carries implications for our current and future societies as well. Without problematizing such harmful views like those seen in literature, there are no obstacles to these views being manifested and perpetuated throughout the rest of society. In a book so highly praised as “classic literature,” this is even more dangerous for the disabled and autistic communities.

The implications which literary representation has for the broader, contemporary disabled community are influential to say the least, and concerning when seen perpetuating problematic stereotypes like that of the infantile “idiotic autistic.” In examples of literature such as Of Mice and Men, this is even more detrimental to the disabled community, as this literature is considered noteworthy, valuable, and even progressive by many readers throughout the world. With this in mind, then, we must be willing to problematize such literary representations of autism. Otherwise, the disabled community will continue to suffer as a result of such societal understandings of individuals with disabilities, and our world as a whole will suffer until all individuals are accepted and valued as equal members of society.

Word Count: 1,059

I hereby declare upon my word of honor I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this assignment.

Bibliography

Chaloupka, Evan. “‘Intersubjectivity and Narrative Technique in Of Mice and Men and ‘Johnny Bear'”.” Journal of Narrative Theory, vol. 47, no. 3, 2017, pp. 403–26.

Hacking, Ian. “Autism Fiction: A Mirror of an Internet Decade?” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 2, 2010, pp. 632–655.

Hall, Alice. Literature and Disability. 2016.

Loftis, Sonya Freeman. Imagining Autism: Fiction and Stereotypes on the Spectrum. 2015.

Marlowe, Mike, and George Maycock. “Using Literary Texts in Teacher Education to Promote Positive Attitudes Toward Children with Disabilities.” Teacher Education and Special Education, vol. 24, no. 2, 2001, pp. 75–83.

Miller, Donna L. “Literature Opens Doors for All Children.” Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, vol. 94, no. 4, 2012, pp. 28–33.

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men. Modern Library, 1937.

Rebecca Young’s Response to “An Existential Approach to Madness”

Dr. Vasey’s lecture this afternoon, which approached madness from an existential standpoint, was an interesting and insightful finale to this semester’s lecture series on madness. Within his presentation, he addressed a number of topics we we’ve addressed ourselves in Dis/Lit this semester. Most notably, in my opinion, was his discussion of the medical view of disability (and mental illness, in particular).

In his lecture, Dr. Vasey repeatedly addressed the supposed “myth of mental illness.” In discussing this, he clearly made the argument that the linguistic term “illness” is a metaphor in this phrase, and that madness of any kind is not a literal disease or sickness. His primary point when discussing this was the concept of a potential cure, or lack thereof, for these “illnesses.” In his opinion, mental illnesses or disturbances (what he considered “madness”) are an inherent part of the individual, and cannot simply “go away.” This distinction was, according to him, the reason madness cannot be considered an illness. According to his definitions, an illness is something which can be treated and cured, and which will then leave the afflicted individual. Contrastingly, mental illness is a permanent part of an individual’s identity and existence. While symptoms of a mental illness can be treated and sometimes cured to potentially alleviate someone’s suffering, he argued this afternoon that the supposed madness itself is an inherent part of the individual.

I found this critical discussion of prescriptive, pathological approaches to madness to be very similar to some of the points we’ve made in class discussions ourselves. The controversial nature of such medical approaches to mental illness are applicable to all kinds of disability. As we’ve discussed, approaching disability with the intention of “curing” disabled individuals is a potentially problematic stance to take on this issue. While the suffering related to some individuals’ disabilities should not be invalidated, an oversimplified approach to “curing” disability perpetuates notions that it is inherently a weakness, problem, or burden. In this way, Dr. Vasey’s argument resonated with me, and I felt it connected strongly to our class discussions.

Overall, this lecture was a very unique presentation of madness, and I felt that it was an excellent piece to conclude this semester’s series with. By discussing incredibly broad, philosophical notions of disability and mental illness, Dr. Vasey made us critically examine our very understandings of what madness is. Additionally, however, he made connections to historical and contemporary applications of these ideas. This thought-provoking lecture was also an excellent bridge between the discussions of madness and our class discussions of disability, making it an enlightening experience all around.

Rebecca Young’s Response to Take Back the Night

This evening, I had the absolute pleasure and honor of attending the Take Back the Night event at Lee Hall. Not only were Ben’s musical talents an excellent way to begin the night, but each survivor’s reading was moving and empowering. The event undoubtedly met their goal of breaking the silence surrounding sexual and domestic violence, as an incredible number of people chose to share their personal stories and speak out, clearly emphasizing that perpetrators of violence do not hold power over survivors by keeping them silent. Instead, the survivors speak on their own behalf and on their own terms; witnessing this tonight was awe-inspiring and empowering.

Natalie Illum’s presentation was especially moving tonight, in addition to being the most intersectional presentation of the evening. The poems she read for us focused on her experiences with sexual and domestic violence in both first and secondhand ways, and were written and performed with a kind of personal magic. The audience was enraptured by her naturally poetic performance, but the power behind her words was even more impactful. Additionally, the intersectionality in her presentation and discussion added even more importance and relevance to her readings. Illum discussed her own disability, and how she was at a personal disadvantage in already disadvantaged situations; additionally, issues such as class and gender were dispersed throughout her works and her personal commentary as well. Her works allowed us to see a number of perspectives on the issues at hand, as well as experiencing the events as she did herself. Ultimately, Illum’s presentation was an irreplaceable conclusion to the night’s speakers.

This event was incredibly empowering and enlightening, and it truly felt like all those who attended it were united in the movement’s purpose tonight. With speakers like Natalie Illum and our own classmates and friends, the silence and stigma typically surrounding sexual and domestic violence were clearly broken and left behind. It was an incredibly memorable experience for me, and I am honored to have been a part of such an event.

Rebecca Young’s Major Project

For this project, I researched the representation of typically marginalized groups within children’s literature, focusing on the representation of disabled individuals within the texts. As a future elementary teacher, this topic is incredibly important to me. As we have discussed ourselves in this class, literature clearly acts as a channel by which social ideals are reinforced. When regarding children’s literature specifically, the intended audience of readers are also more susceptible to these ideals than most older individuals. In addition to this, the representations children see in early literacy definitively impact their lifelong self-image as well, especially for those who may not be fairly represented. Thus, this topic is of great importance to me both because of my personal connections and because of its broader implications.

In completing research for this project, I started by looking for studies which showed disability representation of any kind in children’s literature. I then further examined the ways in which disability was represented within the literature that did include these groups (i.e. were they positive representations? Did they reinforce any specific perceptions of disability? How diverse were the representations?). To narrow my research for the purpose of this project, I primarily looked into award-winning texts such as those which have won the Caldecott and Newbery awards, as these are considered books of the highest standard. Additionally, these noteworthy books are marketed to educators as the best materials we can be using, and are resultingly often the ones which fill library and classroom bookshelves. Because of this, these award-winning books hold considerable influence over what children are being exposed to in their daily experiences with literature. Unfortunately, however, several surveys of this literature suggest that an alarming number of award-winning children’s books lack disability representation.

According to numerous articles published in the fields of disability studies and education, it is overwhelmingly clear that children’s literature lacks proper representation of disability. On the most basic level of analysis, this literature simply does not show characters or situations involving disability or disability rights. Additionally, much of the representation seen is actually reinforcing negative stereotypes of individuals with disabilities. This is seen in books where disabled characters are mere background illustrations, are entirely dependent on non-disabled characters, or simply act as a tool for non-disabled characters to use in finding personal growth, etc. These trends can be seen in both Caldecott Medal- and Newbery Award-winning children’s literature throughout the last century, as well as in miscellaneous children’s literature as a whole. Admittedly, the findings which show this largely focus on what they consider the most common forms of disability; however, the represented trends also apply to the field of disability representation as a whole. While this data is troubling, though, these studies did present the potential silver lining that these trends show a positive increase in representation over time, meaning that representation may be continuing to increase.

After completing the above research, I wanted to synthesize my findings into a more approachable presentation than a standard research paper. To do so, I decided to write my own children’s books which address these issues; the three attached books are the result of these efforts. I wrote each book with a focus on a different general field of disability: Nadiya’s New Book, Tommy’s Adventure, and Sometimes address physical disabilities, mental disabilities, and mental illnesses respectively. While the main character of Nadiya’s New Book does have specific, recognizable traits of disability (i.e. being shown in a wheelchair), each book was written to be purposefully ambiguous to an extent. My goal in writing characters which displayed somewhat vague representations of disability was to ensure that they could be relatable to many individuals with varying disabilities. For example, mental disabilities are represented primarily by what other individuals say about Tommy, such as calling him “retarded,” or by Tommy himself stating that he “thinks differently” from others; nowhere does Tommy mention any of his specific symptoms or diagnoses. As a result, I hope that a wide variety of readers could identify with the books, as opposed to only a single disability being represented in each.

In addition to including broad representation of disability in these books, I hoped to increase awareness of the lack of representation of disability in literature as a whole, as well as to reinforce general normalization of disability. In Nadiya’s New Book and Tommy’s Adventure, the characters explicitly reference the overall lack of disability representation in books. Nadiya is specifically addressing that she can’t find characters like her in her library books, while Tommy explains that people don’t read or write stories about him. While Sometimes does not explicitly address a lack of representation in literature, it normalizes mental illnesses and explains that it is okay to live with and discuss them. By bringing these topics of discussion into the content of my books, I believe I am further reinforcing positive representation of disability, in addition to simply giving disabled individuals a literary presence.

This project was ultimately a great combination of research and creativity paired with the goals of representing real needs in the world. Through my research, it became abundantly clear (as expected) that the disabled community is being represented unfairly in children’s literature. Not only is this a simple disservice to the community, but it acts to perpetuate the marginal position disabled individuals hold in society today. By synthesizing this information into the three attached books, I hope to not only increase exposure of these issues, but to combat them as well, eventually leading to a fairer representation of disability in our children’s literature.

Word Count: 928

As a note, the aforementioned books are not attached in full to this post. Due to difficulties with scanning all of the pages, only a representative selection from each book are attached here.

Nadiya’s New Book Pages

Sometimes Pages

Tommy’s Adventure Pages

Rebecca Young’s Response to Tessa Fontaine’s Extra Credit Talk

Yesterday evening, I attended Tessa Fontaine’s presentation in the Creative Writing Mansion, where she read from and discussed her book The Electric Woman. While she did not spend much of her talk explicitly focusing on disability, I felt that her story was applicable to our class discussions regardless. One of the most common conundrums I’ve seen in disability’s representation in literature is what qualifies as a positive or negative representation of the disabled community. This is something I believe many of our theory pieces this semester have been grappling with as well. As this is clearly not an easily answered question, I do not believe we can come to a satisfactory conclusion about it in many cases; Fontaine’s book, however, acts as a good example of this dilemma in real literature.

The most direct mention of disability in her book and her discussion with us was when Fontaine addressed her mother’s debilitating strokes. After having severe strokes late in life, her mother was paralyzed on half her body, and faced incredible barriers in communication and mobility. Despite being rendered disabled, her mother apparently maintained an incredible sense of adventure and continued to travel the world with her husband. This story is interesting, because it represents disability in a way our society typically deems impossible or exceptional–while she was considered disabled, Fontaine’s mother still continued to live her life without the barriers placed on most disabled people. This story then has the potential to leave a positive impact on the disabled community, by showing that individuals are still capable of fully experiencing life while living with a disability.

