Category: Uncategorized

Written by Amanda Smith

            During the afternoon of February 19, I attended a lecture from the Mysterium Humanum series on madness, titled “The Flag of Imagination: The Surrealists and Artists on the Schizophrenia Spectrum”. Presented by Dr. Julia A. DeLancey, was this fascinating talk about Hans Prinzhorn’s  1922 study of Schizophrenic spectrum patient’s art work and the surrealism era of the 1920-1930s. 

            Breaking down the title of her lecture, Dr. DeLancey wanted to first introduce \what disability studies is. Her definition was simply stated as socially constructed and performative; how society constructs disability. She allows explains the three main categories a disability can be seen as: medical, social, and interdependence. Medical is the physical impairment one has (paralyzed), whereas social is the how environment effects the individual (stairs are a problem), and interdependence refers to need for assistance. The disability she focuses on is Schizophrenia spectrum. Which is when an individual has poor executive function, thought disorders, psycho-social factors, and hallucinations. 

            Working towards the other section of her title she introduces the start of surrealism. Dr DeLancey remarks the World War 1 plays a major role in how surrealism starts. During World War 1, soldiers that fought in the trenches were coming back with significant psychological trauma. During this time, Sigmund Freud was developing his form of therapy, called psychoanalysis. This form is believed to delve into the subconscious and unconscious mind, the sources of all problems or traumatic experiences, which was a major focus to surrealist.

            The founder of surrealism, Andre Breton, was a war veteran who saw shell shock first hand, it was in1924 when Brenton writes his manifesto ( his statement of beliefs) of surrealism, a movement that will reconcile two different realities (the real world and dream world, the world in between those being surrealism) which can be accessed through things like hallucinations and visions. Surrealist took a page out of Freud’s book by trying to access surrealism in the mind by doing “waking dreams” sessions and automatism drawing and writing (where a person draws or writes without thinking about what came to them). It was only then when theorist and writers began to explain that there are only three types of people that are truly creative: Children, people from primitive cultures, and people with mental illnesses. As Brenton had put it, “I could spend my whole life prying loose the secrets of the insane. These people are honest to a fault, and their naivety has no peer but my own.”

            After explaining these two main concepts (Disability and Surrealism), Dr DeLancey excites us with the bulk of her research on Hans Prinzhorn’s 1922 case studies. Prinzhorn, in his time, had training as an art historian and experience in psychology. Later in his life, he began working in a psychiatric clinic in Germany. The patients there created many pieces of artwork that doctors examined so they could diagnose the patients. Prinzhorn inferred with the notion pieces were art-worthy studies. Prinzhorn then began to conduct his research on ten different patients in this clinic where he would find common traits such as expressive, playful, patterned order, symbolic system, obsessive copying, and ornamental elaboration. 

            One patient, Agnes Richter, had the whole room jaw dropped. Agnes was a seamstress until her family committed her to the clinic. She then began her project on her straight jacket embroidering her file number, statements, feeling, and thoughts. Dr Delancey told us that her doing this was a way for “her words to touch her”.  The audience identified that her artwork was a form obsessive copying of her words. 

            Another patient Prinzhorn studied was Adolf Wolfli, who was hospitalized most of his adult life due to mental and physical abuse. Wolfli had to different types of artwork he created, his bread art and his book art. In order to do his book art, Wolfli would create small individual pieces of his work such as collages of labels, pictures, and recipes to sell. After he sold enough, he would put the money toward materials for his book art. One piece we examined was his bread work, titled “Saint Mary Castle Giant Grape”. This work was identified as elaborate ornamentation, pattern order (orange bubbles color-pattern), and playful (The hidden faces). 

            During the 1920s, people believed that those with mental illnesses had the true creativity to create surrealism art. Based on Hans Prinzhorn’s case studies, it can be observed that his patients can create art work based on their pure imagination. It was unclear if in fact the patient’s art was based on the this “in-between” surreal world they could be in, but looking at the characteristics of schizophrenia such as hallucinations, it can be interpreted that these patients have the ability to access pure imagination and portray it in an art form. 

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.

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird takes place in a small town named Maycomb County, in southern Alabama. Set in the time period of the Great Depression, the 1930s was a time of poverty, strong racial divides and the peak of the patriarchal white male. Knowing this while reading the novel through a disability lens, one starts to notice the impact this harsh environment has on its characters. I would argue that this environment is disabling to characters such as the poverty stricken Cunninghams and the only main female protagonist, Scout. These disabling characteristics of the environment, such as poverty and a patriarchal society, enhance the characters’ isolation from their community due to their physical appearances.  

