Understanding Disability and Everyday

Hate Leah Burch

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-disability-and-everyday-hate-leah-burc
h/
PALGRAVE HATE STUDIES

Understanding Disability
and Everyday Hate
Leah Burch
 Palgrave Hate Studies

Series Editors
Neil Chakraborti, School of Criminology, University of
Leicester, Leicester, UK
Barbara Perry, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities,
University of Ontario, Oshawa, ON, Canada
This series builds on recent developments in the broad and interdisci-
plinary field of hate studies. Palgrave Hate Studies aims to bring together
in one series the very best scholars who are conducting hate studies
research around the world. Reflecting the range and depth of research
and scholarship in this burgeoning area, the series welcomes contribu-
tions from established hate studies researchers who have helped to shape
the field, as well as new scholars who are building on this tradition
and breaking new ground within and outside the existing canon of hate
studies research.

Editorial Advisory Board

Tore Bjorgo (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs)
Jon Garland (University of Surrey)
Nathan Hall (University of Portsmouth)
Gail Mason (University of Sydney)
Jack McDevitt (Northeastern University)
Scott Poynting (The University of Auckland)
Mark Walters (University of Sussex)
Thomas Brudholm (University of Copenhagen)

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14695
 Leah Burch

Understanding
Disability
and Everyday Hate
Leah Burch
Liverpool Hope University
Liverpool, UK

Palgrave Hate Studies

ISBN 978-3-030-86817-8 ISBN 978-3-030-86818-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86818-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland
AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

While the writing of this book still seems to be surreal, the ideas and aspi-
rations that it is built upon can be traced back to my earlier introduction
to disability studies as an undergraduate student. I arrived at Liver-
pool Hope University in 2012 through the stressful process of clearing,
having failed to secure the grades to start a teaching degree. Tears, phone
calls, and a trip up to Liverpool secured my place to study Education
(Special Educational Needs). Although this was not my original plan, I
am thankful for the 18-year-old me who failed Physics and inevitably
helped me get to where I am now. Finding disability studies as an under-
graduate student enabled me to develop a sense of purpose, direction,
and personal awareness. While I was challenged to confront previously
held assumptions and question my belief systems, the fundamental values
of disability studies just made sense to me. Community, solidarity, and
support from those working in disability studies also gave me a sense of
security, something that cannot be taken for granted within academia.
No single moment marks the beginning or end of this book, but
there are certainly some that were critical to the early inceptions of
the research project that it is based upon. The most notable moment

v
vi Preface

follows the submission of my undergraduate dissertation at Liverpool

Hope University in Education (Special Educational Needs). To congratu-
late this achievement, my partner, a biochemist, found himself navigating
the Sociology section of Waterstones to buy me a book. I don’t think
either of us could have imagined that the book he presented me with in
May 2015 would have shaped my journey into academia. Published in
2011 by Katherine Quarmby, the aforementioned book was ‘Scapegoat:
Why we are failing disabled people ’ and has been a staple of mine building
up to, and throughout the writing of this text. In many ways, my early
readings of this book affected me in similar ways that doing my Ph.D.
research did. It was captivating yet discomforting, and left me pondering
a kaleidoscope of emotions. Anger, sadness, and heartbreak coupled with
an overwhelming sense of determination and passion.
Although the research presented within this book was conducted as
part of my Ph.D., the ideas that I build upon were initially developed in
two smaller research projects. While these two earlier and much smaller
projects focused upon ‘disablist hate speech,’ they nonetheless informed
some of the fundamental aims of this Ph.D. project. The first project,
conducted between 2015 and 2016 was an analysis of ‘disablist hate
speech’ upon the online platform, Reddit. The research was situated
within the ongoing context of austerity politics which had generated
widespread narratives of disabled people as burdens, scroungers, and
fraudsters. In this project, I argued that ‘disablist hate speech’ was both
implicitly and explicitly present upon online discourses, and ultimately
functioned to preserve ableist relations in a climate of austerity. Indeed,
by analysing the way in which disabled people were positioned as an
inferior other, ‘disablist hate speech’ was suggested to operate, by driving
up the ontological security of the ‘hardworking taxpayer’ and simultane-
ously branding disabled people with scars of austerity. Moreover, drawing
upon long-standing attitudes regarding euthanasia, prenatal abortion,
and dependency, much of the ‘disablist hate speech’ examined within
this project was argued to undermine disabled people’s quality of life,
leading to dangerous questions about their very right to existence. This
project therefore provided an abundance of examples of online ‘disab-
list hate speech’ based within the broader context of austerity politics.
Such findings are crucial in order to evidence against the disbelief that
 Preface vii

disablist attitudes exist, yet they fail to capture the everyday reality of this
discourse for disabled people.
My next research project asked different questions about ‘disablist
hate speech.’ Moving beyond a recognition and contextualisation of
hate speech, I sought to explore disabled people’s experiences of this
phenomenon, narrated by their own personal stories. More specifi-
cally, the project sought to forge links between conceptual debates and
everyday realities in order to generate a more nuanced understanding
of disablist hate speech that is informed by and through lived expe-
rience. I employed storytelling as a research tool to create a safe and
exploratory space where participants could take ownership of oppressive
experiences and make meanings of these encounters in new and reflective
ways. These stories demonstrated the mundane and consistent nature of
hate speech, resulting in the normalisation of hate and the lack of confi-
dence to report experiences. In addition, participants commented upon
the vitriolic nature of austerity politics, which they believed had hard-
ened attitudes towards disabled people. Yet, they also shared some of
the intricate ways that they had begun to resist hate, calling upon the
educational potential of honesty and humour.
These small-scale research projects offered a brief insight into under-
standing experiences of disablist hate speech, with a particular focus
upon the context of austerity. At the same time, they raised a number of
questions concerning the ambiguous nature of hate, the blurry bound-
aries between everyday hate incidents and hate crimes, and the need to
better understand the complexity and realities of hate crime. Indeed,
they called for a more nuanced understanding of the ways that hate is
perceived, the way it harms, and the way that it is negotiated. This book
engages with these questions in more detail in order to present the ways
that hate is experienced, understood, and felt by those targeted. I draw
upon the stories that participants shared with me throughout my Ph.D.
research (ESRC, Grant Number ES/J500215/1) and in doing so, hope to
offer a more informative approach to thinking about hate crime within
the context of everyday life.

