I’ll be Watching (Parts of) You: Staring, Staring, Staring

By: Rebecca Monteleone

NB: This post contains nudity. Read at your own discretion.

Hey pals, welcome back to [Insert Disability Euphemism Here]!  I’m so glad to see you here. Today, I wanted to delve a little more deeply into a topic that I brought up previously: the politics of staring.

Wait, what does that mean?

 With a constant barrage of media flying at our faces 24/7, I think it is valuable to reflect on the intention of the images being presented to us, as well as how we, as viewers, interpret them. (Ugh, but introspection is SO hard, Becca!) I know,  darling readers, I know. Please don’t interrupt, though. It won’t be so bad as all that. If we equip ourselves with kick-ass theory, the introspection comes naturally, I promise.

To aid in our reflection, I am going to outline some work by the brilliant Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, which discusses the invitation to stare and the intent behind certain representations of disabled bodies. Alongside her framework, I will lay out some modern examples of what she refers to as the four “visual rhetorics” (Source).

Before we get into all that, however, there are some assumptions I am going to make in this post (and, frankly, in my life) that you should be aware of:

1. Disability is a social construct. While there are some  very valid critiques to the social model of disability, it is a useful device when attempting to understand how disability is situated in the sociological, political, and economic environments that shape our lives. Harlan Hahn describes disability as “the failure of a structured social environment to adjust to the needs and aspirations of citizens with disabilities rather than the inability of the disabled individual to adapt to the demands of society.” (Hahn, 1986). In the context of staring, the social model holds that the way in which individuals are viewed by others invariably impacts their social value, and in turn, their overall well-being.

“these stairs (are our way of telling you that you are not welcome here)” Carole Zoom

2.Staring is a very specific act. Staring, as opposed to simply looking, suggests a certain relationship between the starer and the subject. Jean-Paul Sartre suggests the act itself is one of objectification, and shame (or pride) arises not from one’s features themselves, but those features as they are seen by others (Sartre, 1942). There is something inherently dehumanizing about staring, particularly in the context of image or video, as it produces a distance between the subject and  viewer that allows that viewer to gape without reciprocation or shame. As Rosemarie Garland-Thomson writes, “starers gawk with abandon at the prosthetic hook, the empty sleeve, the scarred flesh, the unfocused eye, the twitching limb, but seldom does the looking broaden to envelope the whole body.”

3. These rhetorics can be applied across the board. While disabled bodies have certainly been a ready subject of staring throughout history, they are not alone. These rhetorics can (and are) readily applied to any body deemed “other.” If you are able to pinpoint a feature on a body that could be deemed as aberrant to the norm (if you’ll recall from my last post on Crip Theory, the dominant sociological class maintains their place via the invisibility of their features), whether that be in ability, skin colour, weight, gender expression, or age, then this post is likely applicable to some extent. So that’s cool!

4. Understanding how we view people is increasingly important in the Digital Age. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson first published the Politics of Staring in 2002, writing that “disability photography offers the spectator the pleasure of unaccountable, uninhibited, insistent looking.” In the subsequent decade, the internet has provided a nearly endless space for unaccountable staring. Anonymity is allotted to both viewers and subjects—which may further dehumanise subjects, and allow bolder stares from viewers. It is becoming increasingly important to understand how and why images and video of disabled bodies are produced, how you as a viewer are receiving them, and why your opinion of an image matters in terms of creating an equitable, inclusive, and empowering society.

Visual Rhetorics of Disability(Rosemarie Garland-Thomson)

1. Wondrous: “Oh wow! That’s amazing!”

Source

The idea of the wondrous disabled figure is one with its roots in the earliest civilizations. Disability was (and sometimes still is) viewed as the manifestation of some divine good or evil. Disability is wholly dissociated from the average person’s experience. The image is meant to inspire excitement and admiration, and is strongly tied to the “supercrip” or “courageous overcomer” narratives.

There is nothing inherently malicious in the intent behind images such as this one—this athlete is, in fact, incredibly impressive. Look at those guns. The danger lies in the dehumanization of the subject in favour of delighting the audience with the surreal and amazing. The subject becomes not sub-human, but superhuman. This higher esteem may seem preferable, but produces the same result: seemingly insurmountable distance between the viewer and the subject.

2. Sentimental: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Source

The sentimental visual rhetoric diminishes the subject in order to emphasize the viewers’ “own narratives of progress, improvement, or heroic deliverance and contains disability’s threat in the sympathetic, helpless [person] for whom the viewer is empowered to act” (Garland-Thomson, 2002). In essence, the agenda of the sentimental rhetoric is to authorise the viewer to act on behalf of the subject. Unsurprisingly, this type of representation occurs most often in the charity world (as seen above). The photo above does not even feature the subject’s face—she is literally reduced to her chair and nothing else. The text directly implores the viewer to act: “What can YOU do?” The sentimental rhetoric begs introspection from the viewer, and beseeches them to act on behalf of the powerless; dehumanizing the subjects to their disabilities in order to emphasize weakness and impotence.

3. Exotic: “That’s…different.”

Source

Source

The exotic rhetoric views the disabled body as “alien, distant, often sensationalized,” and eroticised (Garland-Thomson, 2002). The idea of “passing” as able-bodied is entirely rejected in favour of hyperbolizing the stigma and “otherness” that enshroud disabled bodies. Whereas the wonderous rhetoric often incidentally highlights the foreignness of the subject’s features, the exotic rhetoric designs to do so. Exotic images of disability seek to redefine disabled identity by “upsetting the earnest, asexual, vulnerable, courageous image of disability that charity rhetoric has so firmly implanted” (Garland-Thomson, 2002). More often than not, the redefinition of disabled identity is produced for disabled consumers rather than able-bodied viewers. This rhetoric is often seen in performance art (as seen above), dance, theatre, high fashion, and ethnographic photography (as also seen above).

4. Realistic. “You’re just like me!”

Source

The realistic rhetoric seeks to minimise the distance and difference that has permeated the other rhetorics. It discourages staring, and instead promotes other, less involved variants of looking such as glancing. It presupposes normalcy for the subject, and “dismantles the assumption that disability precludes accomplishment” (Garland-Thomson, 2002). The above advert, from a UK retailer, features a wheelchair user, not as a subject of interest, but one of several models in a recent campaign. Even her close proximity to the other models in the shoot position her firmly within the “rhetoric of the ordinary” (Garland-Thomson, 2002).

Ironically, the realistic rhetoric, which seeks to destigmatize and “regulate” disability in its simplistic style, is actually making the most drastic statement about disabled identity in the modern world. It “radically reimagin(es) disability by installing people with disabilities in the realm of human commonality” (Garland-Thomson, 2002). This rhetoric, of the four, is the only that does not overtly emphasize the “otherness” of the disabled body, and instead seeks to normalise it. Whether or not the normalisation of disabled bodies is an appropriate goal…well that’s the subject of a post for another time.

Each of these representations has very real social and political ramifications, but none are inherently positive or negative. There is no fundamentally “correct” way to represent disability (although, there are loads of wrong ways to do it). Negative consequences arrive with the extreme dehumanization of subjects, the lack of creative control concerning how images and video of disabled bodies are presented to the public, the use of rhetorics to further isolate and socially devalue, and thoughtless consumption.

That’s where we come in, dear readers. In an age of bite-sized media consumption and anonymity, it is our job as viewers to consider the intent behind an image or video and how we interpret it. Who authorised the image? Who is the intended audience? Does it create or minimise distance between myself and the subject? Do I want distance between myself and the subject? Why?

These rhetorics combined create the “culturally fabricated narrative of body,” that we all exist in, and critical analysis of how we interact with that narrative is crucial.

I mean, I can’t make you do it. But I can ask really nicely. Please consider how the media you consume presents others. Please consider how your perceptions are impacted by that presentation.

This matters, you guys.

Thank you, as always, for reading.  Check back in next week for a special announcement!

Sources not otherwise linked

Hahn, H., “Public Support for Rehabilitation in Programs: The Analysis of US Disability Policy”,
Disability, Handicap & Society, 1986, No. 1(2) pp. 121-138

Sartre, Jean-Paul (1943). Being and Nothingness.