The time I learned to say no

The Disney Channel has a series of spots called TTIs, short for "the time I...," where kids and teenagers talk about things that happened to them.  Most of the kids are not famous, but one TTI features a teenage Disney actress talking about her dyslexia.

She explains what dyslexia is and talks about how unhappy she was when she realized she couldn't read as well as other kids. Through hard work and pressure from her family to practice reading, she is now reading above grade level.  The TTI concludes: "Dyslexia makes things hard for me, but not impossible."

I'm not criticizing the actress--she may have been encouraged to spin her story in a certain way, or she may just feel that way.  But I wonder why when we try to give kids inspiring messages about disability, we always hide the possibility of impossibility.  When I was in elementary school, stories we got about disability pretty much were always about dyslexic people and how they had to "conquer their dyslexia" by forcing themselves to read for hours every night.  Eventually they got better.  It was never questioned that the kids in the stories would get better, and it was never questioned that they were obligated to add hours of work to their day for the purpose of doing so.

I'm not dyslexic, but I'm disabled, and I can do the impossible.  That is, if I work hard enough and make enough sacrifices, I can do any of the things that I would identify as impossible for myself.  But realistically those things are still impossible.  For example, if I have to stay up all night to do X thing, then it's technically possible for me to do X.  But like all people, if I stopped sleeping my immune system would start shutting down and I might fall asleep in dangerous situations.  I have to look at my life in perspective to say that it's impossible for me to do X regularly and it would be unfair for people to expect it from me just because there is a set of circumstances where I can do it.

It's taken a lot of bad experiences and support from other disabled people for me to start saying "I can't" and "That's impossible" instead of "That's hard for me."  I was always encouraged to think that if there's any possibility you can do something, you have no excuse not to do it.  Something being more difficult or stressful should not stop you from trying to do what other people are doing.  When I was encouraged to think I could do anything, no one seemed to consider what the consequences of doing anything might be, or if it might be better to put my quality of life first.

Sentiments like "Dyslexia makes things hard but not impossible" are intended as positive and inspiring, but to me they sound not like an encouragement but a guilt trip.  Can't disabled kids say that, yes, it is impossible to constantly work on dealing with their disability if they also want to pursue their interests, spend time with their friends, and just relax?  Can't they say, "Sorry, this is too hard--I'm going to play video games tonight like other kids."

Meanwhile, can't we teach kids to have compassion for other people's disabilities?  I'd argue that the constant procession of supercrips is not helpful in this area.  How is a kid who's raised on "The only disability is a bad attitude" going to be respectful of people who are too tired, too cognitively impaired, or can't see well enough to do what's expected of them?

I don't have a problem with this particular TTI, but I wonder when we will see an inspirational figure who says, "It's hard for me to read, so I'm pursuing a career where I don't have to read that much."  Or, "This is about the time I learned that if I accept my disability and make realistic decisions, I will be happier."  It's not what people want to say to kids--they think it's discouraging--but I think it's what kids need to hear, and I don't think it's discouraging at all.

After much thought I’ve decided that the best way to spend my twenties is by watching live action tween shows on the Disney Channel. My favorite show is called ANT Farm. It operates under the dubious premise that an 11-year-old would be forced to attend high school just because she is a good singer, and that people in San Francisco use cable cars to get to and from places.

If you can believe it, this is actually a better concept than most of the Disney shows and I'm pretty into it. There are a lot of references to Internet memes, which are presumably intended for older geeky family members, unless 11-year-olds are just a lot cooler than I think they are.

But let me tell you what happens every time I watch the show.

I notice this character using a mobility scooter. Then I notice myself noticing him and I realize that I never see people using scooters or wheelchairs on TV, especially not the kind that I usually see people using in real life (i.e. electric ones, instead of the hospital wheelchair that sad disabled people get pushed in on TV, or for the occasional supercrip character, who is always paraplegic from a spinal cord injury, a manual chair that he pushes with muscular arms).

When I see this character, I think, how weird to see a disabled kid on TV. Maybe things are going better than I thought.  After this initial reaction, which takes about half a second, I remember that this character isn't disabled--he's lazy and geeky, and one of the jokes of his character is that he uses a scooter because he's too lazy to walk around. It doesn't really surprise me to see jokes about scooter users being fakers since that is an idea normal people are really in love with, but I am a little surprised to see it on a kid's show since it's just so mean spirited. Other times when I've seen something like this on a Disney show, I've looked it up and it looks like there has been some reaction--for example when they made a joke about someone having an eating disorder. But apparently even Disney is allowed to make jokes about people using mobility devices they don't need.

What always strikes me isn't the existence of the joke, but just the fact that this is the only kid getting around like that on the Disney channel, and probably one of the only ones on TV. More than anything else, the joke makes me notice what isn't there.

Hercules

sorry for spamming you guys with this, but I figured it would be entertaining to at least one person. I kind of think both these papers are bullshit--I mean they were pass/fail and I had a lot of stuff going on so I wrote about themes that are easy for me to find in anything. But I do think the fact that these themes are so easy to find indicates a lot about how deep in the values are.

HERCULES--ABILITY

Supernatural conditions are sometimes portrayed as being analogous to disabilities; for example, telepathy in True Blood or lycanthropy in the Harry Potter books. It’s not necessary that the analogously “disabled” character lack an ability that other people have, as long as he or she has the wrong abilities compared to other people. Hercules is easily interpreted as part of the magic-as-disability tradition, as his super strength impairs his ability to live normally and fit in with his community.

Hercules can sometimes use his super strength to do chores for his adoptive parents but, perhaps because he lives in a world set up for humans with an ordinary level of strength, he often expends too much strength and ends up breaking buildings and injuring people, which causes him to be unpopular in his community, which labels him a “freak.” Although his adoptive parents love Hercules, they come to accept that he doesn’t fit in their community and must journey elsewhere to be successful.

Hercules’s journey can be seen as a positive message for viewers with disabilities or other people who don’t match the standards of their community. As he moves into different environments and roles--training with Phil, performing heroic deeds in Thebes, partying on Mount Olympus as a god among gods--we see that Hercules, who was not good at anything in his parents’ town, can be good at everything when different things are expected of him. However, his clumsiness isn’t completely cured when he becomes a hero, and this is realistic. He also chooses an imperfect existence as a human over existence as a god, where he presumably wouldn’t have to deal with the issue of clumsiness--showing that if he has a life he’s proud of and happy with, he doesn’t mind not being good at everything.

Like many magic-as-disability works of fiction, Hercules fails to deliver a completely positive message about disability because the resolution of the “disabled” character’s problems is less than applicable to real life. Ultimately, a character with super strength can’t be a real disabled character for two reasons. First, super strength doesn’t resemble any real-life disability so it’s not as easy to identify Hercules as disabled, which limits his ability to be a role model for disabled kids or bring images of disabled people into the minds of non-disabled kids. (This isn’t necessarily the case for all “magical” disabilities; a magical illness, for example, can be easily read as resembling a real illness.) Second, Hercules finds a solution for his problems that’s nearly perfect, and steps into a new life where he’s universally admired. While it is important to show that someone who’s labelled a loser or a freak can be successful by different standards, Hercules’s tremendous success is somewhat problematic because it sets a standard viewers, not having superpowers, may not be able to aspire to or identify with.

Notably, the magic-as-disability aspects of the character are not at all present in the original myth. In the myth, Hercules/Heracles’s problems come from a fact that is completely excised from the movie; Hera, his father’s wife, is not his mother, and even though he lives with his mother and stepfather instead of on Olympus, Hera nonetheless hates him and causes him various problems. Although evil stepmothers are certainly acceptable in Disney movies, the portrayal of infidelity that would be required by an accurate adaptation of the myth would probably be considered inappropriate for a children’s movie. Therefore, the villain of Hercules’s story becomes Hades, who is not evil in classical mythology; and Hercules’s main motivation comes from within.

Protagonists who are unpopular, or who are initially perceived as “losers,” can be appealing in American movies, but don’t really fit with classical values, which had less of a focus on the individual. In the Disney movie, Hercules doesn’t want to be a hero for the sake of glory or other more classical values, but for more modern reasons, and ones that position him as a minority or an outcast in his community, in the same way as other Disney characters like Belle and Mulan.

cure in Disney movies

I wrote this paper for an exco I took last term and I just found it when Mtthw inexplicably asked for me to repost the notes I took for the class. It is too long for tumblr, so have fun.

DISABILITY AND NORMALCY IN SLEEPING BEAUTY AND THE LITTLE MERMAID

There is often conflict between the disabled community and mainstream society about what is best for disabled people. Often, disabled people think that success involves putting someone in a situation where they can be as happy and functional as possible; while mainstream society thinks that success means altering someone until they appear “normal.” While actual disabled characters don’t usually appear in Disney movies (except for villains like Captain Hook), these kind of values can be read in the treatment of non-human characters who are different from humans or lack abilities that humans have.

