Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

On May 13, 2006,  Katherine McCarron, a three year-old autistic girl, was allegedly murdered by her mother, Dr. Karen McCarron, by suffocation.  In the months that have followed, however, autism advocates and disability rights organizations have been outraged with the sympathy Dr. McCarron has received in the media for having the "burden" of raising an autistic child. Not Dead Yet argues, "Recent media coverage of mothers being charged with killing or attempting to kill their disabled daughters solicits sympathy and understanding for the heinous acts." In fact,  Autism Speaks, a national organization dedicated to "funding global biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for autism; to raising public awareness about autism and its effects on individuals, families, and society; and to bringing hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder," has even produced and published Autism Everyday, a video available online that attempts to show the everyday struggles parents of autistic children face daily.

However, Autism Everyday has came under intense scrutiny in the past couple months for its negative and fatalistic portrayal of autistic children and the struggles parents face when raising autistic children.  Critics like Dr. Kristina Chew at AutismVox, autistic blogger Kassiane, and the organization Not Dead Yet have charged that this video portrays autistic children as economic and emotional burdens on their families.  One alarming part of the documentary shows a mother discussing (in front of her autistic child) how she's contemplated driving herself and her autistic daughter off of the George Washington Bridge.  This mother admits that the only reason she hasn't done so already is because of the needs of her "normal" child.  I, too, found this video disturbing when I first watched it in late May following my own son's autism diagnosis.  I remember too vividly thinking that for these women, "autism" was a death sentence.  The tragedy that defined their lives.

A  rhetorical analysis based on Kenneth Burke's theory of cluster criticism of the short documentary (it runs approximately 14 minutes long) would support Chew, Kassiane, and NDY's criticisms.  Specifically, the directors predominately show throughout the movie the burdens and heartbreak associated with raising a child with autism.  The mothers interviewed in the documentary make statements that

• they've had to "give up" their entire lives to autism,
• "people have no idea" as to "how difficult life is on a day-to-day basis" for families with autistic children,
• the condition is "heartbreaking,"
• these autistic children are violent, disruptive, and take the joy out of everyday life,
• other siblings suffer due to one child's autism,
• these parents of autistic children are left "angry," "helpless," and "disappointed,"
• these parents have had their children "taken away from them" by autism, and
• these parents "cannot accept that we have to throw away this generation of children" to autism.

Likewise, supporters of the movie argue that it "was the most realistic portrayal of the struggles and heartbreaks of autism [...] ever seen. It was realistic, did not just show the 'success' stories, and did not glorify autism" and that the video "really hits home [...in regard to] children suffering from different forms of the disorder. The pain and frustration that families of autistic children go through was powerfully conveyed" (Autism Everyday).  

Again, such descriptors as "heartbreaking," "angry," "helpless," and "suffering" illustrate the common ideological and rhetorical thread throughout the movie that autistic children are emotional and financial burdens on their families.  In fact, the mothers only mention the words "loving" and "hope" in the final minute of the movie and there is no discussion in regard to the children's accomplishments, potentials, or capabilities.  The autistic children throughout the movie are portrayed overwhelmingly negative and tragically.

What might be the purpose of funding and distributing a documentary that portrays autism so negatively, especially considering Autism Speaks' mission of "funding global biomedical research [...]; raising public awareness about autism [...]; and to bring hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder"?  I believe that the rhetoric within the movie answers this question.  If we're to accept that producers Lauren Thierry, Jim Watkins, and Eric Solomon selectively choose the footage that was to be used in the final cut, such words as "cure" and "prevention" further the organization's mission--finding a "cure" and "preventing" autism.   This movie, then, helps support the Autism Speaks' cause of raising money for autism research aimed at "curing" and "preventing" autism. 

Portraying autism as the tragedy that defines one's life is an emotional appeal that plays on the heartstrings (and wallets) of viewers.  Would it have been as effective to discuss the biological or behavioral factors that contribute to the frustrations associated with autism?  No, probably not.  Seeing frustrated and frazzled, white, divorced, middle-aged women is more effective at garnering a "sympathy" response from audiences than seeing women who deal with autism day-in and day-out but live a relatively "normal" life--a life that isn't fatalistically defined by autism.  Who would contribute money for a cause that isn't "terrible," "heartbreaking," and "devastating" in every possible way?

Important to note, though, is that it's sentiments like these, that autism is a heartbreaking disorder that leaves parents shattered and children suffering and struggling, that seem to reinforce the ideology that it's okay to murder one's autistic child.  These children, it would seem, bring nothing but misery and hopelessness onto their families.  This ideological stance argues that murdering the disabled is probably the best thing for the children, their families, and society-at-large.  And, it's for this reason that it's important to identify the rhetorical clusters that construct the ideologies of autism.

However, this ideological stance is not indicative of the entire autism communities' approach to autism research, funding, and support.  In fact, groups like the Autism Assembly "share the common goal of seeking acceptance for those on the autistic spectrum, who aim to educate about autism, and who are not seeking a cure for autism. This is part of the global autism rights movement."   Therefore, if the movie were produced for a different organization, one that supports acceptance and does not support a "cure" for autism, the rhetorical "clusters" might've been completely different.

Update:  As of 11/7/06, Karen McCarron has been found competant to stand trial for the murder of his daughter.  WJBC.com

posted by: rgregory at 15:33 | link | comments (5) |

Comments:

#1  20 September 2006 - 19:08

 

There are many more views of course.
Let us start with the importance of people first language and how people first language places the focus on our common humanity.
My experience as a parent is not from an autism perspective but from the challenges of providing supports for my daughter who sustained a brain injury at age 12.
I do accept and love the new Maria.
I along with Maria do want for her to regain her lost abilities both physical and cognituive,
The biggest challenge however is government policy and societal attitudes that are exclosionary instead of inclusive.
Most of the economic, medical supports,and personal supports my daughter has required and requires are only available in segregated institutional settings. Government policy and societal attitudes that do not foster and encourage the development, respect and independence of individuals is flawed and must change.
The probklem is often seen more clearly with adults with significant disabilities and the frail elderly.
Instead of supporting individuals in the natural and empowering environments of family,home and community our government and our society funds segregate institutions.
My daughter is not a burden. I am very much concerned about her future and her quality of life and safety in the future.
My fear is that as long as the doors to nursing homes,developmental centers and psychiatric facilities remain open her future is at risk.
Parents of children with disabilities face huge challenges. The challenges are individual because of family dynamics and the unique suopport needs of the individual with a given disability.
The problem is bnot the disability but our own failure to respect and support the individual and family reach their full potential.
Thank you

Mo'nonymous

#2  20 September 2006 - 21:36

 

I appreciate your comment, and thank you for taking the time to make it. And, I couldn't disagree with you more. I think if there were more options available for parents w/ children w/ special needs, there wouldn't be such a need for movies and documentaries that depict autistic children so negatively. Likewise, if more services were available--not just services like those provided at nursing homes--then, the metaphor of these children as "burdens" wouldn't be a prevalent.

I think you make an excellent point because it's really not that different from mine. In some ways, this is the chicken-and-the-egg scenario: Are disabled children considered "burdens" because parents lack the appropriate resources that they need? Or, do parents lack the appropriate resources that they need because such children are considered "burdens" by society-at-large? I think changing the ways in which disabled children are discussed and viewed by the public will change the way they are treated by that public.

Again, thank you for your comments and I sympathize with your situation. I've been fortunate to have many resources available to my son; however, I know that this is only the case because my son's needs aren't as great as other's. I can't imagine how difficult it wouldn't been if we didn't have the resources that we need at our disposal.

Thank you again.

Mo'nonymous

#3  25 September 2006 - 02:38

 

I think your "chicken and egg" analogy is very apt---and your rhetorical analysis of the video lends further credence to critiques about its one-sidedness. This one-sidedness is all the more important to point out because of Autism Speaks' own description and construction of itself as an "umbrealla" autism organization that "speaks for all"---that articulates not only an experience that families with autisitic children generally have, but that is universal. As you show, the rhetoric in the video is unresevedly negative. Further, the fact that it is primarily parents who are shown to be talking in the video suggests that is it not exactly a representation of "autism speaking."

Mo'nonymous

#4  25 September 2006 - 23:33

 

First, thank you for reading my blog and for comment. And, I hadn't considered exactly *who* is speaking for Autism in the video.

This raises another point entirely. After all, if autistic children were to speak, what would they say? How would they say it?

My son? He'd probably say that he loves his ability to memorize Elizabeth Barret Browning poetry by memory after hearing it a couple times.

He'd probably say that he loves being able to occupy himself in line at the DMV for hours by just acting out his favorite Charlie Brown episodes in their entirety from memory.

He'd probably say that he wishes that everyone else would just have a little patience with him. That, while he may not develop at the pace he's expected to, he develops at his own rate all the same.

He'd say that he's beautiful, loving, and full of potential. And, hopefully, he'd say the same thing about his mother.

Mo'nonymous

#5  25 September 2006 - 23:35

 

I should say if those autistic children *in the video* were to speak for themselves about themselves.

No blanket generalizations here...

Mo'nonymous

Comments: