Points of Praxis

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

I was watching X-Men III during the summer, and I kept thinking of the movie's plot in terms of Disability Rhetoric.  While I've heard commentary connecting the movie's premise (that mutants can be "cured" with a new experimental drug) to debates regarding homosexuality and whether it can be "cured," I think the movie's plot raises interesting issues concerning the value of "normalcy" as it relates to visible and invisible disabilities.  Likewise, it also raises concerns regarding how much an individual's disability constitutes a person's identity and the value of that disability. 

Looking at the movie through a disability rhetoric lens, the medical community considers disabilities as "mutations" of the "normal," whereas, disability scholars consider disabilities not to be abnormal biology but a biology that differs from the status quo.  From the biological point of view, disabilities reflect negatively on the "normal" physical and mental body.  But, in disability studies, the disability does not take on negative connotations--and in many instances is considered a positive attribute to one's existence. 

It seems to me that looking at the movie from a disability rhetoric point of view requires one to examine the importance of "neutrality" in regard to mutation.  Namely, this difference between mutation/disability as negative or as neutral was what differentiated between the mutants, like Storm or Wolverine, who saw their disabilities as neutral or constitutive features of themselves and their "personhood" and those (namely, non-mutants) who wanted to eradicate the mutations with a vaccine, thereby neutralizing what is considered a negative mutation.  Both groups were attempting to neutralize what is considered beyond "normal." 

The movie illustrated the controversies involved with this kind of neutralization well, I think.  This same kind of discussion occurs presently when the medical community introduces technology that can "cure" blindness or deafness.  For instance, the controversies involved in the deaf community regarding cochlear implants reflects this struggle between being accepted by the community-at-large, with one's "mutation," and attempting to have one's mutation "fixed."

Trying to "fix" one's mutation/disability is also interesting considering Bakhtin's discussion of chronotope from "Chronotope of Time and Space in the Novel."  Specifically, Bakhtin's theory argues that all human existence exists in a specific time and space.  While Kant argues that human experience the transcendental experience of time and space together, Bakhtin argues that there is nothing transcendental about the experience--experience is contingent on the space and time of the moment.  Therefore, in the regard to disability rhetoric and the movie, it seems like the attempt to "fix" one's mutation/disability acknowledges that there is a "normal" or "perfect" form of a person that exists beyond the disability.  That the person/mutant would be that same person/mutant without the disability.  In this case, the disability/mutation does not contribute chronotopically to the person.  However, as the movie and disability scholars like Leonard Davis acknowledge, a person exists as he/she does because of his/her disabilities, not in spite of them.

Ignoring the chronotope of disability/mutation seems reminiscent of Plato's discussion of the "forms" or Aristotle's discussion of "universals."  Namely, an ideal "form" or "universal" person exists--there is a perfect version of "human," "woman," "Rochelle."  But, a disability/mutation illustrates one's divergence from this "universal" or "form."  However, Bakhtin's discussion of chronotope argues that there is no "universal" or "form" that exists beyond the space and time of the moment.  I wouldn't be "Rochelle" in other space and time; likewise, people with disabilities/mutations wouldn't be who they are in different times and spaces.

posted by: rgregory at 02:39 | link | comments (2) |

Comments:

#1  26 September 2006 - 05:19

 

You know, I've wondered before whether these things were true before. I've wondered if I would be the same person if, say, I looked like Tom Cruise. Or if I could not walk. Or whether I would perceive other people differently if they did not have the same physical characteristics they did. Would I have seen the same Dr. Popken if he had been 5'10" rather than well over 6'4" or whatever it was. And I'm not talking about superficiality or the ugly kind of thing we know as judging others by appearances; I really do wonder if people's perceptions of themselves individually and socially are constructed by their physical selves necessarily, with all the parameters of those selves.

I guess, too, on the flip side, this might apply: what would disability rhetoricians have to say about those who willingly alter their physical selves through unnecessary plastic surgery? Among many patients it is accepted that if they change their physical appearance, they will feel inwardly "better about themselves." Does the plastic surgery industry exacerbate the problem identified by disability rhetoricians with the assumptions behind "curing" disabilities?

You said this applies to time and space. How localized is this space? If I make my nose larger or smaller through rhinoplasty, I literally occupy different space by a slight degree. I know that chaos theorists would say that I would in some small way change the world around me in incalculable ways through some kind of ripple effect. But, applying this to Bahktin, am I truly a different person if I get, say, a botox injection?

I'm willing to say that, yes, it's certainly a possibility.

Mo'nonymous

#2  22 November 2006 - 06:25

 

Hello Rochelle: After reading your blog on X-Men III and disability rhetoric, I was curious about your analysis of the neutral versus negative perceptions of mutation, specifically as to how it concerns Rogue (played by Anna Paquin). Rogue is a unique case in that she can neither touch or be touch--perhaps contributing to a lack of "personhood." Do you think it is arguable to say that she wanted to eradicate (or be cured of) her mutation in order to be what she perceived as normal? Remember that, unlike the other mutants, she frequently feels on the outside looking in. She watches her love interest have moments of tenderness and touch with other women, and she perceives these indexical signs as signs of affection that she can never experience; therefore, she feels the mutation on a deeper and more personal level than the others. Specially, the mutants are best able to feel normal when with other mutants, which is one reason for the mutant school— they comfort newcomers by assuring them that they are not alone—there are others; however, even in the presence of mutants, Rogue continues to feel segregated by her disability—her touch can kill. In the end, the audience is left wondering if her decision (watch it—plot spoiler coming) to take the “cure” is a betrayal. To what end does this “possible betrayal” imply that special cases deserve special consideration. It will be interesting to see how her character develops in future X-Men films. Lynda Davis

http://www.pointsofpraxis.motime.com/post/606121#comment

Mo'nonymous

Comments: