"My cousin's niece has carpal tunnel, so I think I understand a lot about what it's like to suffer from the discrimination against the autistic in our society."
That's not a direct quote. It's also not much of an exaggeration of the kind of things I've heard people say. Maybe because it's election season, many people's sense of identity politics is going haywire, with individuals pretending they have some special qualifications to speak on behalf of others -- or groups of others -- with whom they don't really have much in common. Mainly, I think, this is because of the narcissism of the speakers, who are not so much concerned with the rights and feelings of those for whom they claim to speak, but are chiefly interested in hogging a moment in the spotlight. Yes, it's all about them and their privileged relationship with... the special, the disadvantaged, the shunned. (See "Literalism advocates literally protest the portrayal of literalists in film." OK, that's really a story about "Blindness" and those who object to metaphors that are too obvious.)
When somebody invokes a real or imagined relationship to a demographic they believe has been sinned against, asserting their personal connection without offering any additional insight, I often want to ask: What are you saying? That you wouldn't be offended if you didn't know somebody who you think has something in common with the group you think should be offended? (Sometimes, as in the fictionalized quotation at the top of this post, they can't even establish a meaningful link.) Prefacing a comment with something like "I know somebody who..." (as in, "Some of my best friends are...") is not, in itself, a sufficient argument. It just makes the speaker sound superficial.
Remember the whole "Tropic Thunder" brouhaha way back in August, when groups protested by carrying signs saying "Ban the Movie, Ban the Word"? (The word was "retard.") Last week, when the picture opened in the UK, the The Guardian ran a pointed piece by David Cox called "The imbecilic truth about the Tropic Thunder retard debate, in which he wrote:
By using the word "retard", Stiller relocates those to whom it's applied back in the real world. By acknowledging the distaste they may inspire, he does them the service of taking their situation seriously. And he reminds audiences that cinema's reluctance to engage honestly with them is ultimately the fault of cinemagoers themselves, not the studios, which must work within the parameters of acceptability.
"Retard" isn't the only potentially upsetting term that Tropic Thunder deploys. It also cheerfully trots out "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile". In doing so, it invites us to reconsider the whole issue of the euphemistic relabelling of disadvantaged groups. Is it really better to insist that people like Simple Jack should be called what busybodies say they must be called, rather than whatever everyday usage dictates?
Maybe it is, but the question is worth asking. Euphemisms don't work for long. And in one way, it's worse when children taunt a disadvantaged playmate with the cry of "special needs", than it would be if they shouted "retard". They're making the point that their victim isn't only handicapped, but is also incapable of handling his or her condition without recourse to ineffectual protection from witless officialdom.
Around the time of "Tropic Thunder"'s release, NPR broadcast a letter from a woman who spoke of the agony and shame she felt when her intellectually disabled (I believe that was her term of choice) young sister asked her what "retarded" meant. Would anyone have been shared any pain or humiliation if she had asked what "intellectually disabled" meant? Or "special needs"? Or "special ed" (the term used when I was in public school)? Or "short bussers"? The hypocrisy of euphemistic language, and the ways it is used to neutralize and ignore people, is the subject of the "full retard" scene in "Tropic Thunder," framed as a satire of the Hollywood actors who play "retard" for awards consideration, with no regard for anyone but themselves. (Cox also says that some "may take a sneaking delight in hearing a word they might use themselves, or like to use," and that to ignore objections is to be, "well, intellectually retarded.")
OK, some people aren't going to recognize or appreciate what's going on, and others (like me) are going to be judged intellectually deficient for having thought self-interested people should behave differently than they did. Or do.
I thought of all this again recently when I came upon a "This I Believe" essay that first aired on National Public Radio in October, 2006. Joshua Yuchasz, a 14-year-old high school student, said:
In third grade, my teacher informed me that I have Asperger's Syndrome. I said, "So what? Do you know that Godzilla's suit weighs 188 pounds?"
That's funny. Yuchasz knows it's funny. So there.
In the same series last week was an essay by the father of a three-year-old girl with Down's syndrome. This written and recorded before Down's syndrome had been injected into (vice-) presidential politics. The man said:
She doesn't have a lot of spoken words yet, although her first full sentence turned out to be, "What's up with that?" [...]
I laugh every day because of Genevieve.