Liverpool, UK Leah Burch

 Acknowledgments

Writing this book is an achievement that would not have been possible
without the love, support, and patience of so many wonderful people
around me. My now husband, Chris, you have looked after me in so
many different ways, supplying endless cups of tea and coffee in the
mornings, cooking, making me hot-water bottles, and sharing late night
chats putting the world to right over a glass of wine. My two pups,
Lucas and Margot, for letting me snuggle up when I’m feeling needy
and making me laugh at all of your crazy antics.
Mom and Scott, you have been my rock throughout this whole
academic journey. I am so grateful to have such wonderful parents that
support me no matter what and are always ready to pick up the pieces
when needed. Sam, Ellie, Danielle, and Dylan. You guys mean the abso-
lute world to me and help me in ways that you’re probably not even
aware of. Being able to come home to you all on weekends has really
kept me going during the toughest times and you have been my biggest
supporters. Being your big sister is something that I feel incredibly lucky
to be and I will always cherish.

ix
x Acknowledgments

To my girls at home. Thank you for always being there to remind me

of life outside of academia. I know I’ve not always been able to make it
home to girl’s weekend, but you’ve always checked in and made sure I
am okay. I know that we’re not a soppy bunch, but you are incredible
and I love you all.
I’ve met some wonderful people in the world of disability studies that
have made me feel slightly more at ease in the world of academia. The
whole team at Liverpool Hope University, both as a student and now
lecturer, you have been so supportive, encouraging, and just lovely in
every possible way. In particular, Claire Penketh, you have looked after
me through the good and bad times, and I feel lucky to now be both
your friend and colleague. The gang over in Sheffield: Kirsty Liddiard,
Katherine Runswick-Cole, Dan Goodley, and Rebecca Lawthom. Thank
you for taking me under your wing and being pretty ace people in
general. I’m also grateful for the support of my Ph.D. supervisors, Mark
and Tom, and everyone else at the University of Leeds. A special thanks
to Neil Chakraborti and Andrea Hollomotz for being excellent Ph.D.
examiners and encouraging me to put this book together.
Finally, to all of the organisations who have worked with me and
participants who have shared their stories. You were all so welcoming,
friendly, and honest. Hate crime is a difficult topic to research, but I am
so grateful to have been on this journey with you all.
 Praise for Understanding Disability and
Everyday Hate

“Understanding Disability and Everyday Hate is an insightful and

engaging read that attends to the everyday realities of hate in the lives
of disabled people. In acknowledgement of the under-reporting and
under-researching of disability hate crime, the book starts with disability,
utilising it as the key conceptual lens through which to ask broader
questions about the meanings and locations of hate in contemporary
society, as well as consider its affective possibilities for marginalised
people. Most powerfully, the text engages with disabled people’s own
stories and experiences of hate, unearthing and giving voice to their
own forms of mediation and management, as well as their potential for
individual and collective approaches to resistance, rupture, and refusal.
Characteristically, Burch takes a deeply ethical and compassionate but
politicised approach to the unearthing of such painful stories, exposing
the sensitivity, creativity, and emotional labour necessary in inquiry of
this kind. By detailing these carefully through the text, she makes impor-
tant contributions to disability research politics and practice. In short,
this important text offers a timely re-conceptualisation of ‘hate’ and
its broader application to the concept of ‘hate crime’, paying attention

xi
xii Praise for Understanding Disability and Everyday Hate

to politics and policy; environment, space, and place; affect, emotional

and relationality; and bodies and otherness. In doing so, the text calls
for more inclusive boundaries of hate crime – most critically, ones that
are more responsive to the diverse and intersectional encounters of hate
crime within the context of disabled people’s everyday lives.”
—Dr. Kirsty Liddiard, School of Education and Human, University of
Sheffield, UK

“This text provides a vital and timely assessment of hate and hostility
in the everyday lives of disabled people. Their experiences are centred
and Burch examines the way that hate is embodied, how it circulates
to draw lines between people and can (re)define the self. There is a
powerful examination of strategies of resistance which make us ask ques-
tions about our reliance on policy and law to tackle hate crime. This will
become a key text in disability studies, criminology and social policy. I
look forward to recommending it to students and colleagues.”
—Dr. Hannah Mason-Bish, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Co-Director
of Centre for Gender Studies, University of Sussex, UK
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
Conceptual Ambiguities of ‘Hate’ and ‘Hate Crime’ 2
Disability, Space, and Everyday Hate 9
The Research Project 18
Outline of the Book 22
References 25
2 Disability Hate Crime and the Policy Landscape 33
Hate Crime Policy in England and Wales 34
The International Context 38
A Critical Reading of Hate Crime Legislation 43
Conclusion 54
References 55
3 Affect Theory and Circulations of Hate 63
Affect Theory and Affective Capacity 64
Affective Possibility 77
Conclusion 79
References 80

xiii
xiv Contents

4 Understanding and Debating the Concept of ‘Hate

Crime’ 85
Making Sense of Everyday Experiences of Hate 86
Protecting ‘us’ by Marking ‘Them’ Out 102
Conclusion 118
References 120
5 Geographies of Disability Hate Crime 127
Power Inequalities Within Hidden Spaces 128
Travelling Through, and Being Present Within, Public
Space 143
Conclusion 156
References 157
6 Impressions of Disability Hate Crime 163
Long-lasting Impressions 164
Additional Labour and the Negotiation of Social Space 174
Conclusion 185
References 186
7 Everyday Resistance and Collectivity 191
Navigational Strategies and Management Techniques 192
Safe Spaces Within Everyday Life 209
Conclusion 221
References 223
8 Towards an Analysis of the Affective Possibilities
of Everyday Hate 227
Everyday Hate in the Lives of Disabled People 228
Affective Possibilities of Hate Crime 231
Becoming More Responsible Researchers 234
References 235

Index 237
 List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Violet’s mood-board. The top of the mood-board includes

the text ‘happens daily’ and ‘dislike adults staring.’ This
is next to a drawing of a sad face and two images.
The first image features two people staring intensely
into the camera. The second has two people staring
at each other, with their faces very close together. There
is a large image of a tiger, with piercing eyes staring
at the camera. Further down the mood-board is the text
‘hate,’ ‘cheesed off,’ and ‘verbal abuse when I go out’ 89
Fig. 4.2 Joyce (left) and Fifi’s (right) mood-boards. Joyce’s
mood-board includes the following text: ‘hunt,’ ‘crying,’
‘lots of blood,’ ‘hit,’ ‘falling,’ ‘attacked,’ ‘bullying,’
‘violence,’ ‘bossing,’ ‘scared,’ ‘fear,’ and ‘take tell
over me what to do.’ Fifi’s mood-board has an image
in the top corner of two people and the heading ‘abused
in a cult: abused by her own father.’ She has the text
‘intimidation/bossing,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘scared to answer back,’
‘vulnerability,’ ‘resentment,’ ‘person rub salt in wounds,
off getting something I need,’ ‘manipulation,’ ‘anger
for letting it so far, taking over my home,’ ‘anger’
and ‘bully’s cruel taunt at school’ 91

xv
xvi List of Figures

Fig. 4.3 Robbie’s mood-board. Robbie’s mood-board features

a range of words that have been written in different
colours within a large speech bubble. These words are:
‘hatred,’ ‘spastic, anger,’ ‘exploitation,’ ‘discrimination,’
‘threats,’ ‘dislike victims,’ ‘disgusted,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘name
calling,’ ‘sexual abuse,’ ‘violence/violent,’ ‘cuckooing,’
‘not treated equally,’ ‘emotional abuse,’ ‘financial abuse,’
‘manipulation,’ ‘stigma,’ ‘ignorant,’ ‘listen, listened to,’
and ‘we are all human beings’ 95
Fig. 4.4 Freddie’s mood-board. The top of Freddie’s mood-board
has the writing ‘people banging in to the chair
and not looking at me as a person.’ Below this text are
two images that feature three wheelchairs in total. Below
are the words ‘dislike’ and ‘resentment’ 99
Fig. 4.5 Alex’s mood-board. Alex’s mood-board has large text
saying ‘we will NEVER get her back…’ a drawing of a red
love heart and the text ‘spread love NOT HATE.’ On
the right-hand side of the mood-board, Alex has included
a large image of an A-board on a red background
that reads ‘read all about it!’ There is an image of protests
and the text ‘manipulation’ 104
Fig. 4.6 Amanda Depp’s mood-board. Amanda’s mood-board
has the text ‘bullying,’ ‘dislike,’ ‘days of terror,’ ‘threats,’
‘stop abusing me,’ ‘verbal abuse,’ ‘feels like living in hell,’
and ‘manipulation’ 110
Fig. 4.7 Francis Emerson’s mood-board. Francis’ mood-board
includes a mix of writing and images. The top of the page
has an image of someone holding a camera looking
like they are taking a picture. Next to this is the text
‘fat fuck,’ ‘the ‘n’ word,’ ‘retard,’ ‘weirdo,’ ‘tranny,’
‘king kong,’ ‘agony,’ ‘I feel worthless,’ ‘I have issues
with anxiety’ and ‘hell.’ In the middle there is an image
of a football player running, and the head has been
changed to that of a young boy, turning his head
and crying. On the left is a large cartoon image of the side
of a face with their hand covering their mouth. There is
an image of a Polar Bear with its mouth open as if roaring,
 List of Figures xvii

and the text ‘LEAVE ME ALONE!!!’ In the middle is

the text ‘will we ever feel safe and secure,’ ‘YOU’RE
NOT NATURAL,’ and ‘...escape…’ There is a small
image of a women who looks like she is hiding behind
something crying 114
Fig. 5.1 Mr Twilight’s mood-board. Mr Twilight’s mood-board is
on two sides and reads ‘Hate crime is bad!,’ ‘Someone
called me gay boy when I was in school and it made
me feel upset and confused cause I didn’t know what it
meant at the time,’ ‘hate crime is really bad because it can
destroy someone mentally and physically,’ and ‘if you see
a hate crime, report it immediately so it gets stomped out’ 130
Fig. 5.2 Michael P’s mood-board. At the top of Michael P’s
mood-board is the words ‘dislike,’ ‘controlling’, ‘terrifying
and distressing.’ In large text is ‘A FIGHT MONSTER.’
Underneath this text is a drawing of an ear with a red
cross over it and the text ‘partners in crime’ and ‘wouldn’t
listen.’ The bottom of the page has the text ‘people don’t
listen to us’ and ‘mocked on Snapchat by my abuser’ 136
Fig. 5.3 Kezza’s mood-board. Kezza’s mood-board has writing in 3
main sections. The top left-hand corner has the large
heading ‘bullying’ and reads ‘everyday coming home
from work, my next door neighbours who was a family
of four use to wait for me coming home on their windows
and shout oh you big fat dike suck my dick and more
hateful things.’ The middle has the heading ‘hate’
and reads ‘I hated them putting my home windows threw
and my girlfriend at the time car windows went threw.
That related her parking her car else-where. Only way
out was to vanish’ 142
Fig. 5.4 Brandon’s mood-board. Brandon’s mood-board has a mix
of images and cut-out text. The left hand corner
has the text ‘tears,’ ‘scare,’ and ‘more must be done to help’
and images of a women crying and a man with his head
in his hands. The right-hand side has the text ‘hate,’
‘pressure,’ ‘terrified,’ ‘it’s horrendous,’ ‘fear’ and images
of scenes following a shooting and a nail bomb. At
the bottom is the text ‘targeted,’ ‘worst nightmare,’
and ‘dark’ 151
xviii List of Figures

Fig. 6.1 Rose’s mood-board. Rose’s mood-board is hand-drawn

and includes drawing and text. The top has the word
‘evil’ which is surrounded by a necklace chain which
has a large pendant attached to it with the words ‘dislike,’
‘hate,’ and ‘bullying.’ The left-hand side has a drawing
of an eye with a tear falling form it, an ear with a circle
around it and a line through it and the word ‘stop.’ On
the right-hand side is the writing ‘bad dreams’ going
down the page and lots of small drawings of eyes. The
bottom has the symbols ‘#@?*’ 166
Fig. 6.2 Beater’s mood-board. Beater’s mood-board has the text
‘unwanted, lonely, self hate,’ ‘manipulation,’ ‘questioning
why and who I am invisible to people,’ ‘alleyway looking
over my shoulder,’ ‘felt bad,’ ‘expecting the worse’ ‘upset,’
‘feel different,’ ‘anger’ ‘disappointed,’ ‘scared of losing my
friends,’ ‘nervous,’ ‘makes you want to hide away,’ ‘scared
they will start again,’ ‘it changes you and who you want
to become,’ ‘violence’ and ‘threats’ 172
Fig. 7.1 Sinead’s mood-board. Sinead’s mood-board has writing
throughout that reads: ‘threats,’ ‘survivor,’ ‘mental
abuse,’ ‘fearless,’ ‘vulnerability,’ ‘verbal abuse,’ ‘prejudice,’
‘equality,’ ‘i beat,’ ‘brave, kind,’ ‘violence,’ ‘fear,’
‘ignorance,’ ‘intelligence,’ ‘frustrated,’ ‘intolerance,’
‘tolerance,’ ‘anger,’ ‘physical abuse,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘strength,’
‘disgust,’ ‘but the fight wasn’t over,’ ‘cruelty,’ ‘caring,’
‘feisty,’ ‘sad,’ ‘compassionate,’ ‘hate,’ ‘acceptance,’
and ‘stigma’ 200
Fig. 7.2 Sabrina’s mood-board. At the top of Sabrina’s mood-board
are the words ‘survival’ and ‘champion.’ Next to this
is a cut-out that has the phrase ‘stop discrimination’
and the words ‘anger’ and ‘at last, I’m not scared.’ Below
is the following writing ‘I did a campaign about get
me it had launch in 2012. We made into a film
and in newspapers, get me is about people with learning
disabilities not recognise in society. We are equal as human
beings and respect’ 205
 1
Introduction

