A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Etheses - Queen Margaret ...

189
from afar. I‟ve picked up information about a group of people – those with visual
impairments – and I‟ve learned something about their struggles and triumphs
through NPR‟s telling of this woman‟s story. I‟ve also learned more about
perception and medical science (Dill, 2009:89).
I suggest that Dill has picked up information about one woman with a visual impairment
rather than about „those with visual impairments‟. Having learned about Susan‟s condition
and its treatment in a story narrated by a science correspondent, Dill‟s perception that the
proper place for discussion of disability is within terms of a medical discourse has been
confirmed. In having heard the results of Susan‟s treatment described as „miraculous‟ her
view that what went before was second-rate is reinforced. I would question whether Dill has
learned a great deal about the „struggles and triumphs‟ of people with visual impairments so
much as she has unquestioningly accepted as enlightening a repetition of the personal
tragedy narrative. The subject position of people with impairments is invalidated (things
were so much worse for Susan before her treatment), while that of people perceived as
unimpaired is validated (being able to see is so much better).
I find this interesting because of Dill‟s apparent inability to recognise the stereotypes
apparent in Susan‟s story even as she addresses the subject of stereotype. Where we look for
stereotypes, as Dill does with regard to race and gender, they are obvious. Where we do not,
they are obscure. During my interview with Rose, she admitted that:
I have to say, also, that when you said in your email to start looking I
thought that nothing would turn up… but quite honestly, after two
weeks… it only took two weeks… for everything we‟re talking about
now… so that shows you how saturated it is... (l.2:550ff.)
During a short period of what she considered to be typical viewing and listening for her,
Rose watched and listened to a variety of TV and radio programmes, including dramas,
quizzes and comedies, and had noted disabled people portrayed and discussed as rejecting
identification as disabled (l.2:99ff.) as objects of comedy (l.2:261ff.; l.2:378ff.); as needy
and dependent (l.2:275ff.); as mad (l.2:292ff.); as objects of exploitation (l.2:380ff.); as poor
victims (l.2:421); as childlike (l.2:475ff.); as slow and stupid (l.2:528ff.); as murderous
(l.2:559ff.); as frauds (l.2:563ff.); as helpless burdens (l.2:580ff.); as unattractive and asexual
(l.2:610ff.); as being of less value (l.2:617ff.); and as bitter and spiteful (l.2:640ff.)
Rose comments that: