Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mitchell-Snyder Narrative-Prosthesis Chpt2 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Esteban Forero
    103 views14 pages

    Original Title

    Mitchell-Snyder_Narrative-Prosthesis_Chpt2.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    103 views14 pages

    Mitchell-Snyder Narrative-Prosthesis Chpt2 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Esteban Forero

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 14
    Conporealities: Discourses of Disability avid T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder, editors Books available in the series: “Defects”: Engndering the Modern Body ete by Helen Deutsch and Felciy Nosabam Revel in Madness: Insanity x Medicine and Literature by Allen Ther Points of Contacts Disability, Art, ond Culture cdited by Susan Ceurefeld and Macey Epstein A Hisar of Disbiity by Henn Jacques Stee Disabled Veterans in History lied by David A. Gerber [Narrative Prosthesis: Disability ond the Dependencies of Discourse ‘by David T Michell and Shaton L. Snyder Backlash Against the ADA: Reintrprting Dicabibty Rights died by Linea Hamilton Krieger, The Staff of Oedipus Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece by Marcha L Rose tons of Affliction: Physical Disability i Victorias Caleare by Marta Stoddard Holmes Poucault and the Goverment of Disability ‘ited by Shelley Temaia Bodies i Commotiens Disability and Performance ‘elted by Carrie Sandahl and Philip Asslander ‘Moving Beyond Proce, DSM, and she Now Payhitry: The Bits of Pasipaychizry by Bradley Lewis Disability in Twentet-Contury German Calare ‘by Carol Poore Concerto forthe Left Hands Disabilty and the Defamilor Body by Michael Davidson Disability Theory by Tobin Siebers Narrative Prosthesis Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder Ann Ashor The University of Michigan Press Copyright © by the Univers of Misha 2000, [Allg eaered Publ in se United Sates of Ameria ‘The Unversity of Mchigae Pes Mansfactre in he United States of Amerce 2 on aides paper aol 2010 2009 20085 43-2 Nopartof hia publication may be produced, stored in x etal tom, canine nay form oy ay eane electrons, mecha, rote, without be wetenpemasion ofthe pie ACIP etl record for hs book i oval fromthe Bei Library Lirary of Congres Catling Piston Duta appli for sen 0472 09748 2(a pape) SBN 047.0674 [pbk al pages) 1s80978-0-472-09748-2 (ak pape) ISBN 978:0-47206748.0 (phil popes) To our children, Cameron and Enema, for their beautiful differences Chapter 2 Narrative Prosthesis and the Materiality of Metaphor Literature andthe Undlsciplined Body of Disability This chapter prefaces che close readings to come by deepening ow theory of sacrative prosthesis as shared characteristics in the irae epeesenttion of dlisably. We damomrerate one ofa variety of approaches ia ability vod- ies tothe “problem” that disability and disabled popalatons poser all cal tres. Neely every eubuce views diabilicy as «problem in need of a sla ‘tony and ths belief establishes one ofthe major modes of historical addees directed toward people with disabilities. The necessity for developing vai= ‘us kinds of cultural acommodations to handle the “problem of corpo ‘eal difetenc (rough chartable organizations, modifications of pliystcl architecture, welfare doles, quarantine, genocide, euthanasia programs, cc situates people with disabilities in «profoundly ambivalent rslaton Ship othe cultures and stoves they inhabit. The perception of a “ers” oF “special situation” has made disabled people the sabjet of not ony gov cenmental policies and socal proants but also a primary object of heary sepesenation. ‘Our chess centers aoe simply pon the fae that people with disses have been the objec of representational treatments, but rather that thee fnetion in literary discourse is primarily owofol: disability pervades liter acy narctive fist, a stock feature of characterization and, second a an ‘opportisi metaphorical device. We tem his perpetual discursive depen dency wpon disability narative prosthesis. Disability lends a ditnctiveidio- syneray 0 any character that difeeniaes che character from the anny ‘mous background of the “norm.” To exemplify thie phenomenon, the ‘opening half of ehis chapter analyzes the Victoian children’s story The Steadfast To Sodio im onder to demonstae that dsbilty serves av ps rary impenis of the seoryele's efforts In the second instance, disbility also sees a6 a metaphovicalsiguter of social and individual cola. Physical and cogitive anomalies promize to lend a “tangible” body t > 38 Nara Protos ‘ual abstractions; we term this metaphorical use of disability the materiality of metaphor and analyze its workings as narrative prosthesis in our con lading disson of Sophocles deama Oedipus the King, We contend that disabiliy’s centrality 0 these two principle representational. strategies ‘establishes conundrum: while stones rely upon the potency of dsailiy 25 a symbole gure, they razly eke up disabiley as an experience of social or pola dimensions. ‘While each of the chapters that fllow set out some of the ey earl ‘components and specie historical contexts that inform his hisaty of di abled representations, our main objective addreses the development of 2 representational or “lerary" history. By “lerary” we mean t suggest 2 form of writing that expiciy values che producion of what narrsie the ‘vist suc as Barthes, Blanchot, and Chambers have refered to as “open “ended” narrative.” Te denticaion ofthe open-ended narrative diferent tesa discinctively “iterary” component of particular kiads of storytelling: ‘those exts that nor only deploy burexplcily foreground the “play” of mul tiple meanings asa facet of their discursive producti. While this defisition ‘doesnot overlook the fact tht al exe ate iaherntly “open” to a mut plcty of intepreations, our notion of literary narrative ideatites works ‘that stage the aritearines oF linguist sgn systems as characterizing fx ture oftheir pots and commentaries Not ony do the aries pio sophical works undes discussion here presen themselves as available to @ sully of readings, they openly perform thei textual mesbauctibily. ach shares a ierary objective of destabilizing sedimented cultural meas ings tha acceu around ideas of bodily “deviance.” Ths, we approach the ‘wetings of Montaigne, Niezsche, Shakespeare, Melville, Anderson, Dunn, and an array of pos-1945 American authors as wsters who inerrogate the ‘objecives of narrative in general and che cogporeal body in particular as di cursive products. Their nareaives all share a slfeflesive mode of addess about ther own textual production of disnbled bodies “This textual perfemance of evee-shiting and sastable meanings is rt cil nou incexpttie appcoach to the rpretentation of dsaily. The close ‘readings that follow hinge upon the idetifcation of diab as 3a ambiva lear and mutable category ofcaltual and erat investment, Within iter ary narratives disability serves as an inteceupive force that confronts ex ‘wal eruisms, The inherent valaceabilty and variability of bodies seves literary nacatives as ¢ metonym for that which refuses to conform co the mind's desire for order and ctionality. Within this schema, disability acs as #3 metaphor and fey example of the bodys arly resistance tthe el cuca desire to “enforce narmaley."? The literary narratives we discus all Nant Poses the Matera of Welaghor «49 ep the mutable or “deviant” body as a “unbearable weight” (wo use Susan Bordo’ phrase ia onder to counterbalance the “acaningladen” and tehecel projections of the mind. The bodys weighty materiality functions a2 textual and cultural otbe:—an object with is own undiseplined lan- tage that exceeds the text's aii to contol 'AS many cheocss have pointed out this representational split berween body and mind/ext hasbeen inherited rom Descartes although we demon- strate thar disability has heen entrenched in these assumptions heougbost history). Keeping ia mind char the perception of daily shifts from oae epoch to another, and sometimes within decades and years, we wane 10 ‘ryue thatch dite body has consistently held down a “pevileged” pos tion with respec o thematic variations on the mind/body spit. Whether a culture approaches the body's materiality a a denigrated symbol of earthly contamination (such asin early Christan culures, or a5 a perfecible techno the sel asin ancient Athenian cultuze}y or a a object of redial intespeeation (a in Victorian cle, of specular commodity inthe age ‘of electronic media (a is he case in postmodernism disability perpetually serves as the symbolical symptom tobe interpreted by discourses ow the body. Whereas the “able™ body as no definitional eo it poses as tans- parently “average” or normal”), the dialed body surface as any body Capable of being narrated as “outside the nor.” Within such a repesenta- ional schema, erry nazttivesrevisc disabled bodies as reminder ofthe “real” physical nts cha “weigh down” transcendent ideals ofthe ind and knowledge producing disciplines. In tis sens, disability seves asthe bard herel oe wclctant corporeal mater that Cannot be deconstructed vay by the txsul operations of even the most canny naretives or phio- sophicaldealisms For our purposes in tis book, the representation of disability has oth allowed an interrogation of atic belie about the hody and alo erspeed as the unseemly mater of narcative that anno be etal undone, We there fore forwacd readings of disability 26a areative device upon witch tel rary writer of “open-ended” nareatives depends for his or her disruptive punch. Our phrase naraive provers in meant to indicate cat disblity has boen used throughout history as a crutch upon which Iierarynacrasies Jean for thei epresentacional power, dsuptive potential, and anlyicl Insight. Bodies show up in stories as dynamic entities that resistor refuse the cc scrips sesigned to them. While we do ace simply extol eese liter ‘ny apprasches tothe representation ofthe Body {pariull ia elaion co recurtng tropes of disbility), we want co demonstrate tha the disabled body represents a potent symbole te af ieray investment ‘The reasons for this dependency upon disability asa device of character zation and interrogation are many, and our concep of narative prosthesis tstablishes a variety of motivations tha ground the narrative deployanent of the “deviant” body. However, what suefces as theme throughout these fo hooky afar ines of iportance for sly scholarship. An ame of hig ey ines eee of them vernon of One Fee Ove the Cacheo? Nera Noteto Page 48-49 «181 s-payhincc” fm. Developing on pelea to he negative image schoc he medlgrote whoo of etic soght wo acon crete surgery pon miepotendibled characee In capes # we dus the comments ‘Donalds Miles and Eel H Dri, who publ ey in meal oun ca ing the let 1960s and early 1970 tha nested sonal Iaray hares wth tthoredicdnailes. Thee approach trues that the les adranca! medal Snwedge of previous clare x evident inthe ave aguneats ot ford by mcr aura Rather tha aalrar ably pontayal, Mile and Davies ‘up éingnostic adic bout pose comet tarnish ght be pforned ‘pen thes rary dsb wd ‘eaprd 2. Many ces ae dont sini po “he ey” ye Sgt rs where ewig inky sre on ile Mee Ban eves inary aie sah ee cantenaedep oe Stowe Berne) nw ede ose sani” 7) ha of Bact Sern Roan ates cece “leat wee ale watery who ewes ny sa tees eon Often bing se spn eet ly tee Se fess no Benin eet wefan se oral tana, oe of ich can heathy ded te ao” Hom Chae’ atlas of opening Atos he pay” acre ems tec of Beg ‘ete rest of ata ies Are stay eos we emit temp “opens esa sae peel y st matty of meanngy bess to ple dais hay. ig ae oe thatthe open of lee ere ethers bt ha cetiy hat soe oh pay wep ew dope sc 2s npr my fag Noma, Senard Davi hai te “oral bs seo ort ha nn oe bie scone, Acodng whl sl base ibantal when coupe ‘a le ofthe body, Sate popl expe oreo sees Sppeion so et tha penne. Wi tc em we wa mere Soden Dav ht dsbey pts fhe oie es ane wa ‘encore adsy a deerinel oases ‘ay sap shape Bw of hae woe nt Bk po {el othe came a dbly elt oe i of hee ne ana ‘the erence mray 5 chm pepe yen spe tse sine ineorebio tener oy mere eee SF ity neon of conform. Nema cn ay sre ofthe same eye", 182 « oes to age 52-65 slay henson of te hard her” oil For 2k, epee thetnderying coe of ee thes ods wy eo ‘ual perton of pel sae, More tn mucha ral caspnco ‘esi encanta hie” ese analy nd lat shears elated bjt Hg pspaon a ingtely ye sab oste 4. The aes rem the mpc fai Sey vane thin roa lair ft Sey The dad yn, tl tie feeder ry beth Poa of cael

    You might also like