            Poverty effects many families in this small, southern town but one character who stands out as being affected more than most is Walter Cunningham. Initially, Walter’s physical appearance is the first thing introduced, following this is how he came to acquire hookworms, “Walter’s face told everybody in the first grade he had hookworms. His absence of shoes told us how he got them” (Lee 21). Because Walter is not able to afford shoes, he walks around most of the time barefoot which is how he caught hookworms (Lee 21). Walter is called out by his teacher and made to feel uncomfortable about his financial situation and ultimately, his appearance because all the students are now staring at him. The Cunninghams are a poverty-stricken family in Maycomb County, that did not have enough to provide their children lunch everyday nor enough to buy shoes. This is disabling to Walter because since he is poor and cannot afford shoes, he has hookworms on his face. His physical appearance is altered due to his environment which causes him to look different from everyone else. Isolating only him due to his lunch, brings attention to his differences, it is also interesting to note that the first sentence written about Walter is his obvious, physical difference. 

            The second character affected by her environment is Jean-Louise Finch, also known as Scout. The disabling environment of a patriarchal society isolates Scout from her brother, Jem, and best friend, Dill. As they all three grow older, Jem and Dill start to seclude Scout from themselves with expressions such as “sometimes you act so much like a g-irl it’s mortifyin’” (Lee 42) or “but Jem told me I was being a girl, that girls always imagined things, that’s why other people hated them so, and if I started behaving like one I could just go off and find some to play with” (Lee 45). Belittling words like these eventually kept Scout away and she spent her days sitting with Miss Maudie, her neighbor, on the front porch (Lee 46). Scout reaches the age where people are now starting to categorize and treat her as a girl. Because of this anything she does in a negative light is now attributed to her being a female. The patriarchal society is disabling to Scout and all girls because it fits them all into one collective group thus isolating them from others. 

            In conclusion, the environment of the small-town Scout Finch and Walter Cunningham live in, disables them by isolation due to poverty and the patriarch. Physical differences that further disable them are a product of their environment like hookworms or being female. These are not the only two characters strongly affected by their disabling environment, but they are two of the most prominent ones seen in our reading of To Kill a Mockingbird so far. 

Word Count: 589

I Pledge: Rachel Porchie

In Doctor Gilman’s lecture on whether racism is a product of mental illness, which it is not if you were wondering, an interesting study called Dolls that was conducted by Kenneth and Phipps Clark was discussed. This study was used to observe children’s attitude and preference towards race using four dolls. These dolls were identical except for their skin color, two were colored and the other two were white. On being asked which doll they preferred to play with, and which doll looked the nicest, two-thirds of the Negro children chose the white doll (Clark 175). However, when told to pick the doll that they racially identified with, 9 out of 10 picked the colored doll (Clark 171). These children could identify dolls by color but preferred the white doll and attributed positive characteristics along with its color. Even when racially aware of their own skin color, the children still chose the white doll. From this study the Clarks concluded that formation of racial attitudes begins in childhood (Clark 177). This study is interesting because it can be applied with the idea of “Becky and Barbie” in Garland-Thomson’s article Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. Most young girls had a Barbie in their childhood, playing with these dolls as young children creates a vision in our heads as to what a “normal” doll or person should look like. Barbie represented the able-bodied doll and Becky was the disabled, who was bought as an accessory to Barbie (Garland-Thomson 266). Young girls want Barbie who is a sexualized, feminine icon because she is socially accepted as normal; however, they do not want Becky who is not sexually objectified or viewed as normal (Garland-Thomson 266). This vision of “normalcy” is developed early in childhood like attitudes towards race and disability. As a society, we attribute positive notions towards what is “normal” and consequently our attitudes toward what is “abnormal” is negative.

Clark, Kenneth, and Mamie Clark. “Racial Identification and Preference in Negro Children.” Socialization of the Child.
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory.”

To Kill a Mockingbird is among the handful of texts for this class that I am very familiar with, but relatively unsure as to how they may be read within the context of disability. There are more obvious answers to this question, such as Dill Harris’ small stature and Tom Robinson’s impaired arm. However, the chapters for today’s reading do not include Tom and there is not much to discuss about Dill’s size in this context, so I found Arthur “Boo” Radley to be the best point of interest for this response.

Jem’s initial description of Boo to Jem and Scout has always haunted me over the years. Although we later find that this idea of Boo is an exaggerated one, it is so ghastly that it is difficult to picture him as human with this idea of his pallid skin, rotten teeth, and popped eyes (Lee, 15). When I went on to read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein a few years later, Shelley’s description of the creature immediately brought me back to the horrific image of Boo. Because of the new perspective on Shelley’s text that the discussions in this class has given me, I have been able to use the connection that I made between Boo and the creature to understand Lee’s text in a different light.

Boo Radley does not have a “true” diagnosable disability. There is the possibility of agoraphobia, but that concept can easily be countered by the fact the people of Maycomb have essentially placed him into exile. So, with that in mind, I find it best to read him the same way that we did Shelley’s creature – symbolic of the disabled other rather than explicitly exemplary of it. It is also important to note that while Boo is a social pariah amongst the adults of Maycomb, the narrative is told through a child’s perspective – thus making it important in this type of analysis to focus more on the way that the children of the town view him.