The concept of hate crime is multidisciplinary in nature, bringing

together scholars, practitioners, activists, and policy-makers working
within a myriad of communities and disciplines. From all directions,
we have witnessed growing attempts to employ a joined-up approach
that works towards the development of good practice, informed by good
policy and scholarship (Chakraborti 2015). This joined-up approach is
imperative, albeit potentially messy and conflicting. An ongoing issue
in connecting these different areas of work has been how we approach
the problem of hate crime, and in particular, the conflicting time-scales
and conceptual rigour that this involves (Giannasi 2015). Hall (2015a,
p. 17), reflecting upon his own experiences, notes ‘that research neces-
sarily takes time to provide “answers” that practitioners need yesterday.’
This criticism of academic inquiry is both fair and accurate. Indeed,
while academic research can dig deep into the cultural fabric of social
issues, it remains the case that many of these issues exist within everyday
life before they become the topic of academic inquiry.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
L. Burch, Understanding Disability and Everyday Hate, Palgrave Hate Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86818-5_1
2 L. Burch

Conceptual Ambiguities of ‘Hate’ and ‘Hate

Crime’
The very conceptualisation of hate crime is fraught with contradictions.
A common point of friction between academia and real-world practice
is the academic pursuit for greater conceptual clarity versus the desire
for a workable and concise definition. While it is often the case that
practitioners ‘adopt a much more straightforward stance for practical
reasons,’ such an approach ‘requires few of the machinations evident
within academic interpretations’ (Chakraborti 2016, p. 580). For this
reason, there have been conflicting agendas in the pursuit to under-
stand hate crime as a phenomenon existing within the context of ‘real
life’ and that as an ideologically constructed concept that can be unrav-
elled through philosophical, psychological, and sociological inquiry. This
divergence in how we come to understand hate crime can exacerbate the
strain between the work of practitioners, those targeted, and academics.
Put by Chakraborti (2016, p. 580), the increasing academic conceptu-
alisation of hate crime has created a concept that is ‘too complex’ and
‘too detached from the everyday realities’ of victims. That is, while the
conceptual rigour of any concept is important, it is necessary to focus
upon how the concept can be applied and used within the wider commu-
nity and in practice. Therefore, a primary focus of this book attends to
the conceptual application of hate and hate crime to the everyday lives
of disabled people.

Hate and Other Terminology

A primary concern relating to the ambiguity of hate crime as a concept

can be attributed to debates concerning the meaning of ‘hate,’ and
indeed, the relevance of this to the types of crimes categorised within
this label. For example, Jacobs and Potter (1998, p. 11) argue that hate
crime ‘is not really about hate, but [is instead] about bias or prejudice’
and Mason-Bish (2013) contends that these crimes are more complex
than ‘hate’ as they are typically committed to reinforce processes of
marginalisation. These critiques are noteworthy, particularly given the
 1 Introduction 3

general absence of ‘hate’ within relevant legislation. Instead, legislators

tend to rely on less emotive, yet arguably as conceptually slippery, termi-
nology such as ‘prejudice,’ ‘bias,’ and ‘hostility’ (Iganski 2008). From
this perspective, although the suggested seriousness of the term ‘hate’
is important for gaining political recognition, it might also obscure the
extent to which individuals are able to relate their own experiences to the
concept of hate crime. Indeed, as I discuss in Chapter 4 (Understanding
and debating the concept of ‘hate crime’), the perceived significance
of hate as a concept was suggested to be a potential barrier when
connecting such language with everyday experience. Crucially, however,
having these conversations with participants highlighted the need to
widen our conceptual parameters of hate and make connections between
this and other feelings and emotions. Thus, the desire is not to move
away from the concept of hate, but to widen our conceptualisation of
this within everyday practices of oppression and violence.
Hate crime can be considered to exist within much broader patterns
of oppression and systems of violence (Perry 2003). Conceptually, hate
attends to the range of ways that such patterns operate within society.
For some, hate is a feeling that one ‘has’ towards a particular object,
subject, or idea. For example, Nancy (2014) takes up the notion of
‘revenge’ and the perception that one may be our enemy, as an analyt-
ical hinge in her own conceptualisation of hate. From this perspective,
hate is constructed as an individual emotion that can be consciously
enacted through the act of revenge. The understanding of hate as a
feeling that can be attributed to acts of revenge recognises both cognition
and accountability. According to Iganski (2008, p. 29) for example, while
it is tempting to think about hate as an irrational emotional outburst,
there remains to be a ‘quick calculation’ underpinning any action or
expression. Accountability can, from this understanding, be placed fully
within the realm of perpetrators who commit hate, rather than the indi-
vidual or group that are deemed to be the perceived or real instigator
of ‘revenge.’ The shifting of accountability away from those targeted is
encouraging considering the tendency to label disabled people’s inherent
‘vulnerability’ as the reason for them being targeted (Roulstone et al.
2011; Roulstone and Sadique 2013). On the other hand, situating the
4 L. Burch

blame upon ‘hateful’ individuals entirely risks reducing hate to psycho-

logical explanations that neglect the role of society (Kielinger and Stanko
2002, cited in Mason-Bish 2013). Most notably raised in the emerging
field of Zemiology, there are growing pressures to recognise these struc-
tural harms that might give way to individual acts of harm (Copson
2018).
Conceptually, revenge and hate are positioned in relation to one
another through the process of othering, both of which are able to
exist within carefully constructed social structures. While narratives of
othering can change, there remains an underpinning sense of both hate
and revenge towards those marked in this way. For example, in their
conceptualisation of hate, Sternberg and Sternberg (2008, p. 18) iden-
tify three key components: the negation of intimacy (pursuit of distance),
passion (intense anger or fear in response to threat), and commitment
(to the ‘them’ based upon contempt for the targeted group). Under-
pinning each of these components is a relationship between individual
emotion and cognition in relation to their surrounding structures and
narratives. Thus, hate is not positioned as solely located within any one
individual, but as a feeling that is socially constructed and circulated. We
can draw links here to the work of Staub (2005), who has explored how
the development of destructive ideologies about others can rationalise
and intensify negative feelings towards them. Similarly, Kristeva’s (1982)
notion of abjection offers a useful conceptual framework for considering
how the process of ‘casting out’ others is central to securing boundaries
of the self. Abjection is also evident in Bauman’s (1989) critique of the
‘civilising process,’ within which it is through the hegemony of destruc-
tive and demoralising narratives about the marked out other (the hated
object/s), that it becomes possible to rationalise hate on a social and
cultural scale. For example, as demonstrated in his work on Modernity
and the Holocaust, Bauman (1989) traces how resentment towards Jewish
people became routinised by indoctrination and governed practices.
The concept of hate is subject to interpretation depending upon the
context that it occurs within. For this reason, Sternberg and Sternberg
(2008) argue that it is not possible to understand hate within a vacuum
and that we should attend to the complex context that it is surrounded
by. The contextual significance of hate is a running thread throughout
 1 Introduction 5

this book, which is developed by a focus upon its circulation within the
context of the everyday lives of disabled people. Indeed, crucial to my
own understanding of hate is a recognition of the way in which bodies
come to interact in particular ways, which is situated within, and shaped
by, surrounding space and context. These everyday interactions, as they
manifest as hate crimes, are underpinned by a continual negotiation of
self-identity and/against the ‘other.’ An understanding of othering should
therefore be central to the ways in which we conceptualise hate and hate
crime.

Towards a Workable Definition of Hate Crime

Despite there now being an extensive literature base on hate crime

across the globe, conceptual ambiguities continue to impede the devel-
opment of a shared understanding. Questions concerning which identity
groups are likely to be targeted (Mason-Bish 2015), the range of inci-
dents underpinned by hostility (Walters et al. 2016). The harms of hate
(Iganski 2008; Bell and Perry 2015; Soorenian 2020) and any definitive
analysis of motivational factors, or perpetrator classification, are ongoing
(McDevitt et al. 2010; Tyson and Hall 2015). Moves towards a workable
definition of hate crime should, therefore, attempt to draw connec-
tions between the above questions as they operate within the context
of everyday life. To do so, I will first outline two dominant conceptuali-
sations of hate crime; that of ‘strain theory’ and ‘doing difference.’ Then,
I bring these approaches together in a way that recognises hate crime
as a mechanism of othering predicated upon socio-economic status and
perceived, or real strain (Walters 2011).
According to strain theory, hate crimes are committed in response
to the perception of instability (or strain) in our own lives, which
can logically be attributed to a designated other. From this perspec-
tive, ‘hate crime is a way of responding to threats to the legitimate
means of achieving society’s prescribed goals’ (Hall 2015b, p. 72; orig-
inal emphasis). Similarly noted by Sternberg and Sternberg (2008), the
construction of negative and/or derogatory ideologies about the targeted
group can form a basis for the feeling of hate, particularly where strain
6 L. Burch

is involved. Historically, the perception of strain and inferiority has been

used to justify violence on a wide scale. Stories, for example, claiming
that disabled people were ‘useless eaters’ (Barnes 2012) and ‘worthless
people’ (Hubbard 2013) and that Jewish people were a threat to volk
(Bauman 1989) gained prominence throughout Nazi Germany. These
stories justified the mass-murder of Jewish and disabled people during
this time predicated upon the ‘task of safeguarding the people from an
overgrowth of the weeds’ (Biale 1986, p. 132). In addition, Costello and
Hodson (2009) write about depictions of marginalised ethnic groups
as animal-like, including the portrayal of people of colour as apes,
Jewish people as vermin, and American Indians as savages. Building
upon this narrative further, Smith (2014), drawing upon the words of
Godwyn in 1680, notes how the perception of Africans as ‘Unman’d and
Unsoul’d’ and thus on par with ‘brutes,’ normalised and indeed, justi-
fied widespread cultural practices of slavery. We might assume that such
narratives are a thing of the past, but remnants of them echo within the
discourse surrounding many marginalised groups today.
More recently, it has been widely documented that hate crimes
towards marginalised groups spike during periods of financial strain
and/or moral panic. For example, research conducted by Borell (2015)
and Allen (2015) has shown that British Muslim women experienced
an increase in negative treatment following the tragedies of 9/11 due to
widespread media attention on the threat of ‘terrorists.’ Such findings
are not alone, Perry (2014) suggests that there is often a surge of reac-
tive, Islamophobic hate crimes following terrorist incidents. Similarly,
research suggests that the Brexit campaign and Donald Trump’s presi-
dency have heightened hate towards those perceived to be a Muslim,
with the command to ‘go home’ becoming an everyday experience (Awan
and Zempi 2020). Such incidents have been considered as ‘trigger events’
which lead to an increase in the number of religiously and racially moti-
vated hate crimes (Benier 2016; Byers and Jones 2007; Burnap and
Williams 2015; Hanes and Machin 2014).
The financial crisis of 2008 and election of a coalition government
in 2010 fostered moral panic about financial instability and welfare
dependency as a means of justifying detrimental cuts to welfare support.
During this period (and beyond), media representations of disabled
 1 Introduction 7

people as ‘scrounger,’ ‘cheats,’ and ‘scum’ (Briant et al. 2011, 2013;

Garthwaite 2011) have contributed to negative attitudes of, and treat-
ment towards, disabled people. Work by Quarmby (2013), for example,
suggests that the negative media portrayal of disabled people as financial
burdens during a period of austerity have normalised negative atti-
tudes towards disability. Caught up in a narrative which places the
‘hard-working taxpayer’ as victim to the fraudulent behaviour of welfare
recipients, disabled people have been subject to a cultural story of resent-
ment and blame cloaked under the veil of hardship within austerity
discourse (Hughes 2015). As articulated upon the online platform,
Reddit, disabled people have been presented as ‘parasites,’ ‘thieves,’ and
‘leeches’ who are the enemy to ‘the productive class’ (Burch 2018, 2020a,
2020b).
In the examples presented above, the work of strain is apparent in the
way in which certain groups are perceived as threatening to the social
order. From this perspective, we can understand hate crime as a mech-
anism by which the other is identified to be the cause of ‘our’ strain
(whether perceived or real) (Walters 2011). Understanding hate crime
through the notion of strain, it is possible to understand how ‘the fear
that Others will encroach upon dominant group identity and socio-
economic security fuels the climate of prejudice’ (Hall 2015a, p. 77).
Importantly, this strain or encroachment upon security does not need to
be based upon fact or evidence, but needs to be felt by the ‘us,’ towards
the ‘them.’ Indeed, dehumanising discourses about the other bring to the
surface a collective body held together under the presumption of threat
and risk. Developing this further, Perry (2001) argues that strain oper-
ates within already established power relations. In one of the most widely
cited approaches to understanding hate crime, Perry’s (2001, 2003) work
argues that hate crime is a vitally important mechanism concerned with
‘doing difference.’ Attending to the structural ordering of society that is
predicated upon perceptions of power (Hall 2013), ‘doing difference’ is
about the policing of identity boundaries. Perry (2003, p. 98) explains:

not only is the other different; by definition s/he is also aberrant, deviant,
inferior. Structures of oppression operate through a set of dualisms -
8 L. Burch

such as good/evil, superior/inferior, strong/weak, dominant/subordinate

- wherein the second half of the binary is always marked as deficiency.

As a mechanism for ‘doing difference,’ hate crimes are violent expressions

that do important boundary-work—policing boundaries and reinforcing
power inequalities between identity groups. Drawing upon the work of
Barbara Perry Chakraborti (2015, p. 15) defines hate crime as:

acts of violence and intimidation directed towards marginalized commu-

nities, and are therefore synonymous with the power dynamics present
within modern societies that reinforce the “othering” of those who are
seen as different.

The notion of ‘doing difference’ helps to account for an understanding of

hate crime as a means of othering those who are not only perceived to be
causing strain, as outlined above, but who are also seen to be problemat-
ically different. For example, transphobic hate crimes can be understood
as an attack against those who are perceived to threaten the dichotomous
gender hierarchy (Jamel 2018). More generally, hate crimes against the
LGBT community can be conceptualised as emanating from the fear
of the erosion of a heteronormative regime, wherein heterosexuality is
heralded as the pinnacle of moral accomplishment (Moran 2015). We
could also think about the call to reconsider the parameters of hate crime
policy in order to account for a broader range of protected characteristics.
While this issue will be discussed further in Chapter 2 (Disability Hate
Crime and the Policy Landscape), it is notable that hate crimes targeting
alternative subcultures, sex workers, and homeless people can similarly
be understood as a means of problematising difference and maintaining
hierarchies within our social make-up.
Structural accounts of hate crime are important in order to recognise
the underlying structural and societal discourses that have caused partic-
ular groups to be targeted (Mason-Bish 2013). This structural recog-
nition is particularly important for disabled people in order to recast
accountability onto perpetrators and their surrounding social context,
rather than individuals themselves. Such an approach purposefully resists
the psychologising of perpetrators as well as the individualising discourses
 1 Introduction 9

that typically position disabled people as ‘vulnerable’ and thus in part,

responsible for their own victimisation (Ralph et al. 2016). Indeed, we
are called to question the types of cultural narratives and structures that
create ready environments for the directing of hostility towards already
marginalised groups. By recognising the structural and socio-economic
forces at play within boundary-work, it is possible to move away from an
understanding of hate crime as an act committed by one individual to
one single person. We can instead understand the contextual fabric that
moves hate within the symbolic boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Ahmed
(2014, p. 49), for example, explains that while hate might be directed to
a particular figure, it does so ‘by aligning the particular with the general.’
Thus, to better understand and conceptualise hate crime, Chapter 3
(Affect Theory and Circulations of Hate) considers the way in which
hate circulates and comes to stick upon the surface of particular ‘collec-
tive bodies.’ In the following, I discuss the topic of disability hate crime
in more detail, before moving to outline the conceptual significance of
‘everyday hate’ and ‘resistance’ throughout this book.

Disability, Space, and Everyday Hate

The relationship between disability and space is rooted within the field
of disability studies. Marking a shift away from the medicalisation of
disability, scholars, and activists in the twentieth century began to focus
upon the societal barriers that create the problem of ‘disability.’ Coined
by Mike Oliver (1983) following the publication of the Fundamental
Principles of Disability (UPIAS 1976), the social model of disability
became a tool by which to name and challenge processes of disable-
ment (see also Barnes 2020). Indeed, while impairment is described
as an individual attribute of the mind or body, disability refers to the
‘disadvantage or restriction of activity’ (UPIAS 1976) imposed by the
normative organisation of society. And while the ‘organisation of society’
includes a whole host of structural, political, and bureaucratic processes
(Oliver et al. 2012), the organisation of physical space has been funda-
mentally important. The way in which space is organised constitutes a
whole host of physical barriers which can ‘prevent disabled people’s ease
10 L. Burch

of access to a range of places, and are implicated in denying disabled

people the right to determine where they want to go’ (Imrie 2004,
p. 279). From this understanding, we can see how both the physical
and symbolic organisation of space can mean that certain bodies become
excluded.
As spaces are organised in categorical and hierarchical ways, it is
important to recognise that these exclusions occur beyond the surface
of the body. Indeed, bodies are moved by the configuration of space and
aligned to or against one another. Put by Kitchin (1998, p. 344), ‘space
is understood as not just a passive container of life, but also as an active
constituent of social relations.’ That is, there is a reciprocal relationship
between disability, identity, and space, meaning that the way we come to
think about ourselves and others is shaped by the spaces that we are situ-
ated within (Imrie and Edwards 2007). From this perspective, it is not
possible to think about the body and space as entirely separate entities,
but as intimately intertwined with, and in affect of, one another.
The social model of disability has been fundamental in providing alter-
native ways of thinking about disability. Despite this, critics have noted a
reluctance to talk about these feelings and injuries that exist beyond the
surface of the skin (Morris 1996). Carol Thomas (2004, p. 40) argues
that:

The oppression that disabled people experience operates on the ‘inside’

as well as on the ‘outside’: it is about being made to feel of lesser value,
worthless, unattractive, or disgusting as well it is about ‘outside’ matters.

While there are material consequences of disablement, such as exclu-

sion and marginalisation, there are embodied materialities also at play,
within which spatial configuration is lived and felt beneath the surface
of the body. Thomas’ (1999) concept of ‘psycho-emotional disablism’
attends to these ‘inside’ matters—to explore the way in which struc-
turally imposed barriers might take shape as barriers are imposed upon
the self. From this perspective, the physical and symbolic organisation of
space is felt both upon and beyond the materiality of the body (Reeve
2020). Taking these thoughts and feelings into account is important due
to how they shape the ways in which people feel about themselves (Bê
 1 Introduction 11

2019, 2020), both as an individual and in relation to their surrounding

space. Indeed, this spatial configuration does important identity-work,
marking certain bodies as ‘misfitting,’ (Garland-Thompson 2011) or in
need of additional support. For example, while disabled people’s use of
assistive technologies is often read as a reflection of their innate need-
iness and dependency, non-disabled people’s reliance upon the car as a
mobility aid is broadly uncontested (Bê 2019).
In alignment to these approaches, the following section seeks to
outline everyday spaces of hate and the way in which these spaces come
to be lived. In doing so, I move towards an understanding of hate crime
that attends to how bodies are both positioned and felt by the circulation
of hate within everyday life.

Histories of Disability Hate

The concept of disability hate crime is relatively new, only entering

policy discourse in England and Wales in 2003. Despite this, there is
evidence of violence and mistreatment towards some disabled people
throughout history. In a seminal publication, Katherine Quarmby (2011,
p. 2) traces some of the long-standing assumptions about disability that
have contributed to ongoing violence towards some disabled people:

I found that the motivation of offenders was shaped by our common

history and by the fears and prejudices that have fuelled violence against
disabled people for over 2,000 years. Commonly held beliefs from the
past - that disabled people are a freakish spectacle, fair game for amuse-
ment and mockery, that they deserve to be treated as slaves, that they are
blameworthy scapegoats for society’s ills, even that they should not exist
at all and should be destroyed - live on and even thrive amongst some
people today.

In this text, Quarmby argues that some disabled people have been
othered in a range of different ways—each turn of the century rein-
venting the point of otherness. This history is uncomfortable to reflect
upon, holding difficult stories of freakshows, asylums, holocaust exper-
imentation, and medical treatment (Sandell et al. 2005). Indeed, in
12 L. Burch

her work, Quarmby (2011) considers disability within the context

of the Ancient Greeks, religion, the industrial revolution, the rise of
mental institutions, and eugenics. In each of these unique contexts,
Quarmby demonstrates how practices of marginalisation, medicalisation,
and indeed, elimination have been established in response to disability.
For example, drawing upon the philosophical works of Plato and Aris-
totle, Quarmby comments upon the widespread use of the disposal
of ‘defective offspring.’ Quoting from Aristotle’s Politics, ‘let it be law
that no crippled child be reared,’ Quarmby argues that the pursuit
to eliminate ‘defective offspring’ at this time was widely supported.
Although the extent of historical marginalisation during this period
is debated (Cameron 2014; Slorach, 2016), forms of exclusion post-
industrial revolution is evident in the emergence of ‘freak shows,’ and
mental asylums.
Sandell et al. (2005) write about the emergence of the ‘modern
museum’ during the early eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries.
Showcasing bodily extremities to paying audiences, the freakshow
harnessed a developing sense of public curiosity in the parameters of
the human body. Individuals such as Joseph Merrick, most commonly
known as the ‘Elephant Man,’ were ‘exhibited as monstrosit[ies] and
object[s] of loathing’ (Quarmby 2011, p. 51) exploited to represent the
very extremities of the human body. In turn, this increasing fascina-
tion with the body of the other is suggested to have been an important
mechanism in the formulation of the self. As Garland-Thomspon (1997,
p. 59) describes, ‘freak shows were to the masses what science was to the
emerging elite: an opportunity to formulate the self in terms of what
it was not.’ The visibility of disability that developed from the freak-
shows is in stark contrast to the hiding away of disabled people and
other marginalised individuals within workhouses and asylums (Rose
1991). Indeed, as the appetite for freakshows in Britain dwindled at
the turn of the century, more disabled people became subject to the
overcrowded, degrading conditions of the asylum. For the scientist,
these bodies represented ‘oddities’ and ‘curiosities’ to be investigated
(Zittlau 2017). Within these institutions, inhumane procedures could
be conducted on disabled people with little remorse, predicated upon
 1 Introduction 13

a belief in performing miracles in the name of experimental medical

intervention (Borsay 2005).
Following the close of the eighteenth century, the privilege of
pathology anatomy came into being, constituting what Foucault has
termed the ‘suzerainty of the gaze’ (Foucault 1989). During this period,
the glance of the professional came to ‘exercise its right of origin
over truth’ (Foucault 1989, p. 2) and became the dominant approach
to understanding bodily function, inside and out. Simultaneously, the
knowledge branch of statistics became the primary means of defining
and measuring the human mind and body. Indeed, the development
of Quetelet’s l’homme moyen, as well as Galton’s ‘normal distribution’
curve, offered scientific justification to a worldwide eugenics movement
predicated upon the elimination of ‘defectives’ as a means of geneti-
cally advancing the human race (Davis 2013; Hubbard 2013). Indeed,
the development of mathematical tools to plot the human population
marked a shift in the way in which technologies of power rest upon the
bodies of individual as well as populations (Campbell 2013). Biopolitics,
according to Hacking (2016, p. 67), created ‘new categories into which
people had to fall’ which constituted ‘rigid new conceptualizations of the
human being.’ In a bid to manage the health and behaviour of the popu-
lation, those bodies located outside of these human categories could be
measured as such and treated accordingly. And while many of these prac-
tices involved dangerous and painful surgeries, they were justified under
the pursuit of scientific discovery.
Scientific justification for the enactment of violence towards disabled
people was strengthened by the increasing hegemonic ideology of
eugenics throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Coined by Francis Galton in 1833, eugenics was concerned with the
improvement of ‘stock’ through the means of forced sterilisation and
eradication (Hubbard 2013). Disability, in this context, was presented
as ‘deformed, maimed, mutilated, broken, [and] diseased’ (Davis 1995,
p. 5). During this period, hundreds of thousands of disabled people
were killed in Nazi Germany under the veil of eugenic justification.
What we now know to be the T4 Euthanasia Programme, the eradica-
tion of ‘degenerates’ resulted in the systematic murder of over 200,000
disabled children and adults in Nazi Germany (Quarmby 2011). In
14 L. Burch

the UK, while no such programme existed, the sterilisation and incar-
ceration of disabled children and adults were widely enforced in order
to prevent the ‘multiplication of the unfit’ (Winston Churchill, cited
in Quarmby 2011, p. 57). The physical and symbolic positioning of
disabled people on the peripheries of modern society was, therefore,
particularly dangerous, and much contemporary disability hate speech
has been shown to recirculate these eugenic messages (Burch 2018). The
reproduction of these narratives allows extremely harmful attitudes to be
accepted when articulated within the context of economic cost or moral
philosophy.
While the practices associated with freak shows, asylums, and eugenics
are no longer present within society, it could be suggested that they
have been reinvented and revised in accordance to culturally significant
tropes of the modern day. In their everyday lives, many disabled people
‘are harassed, attacked, humiliated and even killed because their lives
are considered less valuable than other people’s lives’ (Quarmby 2008,
p. 8). In the Equality and Human Rights Commission [EHRC] report,
Hidden in Plain Sight, ten cases of extreme violence towards disabled
people are outlined. Among others, Fiona Pilkington and her children,
Frankie and Anthony, are said to have been subject to seven years of
harassment at their home and in their local school and community.
Following years of abuse by a local ‘gang of youths’ and over thirty-
three dismissed pleas to the police, Fiona made the decision to end the
lives of her and her daughter (Quarmby 2011). In another case, Keith
Philpott was murdered following false accusations of a sexual relationship
with a 13-year-old girl. Following threats from the girls’ family, Keith
was torturously murdered in his home. Steve Hoskin was murdered by
a group of adults who had taken over his home, and subjected him to
physical abuse and humiliation over a long period of time. On the day of
his murder, Steve had been forced to falsely confess to accusations that
he was a paedophile coerced into taking a lethal dose of paracetamol
tablets. Following this, he was made to walk to a railway viaduct and
forced over the railings. He then fell to his death as one of the perpetra-
tors stamped on his fingers forcing him to let go (EHRC 2011, p. 39).
In another case perpetrated by so-called ‘friends,’ Kevin Davies was killed
in 2006 by a group of adults who had held him captive in their garden
 1 Introduction 15

shed, tortured him, stole his money, and fed him so little he became
malnourished (Quarmby 2008).
These are just four of the 10 cases included in the EHRC report and
only a snapshot of the violence regularly experienced by many disabled
people that are not included in this report. They present extreme cases of
violence and demonstrate an absolute failure of protective services. Yet,
such coverage excludes the mundane hostility experienced by disabled
people, and instead positions disablist hate crime as an ‘extraordinary
occurrence’ (Hollomotz 2012, p. 487). On the contrary, disability hate
crimes are part of a much broader set of exclusions and violence that
create and reinforce barriers for many disabled people in their everyday
lives (Roulstone and Mason-Bish, 2013). Thus, behind what we think
we know about hate crime from large-scale statistical evidence, or
media headlines, are a vast number of hate crimes that occur in the
everyday lives of many disabled people (Iganski 2002). Hate crimes
are not rare acts committed by extreme bigots, but, rather uncomfort-
ably, are committed by ‘ordinary people’ in our ordinary, everyday lives
(Chakraborti and Garland 2012; Iganski 2008). Reflecting upon the
findings of the EHRC 2011 report, lead commissioner of the inquiry
Mike Smith (EHRC 2011, p. 5) explained:

For me, two things come out of this inquiry that are far more shocking
than the 10 cases that we cover in more detail, awful as they are. The
first is just how much harassment seems to be going on. It’s not just
some extreme things happening to a handful of people: it’s an awful lot
of unpleasant things happening to a great many people, almost certainly
in the hundreds of thousands each year.