I'm sure that if some people didn't know it was her father speaking they would accuse him of laughing at a little girl with Down's syndrome. But because the identity of the speaker is all that matters -- not the meaning of the words themselves -- it's OK in this instance for him to say that Genevieve is funny, even though on some level he may be laughing at her! Imagine that. Did Genevieve intend to be funny or not? Would she have been as funny if she were older or did not have Down's? The qualifiers are endless...
Now, if my relationship to somebody with a similar disability was closer, I might receive cultural currency of special priviledges. Say the guy wasn't her father but was merely someone who merely lived in the same city as someone with Down's syndrome, and I were Genevieve's neighbor's uncle's gardener. Then, of course, I would have the greater right to assert my opinion and object on behalf of children with Down's syndrome, if I were so inclined, right?
Just trying to get those rules straight.
Here's what I want to say to those afflicted with offense: Be offended. Be very offended. But take responsibility for your own feelings. Don't project them onto somebody else for what you consider to be their own good. Stick to what you know -- and, for your own sake and everybody's, hope it's you.
* * * *
Footnote: In the Guardian piece cited above, Cox writes:
For decades, Hollywood colluded in the dismissal of disability by ignoring it. Its current practice of glamorising the subject is perhaps even more pernicious. Understanding of dementia was set back, rather than advanced, by its rosy misrepresentation in "Away From Her." The movies' insistence that manic depression and autism come accompanied by good looks, unusual charm and near-magical powers hasn't endeared people with these conditions to the rest of us. It's increased the burden on them, by arousing unrealistic expectations of their capacities.
While I understand the point he's making here, I think he uses the wrong example. No movie, whether "Tropic Thunder" or "Away From Her," needs to "represent" a health condition (just a human one), and Sarah Polley's film is a story about an exceptional couple, not a typical one. The irony and beauty is in how a woman with Alzheimer's (a particular disease, not generic "senile dementia"), aware of its onset, helps guide her husband through the experience, until the inevitable moment when they both have to let go.
19 Comments
You know somebody should translate this into braille and hand out copies of it to the blind people who are protesting "Blindness"!!!
Isn't it interesting how many people claim to have read George Orwell's 1984 and still not get it? The major point of the novel is not the technology used, it is not the warning of ever-present survaillance [though CCTV is here]. Orwell's main critique goes against the perception you can change reality by renaming it. He called the concept Newspeak.
Regardless if your personal politics are right or left, conservative or liberal of Communist re-defining words and concepts runs rampant with ideologues. If it comes from the left/liberal wing it is called 'political correctness' - a term already so satirically funny, so clearly advertising it is not about the issue but about acceptance [of the Newspeak user!] within a group, even the most intellectually challenged should notice what nonsense it is.
Do you really change the situation of a hu-wo-man in a wheelchair by labelling him, her or it with a nice sounding word? Or is it just feel-better food for fatheads*?
Let's be clear, the other side does the same by simply re-defining well-known terms. A liberal in their view is not someone believing in freedom, liberty, individual responsibility, following in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson or John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Immanuel Kant. Self-proclaimed conservative claimed the word to denote [far] leftists.
Both are using Newspeak to change their own and other peoples perceptions of the world to their own agenda - without really changing anything meaningful.
Newspeakers.
*Originally I wanted to use a British term, 'fag', which American readers surely would get wrong. Particularly since neither the British public school vernacular nor street slang are easily known in the US.
I know a lot of people who have family members who are in some way disabled... But I don't think those folks are uniquely qualified to talk about these problems. I know many of them who are resigned to the fate of their child, brother, or sister, so much so that they tend not to see the things an outsider can see. At the same time, people can be blinded by hope, seeing things that are not there because of the emotion involved.
We're all on the same planet (for the most part) and so respect is a necessary tactic in getting along, though enforcing respect has about as much use as such enforcement has anywhere else. Still, assuming special privilege because of the nearness of the subject isn't just opportunistic for some people, it's denying the change that can come about from outsider help.
These folks do, however, have an insight into some of the problems faced, and anything that can help put a human face on problems should be welcome, as I think it's hard for people to think about abstract diseases or conditions.
One mistake that I've seen many people make is underestimating people though, whatever form they come in. I've seen people stuck in nursing homes who had much more awareness than they were given credit for, often being ignored or talked down to like children. Many of these people were fully functional adults before, but because of a decline in ability, poorer caregivers decided they could fill in the unknowns when it came to what a given person's new level of abilities were.