The children view Boo as truly monstrous, at least prior to their interactions. Not only does Jem describe Boo’s appearance as far more ghoulish than what is true to life, his actions are also recounted in a way that makes him seem far more animal or apparition than man. He tells Scout and Dill about the way he skulks around at night, peering in windows and scratching at the door of the Finch house, and even chooses to refer to the physical evidence of Boo’s presence as tracks rather than footprints (Lee, 15). This speaks not only to the way that society has a tendency to cast out and ostracize those who may look different due to physical disability, but also to the fact that society constantly dehumanizes those who are differently abled. Even though Boo begins to show himself to the children as a kind and well-meaning presence – much like the creature in Frankenstein tries to be, Scout does not warm to him until the story nears its end. Beyond that, Scout will never be able to remove that fully societal stigma from him, due to the fact that the severity of his physical differences will always overpower the good deeds that he has done.

Word Count: 538

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

I read To Kill a Mockingbird for fun in eighth grade, so I never looked at it from an analytical perspective before, much less looking at the portrayal of disabilities. When I saw it on the book list for this course, I initially wondered why we were reading it in a course about disability in literature. My question was answered when, in the very first paragraph, Scout tells us of her brother Jem’s injury that left one arm slightly shorter than the other, and at an angle when he walked (Lee 3). Jem seems very accepting of his disability, and it might not even be argued to be a disability, as he can still play football like he wanted and it doesn’t seem to impair him much aside from looking slightly different. Nobody seems to treat him differently for having a slightly shorter or bent arm. Jem’s disability is, so far, the only positive portrayal of disability in the book. To Kill a Mockingbird portrays people with mental illness and disfigurement as dangerous and frightening.

The reader is also told that “Crazy Addie” mutilated people’s pets and chickens, but that Boo Radley was initially presumed to be the culprit (Lee 9). “Crazy Addie” reinforces the incorrect assumption that “mad” people are dangerous to others and should be regarded with terror. He eventually drowned himself, and seeing as suicide is usually associated with mental illness, only furthers the message that being mad makes someone bad (Lee, 9).

Despite Jem’s shorter arm being mentioned in the first paragraph and Crazy Addie, the main focus of disability in To Kill a Mockingbird is not on Jem, but on Boo Radley. Boo Radley almost never leaves his house, and the house is closed off to everyone. The entire family is regarded as strange, but especially Boo himself. Much like the creation in Frankenstein, Boo Radley is treated as a monster and regarded with wariness, fear and suspicion. He is treated as so monstrous that people refuse to go in his yard, and even after it was proven that “Crazy Addie” was the one mutilating animals, the old rumor that it was really Boo Radley still stuck in the townspeople’s minds.

Boo Radley reportedly stabbed his mother with scissors and then, showing no remorse, continued cutting pictures for a scrapbook (Lee, 12). This makes him appear to be a sociopath who does not show remorse for his actions, yet at the trial, it was argued that he was not crazy and should not be sent to an asylum (Lee 12). Nevertheless, the town continues to regard Boo Radley as a sort of monster similar to that of the creation in Frankenstein. He is described as hideous like a skeleton with bugging eyes that drools, and Jem spreads rumors that he sneaks out at night and eats animals (Lee 14). Thus, at least according to rumors, he is also disfigured as well as dangerous, which reinforces the negative view of the appearance of disfigured people being something to be feared.

Scout, Jem and Dill regard Boo Radley not only as a monster to be feared, but as a sort of “freak”, such as the ones people gaped at in circuses. Being both horrified and fascinated by his oddities, they continually try to sneak peeks at his life, as if he is not a person but an interesting exhibit to be viewed. This is a commonly dehumanizing portrayal of disabled people Jem and Scout’s father, Atticus, is so far person who most humanizes Boo Radley. He tells his children to mind their own business and let the Radley family mind theirs, though of course his children do not listen (Lee 11).

Word Count: 614

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

In Toni Morrison’s Sula, black bodies have little value and are used and discarded. The death toll is high, but there isn’t a whole lot of anguish or despair associated with any of the deaths. In fact some of them happen so quickly the reader might miss them. The death of Plum by his mother’s hand echoes the killing of Lennie by George in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in that they appear to be “mercy killings” of disabled individuals by those who claim responsibility for them. 

