Re-Presenting Disability: Section One

There is a lot of material for discussion in the first section of Re-Presenting Disability, and not enough time or space to devote to all of it. I will touch on just a few of the many topics presented by the case studies in section one.

The works of public art discussed in the first chapter, “Activist Practice” by Richard Sandell and Jocelyn Dodd, are very intriguing, particularly because of the highly charged debates these works stirred up among disabled activists, politicians, artists and viewers. A similar controversy has arisen right here in Indianapolis, but dealing with issues of race. A proposed statue of a freed slave by the artist Fred Wilson to be displayed on Monument Circle has drawn vocal commentary and heated discussions about the appropriateness of such an image in a public space (http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/art-of-slave-draws-vocal-critics). Do you think the decision to display these works in public spaces is generally beneficial, or is the message obscured by the controversy? By displaying art and objects that generate debate and emotions, museums can act as forums for the healthy discussion of painful topics. By placing controversial art in public places, can we open up the discussion to a wider audience, or the entire community?

I found Chapter 4, “See No Evil” by Victoria Phiri, to be particularly interesting. What struck me was how this case study on the struggle for representation in Zambia so closely reflects the same issues disabled individuals deal with in the United States. While Phiri seems to blame Zambian beliefs relating disability to witchcraft or punishment for the lack of representation in museums, are American museums any different? She notes that the only representation of a disabled individual in the Livingstone Museum is a wood statue titled “the diviner,” showing the close association between disability and the supernatural in Zambian cultural beliefs. However, Sandell and Dodd argue that Western representations of disability are often framed the same way; is a painting like The Blind Men of Jericho as damaging and dehumanizing as “the diviner?” Phiri says that the lack of representations of disabled individuals in Zambia’s National Museums is analogous to the cultural practice of literally hiding away severely disabled individuals from society. While our country no longer believes in institutionalizing or secluding the disabled, we share Zambia’s problem of a lack of adequate representation; and if honest and accurate portrayals of disability are absent from museums and the media, are disabled people truly “seen” in our country?

While reading the case studies highlighted in the first section of Re-Presenting Disability, a question has been at the back of my mind: How does the push for rights and representation of the disabled echo similar movements among other marginalized and under-represented communities? Just lumping together individuals and calling them “the disabled” is problematic. The hearing impaired, the visually impaired, the physically disabled, individuals with developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, and mental illnesses are best served with very different and distinct forms of representation and diverse strategies for improved access. Aren’t the same challenges inherent in our attempts to be more inclusive of marginalized racial and ethnic groups? Pan-ethnic “multiculturalism” is not a substitute for understanding the particular needs of individual communities in museums, just like a desire to be inclusive of “the disabled” is not a substitute for truly equal access and representation for the diverse communities of disabled individuals.