So, I've learned that with humanity, never underestimate. I'm pretty sure the girl's first phrase, "what's up with that," wouldn't have come about if she didn't recognize the humor in it. I won't be ashamed of believing this, even if it turns out I'm wrong.
I'm so disappointed! I also assumed this was in response to the protests of Blindness, which is about 10 times more ridiculous than the protests against Tropic Thunder.
Hmm...that's a very interesting point. Did you know, that originally, the words "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" (I think these are the words that go with the story but since I'm working from memory I might have misplaced one) were originated as terms without the connotations they now have? someone was trying descriptively to come up with terms to describe people with IQ of 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89. Of course then people started taking the descriptive terms and then using them pejoratively.
In other words, it doesn't matter what euphemism you start out with, human nature eventually will turn it into something that will be perceived by others as an insult and so we'll need to keep on developing new euphemisms.
Is the question "Why are people so mean?" or is it "why are people so unwilling to accept that some people have limitations in certain areas, even though they can still be okay in other areas?", the old conundrum of "everyone has undiminished spiritual value even if they don't have equal social value" in an era when spirituality is something to be ridiculed not respected?
Blindness should not be protested for insensitive or inaccurate characterizations. It should be protested for sucking.
This whole debate reminds me of the deaf community's response to the "hearing impaired" moniker they never asked for, and which ironically attaches an unecessary tone of deficiency to their condition. That locution was the result of hyper-pc'ing the terms "deaf and dumb" or "deaf and mute" which I've actually never heard used in casual speech. I took ASL as an undergrad, an experience that has certainly enabled me to speak (and hear) on behalf of the deaf community. They prefer the term "deaf." Go figure.
It occurs to me that BLINDNESS looks a lot like John Wyndham's book DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, without the man-eating plants. The problem isn't that everyone's blind, the problem is that everyone goes blind en masse without any way of adjusting.
>But take responsibility for your own feelings. Don't project them onto somebody else for what you consider to be their own good. Stick to what you know -- and, for your own sake and everybody's, hope it's you.
I agree with the sentiment. But, you would agree it works both ways, right? So, if parents of disabled children ARE offended, you can't really speak for why they SHOULDN'T be offended right?
Jeff: Right. That's the way I feel: Go ahead and be offended, and explain what offends you and why. I just object to the claim that knowing somebody, or being related to somebody, gives you special reasons to be offended (as opposed to some unique insight you might share) -- as if you wouldn't feel offended if you didn't have this "inside access." If something is worth being offended about, it's worth being offended about whether you know somebody who you think ought to be offended by it or not. I think those special claims confuse and distort the issue, and undermine the validity of the argument. The unspoken assumption is, somehow, that only those who are the targets of bigotry or discrimination (or who know somebody who is!) have the right to object. Anybody has the right to object (or to approve), no matter who they are.
I misunderstood your argument I think. It's tough though. I do think those disclaimers matter to a certain extent. Firsthand (or second hand)knowledge can add to the way the perceived slight is received. In a way that others wouldn't understand. And, in some cases, this has to be taken into account. I, personally, don't have a personal stake in the whole "retard" thing, so maybe I'm not quite as equipped to deal with intricacies of the history of that term's use. I do tend to disagree with the notion that if a word used to mean something legitimate, it should be okay to use it now though. The English language evolves with culture, and a word's meaning can change, often in negative and derogatory ways.
What is truly amazing about the type of person who says, "I have a family member who is ____, and ____." is that the underlying assumption with that type thinking is that mere proximity to something gives someone authority and correct knowledge. 20 people may take the same college course, but that won't mean that all 20 come out with equal knowledge. Knowing about something, or being an authority on something cannot be defined as simply having an association with it. My mother is an elementary art teacher. Does this really give me insight into art? Not much. I have a friend who is bipolar. How much authority do I have on the subject of bipolar disorder? Only enough to say, "I have a friend who is bipolar, and this is how it works for that person and how that person deals with it." Nothing more. Just enough to trick my listeners into thinking that I have special insight. The insight might be valid, but it's limited. It's not as if I've worked for years in a mental institute, and over time have gained a wide range of experience with a broad spectrum of people and disorders.