An example of a non-human character who sends a positive message about disability is Tinkerbell in Peter Pan. She can’t talk, but this is never a problem, because everyone in Tinkerbell’s life has learned to understand the way she communicates. Even though she wasn’t created to make this point, Tinkerbell can nonetheless make the point to viewers that she doesn’t need to be altered to fit in with the other characters.

Some non-human characters who do alter themselves and attempt to be human are the three good fairies in Sleeping Beauty and Ariel in The Little Mermaid; and each character shows the problems inherent in attempting to be “normal” rather than aiming to be successful as yourself. Each of these characters is competent when she’s in her natural form and environment, but when expected to perform as humans, they are all lacking.

In their non-human form, the fairies are not as powerful as Maleficent, but they are the most powerful characters in the movie aside from her and it is almost solely through their actions that Aurora is saved from the curse. When they are human, they make one of the big mistakes of the narrative that allows Maleficent to find out where Aurora is. The mistake they make is not just because they are human, but precisely because they are fairies trying to be human who have realized they can’t pretend to be human any longer.

As humans, the fairies are portrayed as lacking either the cognitive abilities or the experience (if not both) to perform tasks like cooking, cleaning, and making clothes. In real life, a person who couldn’t cook or clean for herself wouldn’t be able to live without help, and adults who can’t live without help are often treated rather harshly; but in the case of the fairies, their inability to do these things doesn’t mean they’re seen as defective, but simply that they’re trying to be something they aren’t. Their lapse into using magic again, while it happens at an inconvenient time, is the natural result of putting themselves in an unnatural situation.

Therefore, Sleeping Beauty has a positive portrayal of its “disabled” characters. Their inability to perform normal tasks is humorous, and ultimately not a problem for them, because it is acceptable for them to live differently and rely on other skills to take care of themselves. Humanity is not a goal, but simply something they tried and failed, and then abandoned without seeing their failure as reflecting badly on them.

In The Little Mermaid, however, Ariel’s desire to be a human is a goal that, from the perspective of the movie, she has to achieve at all costs. It wouldn’t really be accurate to say that she desires Eric above all, because she is interested in humans from the beginning and seems to fall in love with him because he’s the first human she sees. While the fairies’ disguise as peasants doesn’t seem like something most viewers could relate to, Ariel’s longing for humanity is more comparable to the way real disabled people are expected to long for normalcy; it’s not just another way of being, it’s an inherently better life.

Objectively, Ariel’s life isn’t bad, but she sees it as inferior: “Flipping your fins you don’t get too far/Legs are required for jumping, dancing,” she sings, ignoring the speed and grace of her own movement. There’s nothing strange about a sheltered teenager being interested in people from another place, but it does become disturbing how Ariel dismisses her own body as nothing but an obstacle to human life, and that this is portrayed as not mere teenage restlessness, but a sensible outlook.

Ariel’s initial life as a human is also comparable to the life of a disabled person trying to be as normal as possible. In real life, a disabled person trying to function as a non-disabled person has to make sacrifices non-disabled people don’t have to make. As a human Ariel can no longer do what she did best as a mermaid (singing), and, most importantly, cannot communicate. (It’s interesting that her inability to communicate keeps Ariel from even being able to tell people that she used to be a mermaid. As is often expected to happen when disabled people are “cured,” she completely drops the identity she had before.)

The Little Mermaid had the potential to be a more unique story about a nonstandard character trying to be normal. In addition to losing her voice, the mermaid in the original story finds it incredibly painful to walk and dance, but does so anyway in order to be attractive to the prince; and she ultimately isn’t able to land the prince, partly because she has given up her ability to communicate so he doesn’t know that she’s the person who saved him. In the fairy tale, the mermaid’s attempt to be human is tragic.

Obviously, the Disney version of the story could not be tragic because that’s not how Disney movies are. But the story could have been given a happy ending in which Ariel went back to being a mermaid without losing her relationship or her zest for life. Instead, the Disney movie glosses over Ariel’s sacrifice, by making her only lose her voice instead of also being in pain; and in the end, she is magically cured of both her lack of humanity and the difficulties that a magical creature trying to be human would have (her voicelessness).

The Little Mermaid has often been identified as a problematic movie in terms of gender, because Ariel changes her body for a man. But it’s also problematic in terms of disability, because Ariel must change herself to a more normal form to realize her dreams. While in Sleeping Beauty, the fairies’ attempt to be human is an impetuous bad idea, it’s presented as the only way Ariel can be happy. Viewers are told not only a)having a normal body is worth the sacrifices, but b)don’t worry about that, because actually, switching from abnormal to normal will become easy and eventually have no drawbacks attached at all.