On the flip side of this argument, however, remains the potential for this to negatively impact the disabled community. This comes from Fontaine’s mother being presented as an exceptionality, rather than the norm. This is further emphasized by Fontaine’s reaction to this disability–she felt that her mother showed remarkable bravery by living a full life despite being disabled. Fontaine, then, joined a traveling side show, which she directly associated with exceptional fearlessness, as her personal method of coping with her mother’s disability. This then circles back to the fine line we have seen and discussed already throughout Dis/Lit, regarding the various ways in which disability can be presented. When living a full life regardless of a disability is seen as normal, the pain and suffering often associated with debilitating illnesses or injuries is diminished; when it is seen as exceptional, however, negative stereotypes are perpetuated, showing disabled individuals as completely incapable of independence or satisfaction.

In Fontaine’s discussion and book reading last night, her mother’s disability played a relatively minor role; instead, it was simply the inspiration for Fontaine’s decision to join the traveling side show. I still believe, however, that this point might contain the most critical connection to our course. As I mentioned earlier, and as we’ve discussed numerous times throughout this course, it is incredibly difficult to pin down exactly what kind of positive or negative representation disability has in certain situations. In this literary example, disability does not even play a direct role in the story itself; nevertheless, The Electric Woman presents an interesting dilemma regarding disability representation.

Rebecca Young’s Response to Great Lives Lecture on Oscar Wilde

Last Thursday, I attended the Great Lives lecture on Oscar Wilde, presented by Nicholas Frankel. This talk focused largely on Wilde’s personal motivations throughout life, particularly relating to his belief in the connection between life and art. While the lecture did not focus on disability, in relation to Wilde himself or his literature, it was a fascinating insight into Wilde’s life.

Frankel gave us a somewhat detailed biography of Wilde, including emphasis on the author’s belief that life itself is a form of art. According to Frankel, Wilde lived with the purpose of creating and imitating art. In regards to much of his writing, Frankel explained that Wilde used his trademark magical descriptions in an attempt to make life seem beautiful like art. According to this presentation, Wilde also believed that “mean things put on beauty like a dress.” Both of these themes are ones which I can see in the short stories which we read by Oscar Wilde earlier this semester. Understanding his personal background and motivation in life and writing is incredibly interesting, but also an insightful way to better examine these stories.

Again, this presentation focused very little time on discussing Wilde’s literature itself; additionally, Frankel largely ignored any details of Wilde’s life which some use to consider him disability-aligned. He did, however, spend a great deal of the lecture discussing the linguistic meanings and changes surrounding Wilde’s name. Throughout his life, he changed his name multiple times, from his original birth name of Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde to the shorter Oscar Wilde, and eventually to a name he chose himself, Sebastian Melmoth. Frankel’s explanation of these changes added to the rest of his lecture on Wilde’s life and interests to provide us with a unique perspective on the writer and his works.

On the whole, Frankel’s presentation gave a very interesting and unique view of Oscar Wilde’s life. While the lecture itself did not touch very much on the actual works of Wilde, or his potential links to disability, it did give insight into his personal motivations which connect to these topics. Ultimately, regardless of any direct connections between this lecture and our course, I felt that it was an informative and beneficial experience, which emphasized how understanding an author’s life and motivations can enrich one’s understanding of their works as well.

Rebecca Young’s Response to Tobin Seibers’ “Disability in Theory” and Sheila Black’s “What You Mourn”

As Tobin Seibers discusses in “Disability in Theory”, the social constructionist model of viewing disability implies that the body itself is a social construction; further, our overall views of the body are dictated by society’s standards of normality and physical ideals. While Seibers also presents counterarguments to using this theory in the context of disability studies, I still believe that its central points are applicable to this field and can enrich our studies of disability as a part of our society.