But it seems like the people who have the most authority on a subject are the ones who don't feel a need to assert that authority over anyone. A movie critic shouldn't stand around reminding everyone about their profession when in a conversation about movies.
Jim, there is a world of difference between being offended by something and being offended by something in such a way that one is stirred into action. Proximity to the offended is special in that it seems to be an effective impetus for a sort of selfless action. The idea that these same people would not be offended without that special proximity is a perceptual contrivance and beyond the point. Some, of course, would not be offended while others would be. Neither would be compelled to act. And it's the action that counts. People who do strenuously support causes without a "personal story" that pre-dates their support are a saintly few to be sure.
Brad: Splendidly put. All I'm suggesting is: 1) as in my opening (barely exaggerated) example, that "offendees" not try to draw meaningless connections to ("My cousin's uncle had Parkinson's and therefore I know what Alzheimer's is like"); and 2) that they remove a preface to their remarks that puts them at the center. "I object..." is not strengthened by placing "I know somebody who is ____, therefore..." in front of it -- unless you can establish a reason for bringing it up in the first place. I realize it's human nature to do things like that -- I do them, too -- but I'm saying I don't think it serves one's argument very well.
At the end of last year, my English teacher asked for everyone in the class to write a "This I Believe" essay, just like the ones mentioned in your article. One girl, a caucasisian, decided to write about her intolerance towards racism. She said she was well qualified to speak about the topic because her second cousins were both african american. She spoke for five minutes about how she was truly not a racist and that she applied this to her everyday life.
I was just reminded of her when you wrote that imaginary quote at the top of the paper, and when you wrote about those essays aired on NPR.
Berke Breathed had the last word...
Offensensitivity!
I finally saw Tropic Thunder and I have to say that I agree mostly with Jim's original argument that there was some major misinterpreting of the Simple Jack portion of the film. However, I have to say that it does go further than that. Do you really believe that the phrase "You can't go full retard" isn't funny in and of itself? As much as I'd love to say that I don't discriminate and that I don't condone making fun of people because of their disabilities, I can't deny that the line is funny. A large part of it is the delivery - Robert Downy Jr. delivers it in "jive" mode, just like he does most of his lines. The joke works so well because the line sounds completely ridiculous when said in that fashion which is compounded by the fact that we know it's a white guy saying it that way (is the "I speak jive" line in Airplane a racist joke? - I say no). The ultimate irony is that Downy Jr. is chastising Stiller's character for "going full retard" while he himself is "going full negro". Notice I used "negro" there instead of "African-American"? Somebody could easily lambaste me for it and call me a racist but the simple truth is that it's funnier that way! Using the word "negro", just like using "retard" is what makes the joke funny because it instantly calls forth the stereotype and makes fun of the actor for exploiting it.
I hope you noticed Sarah Palin's comment in the Vice Presidential debate the other night. "I have gay friends"; although also not a direct quote, Palin's self interest and fundamental hubris have odd relevance to the discussion you make here.
Well put.
No one has the right to go through life unoffended.
I have a friend who was a gay, black, disabled, blind, veteran, prisoner of war, lost his shirt in the market, veterinarian, catholic-jewish-muslim-buddist-animist, and he would be offended by the just about anything.
Seriously, I don't get it. I remember when Peter Jackson's King Kong came out that people were piping on about the film and the story being racist. I still cringe at the articles and posts I read and sincerely hope that these folks have not produced larvae.
Seeing offense in my opinion is not a spotlight grab but an attempt at documenting superiority. I am morally and intellectually superior to you because I empathize with the world's left-handed, blind animists and you don't and if you don't believe me, I have a left handed blind animist and I happen to know he would...
The whole thing makes one yearn for ambien. I think there are many areas where this superiority complex rears its ugly head, no offense to rears. Many of the posts I read about films on this site are puke-inducing. People are very much into being the one who is more discerning, more demanding, more difficult to please as if this signifies higher intellect or sophisitcation.
As John WAters said on Letterman, "anything is funny as long as it's in good bad taste". A good retard joke is a good thing. Look at the first half of Blazing Saddles. For all the schtick on SNL, that is risky stuff and it kills. Try making that today. The protests would be everywhere. Why, every horse lover would be picketing.
What did you think I was talking about?
Leave a comment