When Eva’s son, Plum, returns from war he is coping with PTSD. He deals with the complex emotional trauma by using drugs (heroine, I believe?). Plum is possibly Eva’s favorite child, the one to whom she intends to leave everything but when he returns from war, he is profoundly changed. He retains his “sweet, sweet smile” and acts animated, all while falling farther and farther into drug addiction (45). Eva clearly loves her son a lot, but she is also disappointed in how things have turned out. One night she goes down to his room and holds him and rocks him in her arms. He wakes slightly and is comforted by his mother’s presence. Eventually she pours kerosene over his body which he interprets as “some kind of baptism, a blessing…[e]verything is going to be all right” (47). Then Eva sets the kerosene alight and leaves the room, retreating back to her room as others rush to put out the fire. Though it seems like lighting someone on fire would be an extremely violent way of killing them, the reader does not get to see that anguish, and the framing is almost peaceful with Eva’s detached “Is? My baby? Burning?” (48).

At the end of Of Mice and Men, George shoots Lennie in the back of the head for several reasons; perhaps it is because George has decided that Lennie is a danger to others, or maybe it is because he is afraid of what will happen to Lennie at the hands of the other men or the authorities, or because he doesn’t believe that Lennie can fend for himself. At any rate, George does love Lennie and, like Eva, he feels responsible for Lennie. George tries to keep Lennie calm and speaks soothingly to him about the farm they had been planning on buying; like Plum’s, Lennie’s death is relatively peaceful. 

Both George and Eva decide that Lennie and Plum, respectively, are better off dead. Maybe to a certain extant, that is true, however all agency is taken away from both disabled characters. Neither is given any say in his fate. But since George and Eva take responsibility for Lennie’s and Plum’s deaths, they should both have taken more responsibility for their lives. More engagement, understanding, and accommodation might have saved these lives. It is not right for George and Eva to decide that Lennie and Plum cannot fit into this world because of their disabilities and to eliminate them from it without trying to change society. “Mercy killings” become merciful for the able-bodied perpetrator and not for the victim.

It appears that both Eva and George feel remorse for what they have done, but they also both feel that their actions were necessary. Slim consoles George in the final scene by telling him that he “had to do it” (107). Eva feels enough guilt that she attempts to stop Eva’s suicide by immolation. Hannah is still alive when she and Eva are put in the ambulance but Hannah dies on the way to the hospital. There is a little ambiguity though. Could Morrison be suggesting that Eva kills Hannah on the way to the hospital? Does that, too, qualify as merciful? For Hannah or Eva?

Word Count: 623

I pledge: Krista Beucler

A post script: If you need a little more intersectionality on your Instagram, check out Aaron Philip (@aaron__philip), a black, trans, disabled model <3

In our class we discuss how different people have a different view of their life with a disability and the works we are analyzing have provided us with a broad range of different points of view. We have seen it all from Victor’s creation in Frankenstein, George and Lenny’s relationship, the characters in Sula and Aisha Knight in “Until”. Some have a much more negatively skewed view than others. Everyone see’s disabilities in literature differently and our works show this through many lenses.
In Sula, Shadrack is suffering from a mental disability, similar to PTSD, because of his traumatic time spent fighting in World War 1. I would compare the way Shadrack feels to our conversation about John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. In class we discussed everyone’s right to decide for themselves their purpose in life and if they choose to live or not. I feel like Shadrack and George have a very similar way of looking at this topic. Looking at the stories, you can see based off George choosing to kill Lenny and Shadrack’s creation of “National Suicide Day”. These two characters have a very different view on living life with a disability from the woman in the Until- Deaf Poetry video.
The woman in the video takes us through her life story and touches on some specific elements of her past. She expresses her self-identity struggles. People tell her she “isn’t deaf enough” because her English is too good, “not black enough” because her mother is white, so she is mixed. People also said she “isn’t Jewish enough” because she has darker skin, that she is not straight because she is with a woman even though she has loved a man before. This woman is living with a physical disability as well as a mental disability and is choosing to look at her life in a much more positive way than Sula and George. She chooses to openly talk about the events that have shaped her into who she is today and is not afraid to express who she truly is. She chooses to take everything that has happened in her past and shift it into a positive point of view. For example, instead of using the term “rape victim” to describe herself, she chooses to say she is a “survivor.”
I feel like an important piece of this course is the way people view others with disabilities. If a person with a disability views themselves as a ‘burden’ then living life day to day will be difficult. I’ve been able to relate many discussions in this class to my Intro to Special Education course. In that class we talked about why ‘people first language’ is so important. Although some people don’t mind being addressed first by their disability, many other people prefer to be addressed first by who they are. For example, when discussing children in schools, it is more appropriate to say “(insert name) is a child in my class with dyslexia” as opposed to “(insert name) has dyslexia.”
Our society throughout time has become increasingly more accepting of individuals with disabilities. Instead of seeing them as “creatures” and “monsters” we cherish and appreciate people’s unique qualities and have learned to celebrate each and every person as special in their own way. Literature does a wonderful job of expressing how far we have come as a society and how we can view disabilities as unique qualities as opposed to burdening factors.
Word count: 577
I pledge. Stephanie Rizzo