The main point of social constructionism is that all of our ideals and standards, what we consider “normal”, is influenced by our society as a whole. When changing the societal context in which we view a certain body, the actual view of that body is altered accordingly as well. As Seibers wrote in his article, “In a society of wheelchair users, stairs would be nonexistent,” (p. 174). This is a simple example which reinforces the discussions our class has been having for over a month, that an individual is not disabled until their society makes it so. As a personal example, I am incredibly nearsighted, and depend fully on glasses and contacts to navigate my world. If I lived in a society in which these resources were inaccessible or considered abnormal, I would be disabled; however, since this is not the case in our society, I merely have a vision impairment, which is easily adapted into my life. This again shows the dependence we have on our society to determine how our bodies are viewed, treated, and accepted (or not).

In addition to this, I felt that Sheila Black’s poem “What You Mourn,” spoke volumes to the conversation which Seibers has in “Disability in Theory,” and ultimately reinforces the strength of social constructionism as a theoretical argument in disability studies. While the poem’s narrator has a physical disability which has been “fixed,” the narrator themself is mourning the body they were born with. Regardless of how their physical impairments made “normal” activities difficult or impossible for them, the narrator is speaking of their disabled body as a lost love of sorts. In response to the societal voices which called their body “crippled… disabled and then differently abled,” the narrator explains that these labels were given from an external point of view, from people who had never shared the narrator’s experiences. In discussing the ongoing commentary about their body, the narrator explains that “none of [these outsiders] could imagine / that the crooked body they spoke of / … was simply mine.” Here the narrator is saying that their disabled body had inherent value despite their society saying that it didn’t; instead of looking at their impairments as flaws in need of perfecting, they saw them as unique differences which enhanced their value. At the poem’s conclusion, the narrator compares loving their unique and “abnormal” body to one loving one’s country, including “the familiar lay of the land, the unkempt trees, / …down to the nameless / flowers at your feet.” Regardless of how society views the physically impaired body, this poem allows us to view this situation from the perspective of someone who values their supposedly disabled and undesirable body, and ultimately ties in perfectly with the theory of social constructionism by showing that societal views of the body are not universal.

Word Count: 553

Are Racists Crazy?

Yesterday afternoon, I attended the fourth lecture in the Mysterium Humanum series on madness. This lecture, titled “Are Racists Crazy?”, was delivered by expert Sander Gilman, and was a fascinating account of the history of racism and its ties to madness and insanity. This specific presentation focused largely on racism against the racial categories of “Black” and “Jewish”.
As discussed throughout the lecture, Gilman comes to the conclusion that racism is not a mental illness, and that we should not consider racism an indicator of insanity. In this talk, he cautioned numerous times against the dangers of broadly categorizing individuals for any reason–be that their skin color, religion, political beliefs, or any number of other traits. In placing these concrete labels on people, we naturally begin to assume that we know something about them inherently from their affiliation with these categories; ie “Because you are ______ (black/Republican/racist/etc) I know that you are ______.” This behavior is incredibly dangerous, as it leads us to make assumptions that may be unfounded. Additionally, in the specific case of considering racists insane, it allows racist individuals to have a blanket excuse for their behaviors. For instance, when discussing the example of Donald Trump as a racist, Gilman argued that calling him insane is an excuse for not holding him accountable for his words and actions. Instead of looking at racists as an entire category of people who are all mad, he encouraged us to look at each individual as exactly that: an individual. Additionally, while he acknowledged that racist behavior can sometimes be an indicator or symptom of a mental illness, he asserts that this behavior in and of itself is not the illness. In other words, some mentally ill people may be racist, but not all racist people are mentally ill.
This also brings us into the broader impact this can have on the disabled community as a whole, and how negatively it can be affected as a result of this thinking. First, considering all racist individuals mentally ill is, in my opinion, somewhat akin to considering pedophiles a part of the queer community. While it is quite simply wrong, it also paints the community as a welcoming home for such people, who are typically not welcome there. Additionally, this negative image then poorly reflects back on the disabled community as a whole, reinforcing negative social standards which place the community in a subordinate position in society. Thus, taking Gilman’s advice and advocating against these negative patterns of labeling and categorization can ultimately benefit this community.

css.php