Indeed, while the cases described above present irrefutably horrific cases
of disability hate crime (although many were not prosecuted as this),
there remains to be a vast number of disabled people that experience
mundane acts of hate within their day-to-day lives. The nature of these
incidents vary, ranging from ‘banter’ to having photographs taken of
them while using public transport (Wilkin 2020), being spat at by
strangers (Healy 2020), name-calling, verbal harassment, and bullying
16 L. Burch

(Mencap 2000). The context of the ‘everyday’ is a central part of this

book in order to uncover the mundane ways that hate comes to move
within the everyday lives of disabled people.

Everyday Spaces of Hate

We have begun to witness increasing attention towards the circulation

of hate within the ordinary spaces of everyday life. Indeed, an explo-
ration of ‘the everyday’ pays attention to that which becomes ordinary
for individuals; their routines, familiar spaces, and recurrent encounters.
According to Wood (2014, p. 217), ‘a focus on the everyday, therefore,
is also a political stance that aims to give voice to marginalised groups
and pay attention to spaces previously rendered invisible.’ Within this
approach, it is important to make visible the spaces that are important
to the everyday lives of participants. Hate crimes are not solely engi-
neered encounters, but occur within ‘the normal frictions of day-to-day
life’ within the everyday spaces that occur (Iganski 2008, p. 45). For
example, previous research suggests that disabled people are more likely
to be repeat ‘victims’ of hate crime (Wilkin 2020). In addition, we know
that for many disabled people, ‘low-level’ incidents, such as hate speech,
are far more common than the physically violent acts that capture the
imagination of the media (Sherry et al. 2020). Indeed, disability hate
speech has become part of a culturally accepted discourse, often artic-
ulated under the veil of ‘banter’ (Levin 2013). As a result, experiences
of hate speech and other mundane incidents are paradoxically present
while being absent from view. Indeed, such experiences are paradoxically
‘hidden in plain sight’ while being a pertinent feature of many disabled
people’s everyday lives (EHRC 2011).
Considering the everyday nature of disability hate, Nathan Hall and
colleagues have employed a relational geography of disability hate crime,
suggesting that there is ‘a geography of verbal abuse and harassment
experienced by disabled people’ including ‘hotspots’ on public trans-
port, in local neighbourhoods and on city centre streets’ (Hall and Bates
2019, p. 101). Supported by the work of Wilkin (2020), experiences
of disability hate crime are suggested to be particularly common upon
 1 Introduction 17

public transport in England. Moreover, research suggests that this antici-

pation of hate might be more prominent upon online communication
sites (Sherry 2020), and social hubs within the city (Hall and Bates
2019). Attending to the ‘everyday’ requires an engagement with the way
in which ordinary, everyday spaces come to be occupied by different
bodies who are shaped by the movement of emotions and signs within
that space.
Although experiences of hate crime are too complex and nuanced
to be reduced to any singular understanding, the prolonged and esca-
lating nature of disability hate crime is suggested to be rare among other
protected identity strands (Giannasi 2015). Further to this, there is the
risk that ‘low-level’ incidents can escalate to more serious crimes if left
unaccounted for (Quarmby 2008). And while the everyday experiences
of staring, name-calling, and bullying outlined above might first appear
mundane, the accumulation of these experiences can:

generate affective responses; responses that live on in our flesh, layered

as new events unfold that remind the body how it feels to feel. These
mundane events register in the shift of affects, and they repeat and spiral
with intensity. Affects don’t just go away, especially if being marginalized
is a significant part of your organizational experience. Ongoing experi-
ences of being othered meet the affection caused by everyday encounters,
and they build momentum. (Pullen et al. 2017, p. 106)

Not only can mundane incidents escalate to other types of violence, but
their accumulation can intensify the affects that they have. Any approach
that perceives these incidents in isolation is therefore limited in its ability
to account for the often persistent nature of disability hate crime. The
impacts of doing so are made clear in the tragic case of the Pilkington
family described earlier in this chapter.
The EHRC (2011) argues that the accumulation of everyday disability
hate can have a ‘drip, drip, nag, nag’ effect whereby the severity of inci-
dents is overlooked due to their normality. Thus, the everyday nature
of disability hate crime is detrimental to the way in which these inci-
dents are made sense of, both for the individuals involved and within
the criminal justice system. Sin et al. (2009), for example, argue that the
18 L. Burch

regular occurrence of hate crime within everyday life can mean that it
is often dismissed as a common experience rather than something that
is worthy of reporting to the police. For example, Collette, a partici-
pant from my previous research (Burch 2020a, p. 74), described these
incidents as ‘just another straw on the back.’ Similarly, due to so many
incidents happening on a regular basis, disabled people often report
finding it difficult to differentiate between mundane acts of discrimina-
tion, compared to those that would be categorised as a hate crime (Smith
2015). At times, this distinction becomes so blurred that even explicitly
hateful encounters are suggested to be underestimated (Brookes and Cain
2015). This anticipation of experiencing hate can become a reality for
many disabled people, demonstrating the urgent need to examine these
experiences of everyday hate more closely.
Where incidents are recognised as being hateful, many disabled people
(and victims of hate crime more generally) are reluctant to access
reporting services. As Raymond explained, ‘if I reported everything that
happened to me over the years, then I’d be doing not much else’ (Burch
2020a, p. 74). Supporting this, the findings shared throughout this text
suggest that while a range of hateful encounters are experienced by many
disabled people on a regular basis, the majority of these are not reported.
Due to this ‘everyday nature,’ current understandings of hate crime are
limited in the extent to which they can account for the diversity of
disabled people’s experiences, particularly as they exist within the struc-
tures and routines of everyday life. Indeed, while the under-reporting of
crime is a widespread issue, research suggests that the everyday nature
of disability hate crime can mean that experiences are neutralised and
downplayed by those targeted (Healy 2020).

The Research Project

The findings that are presented in this book are based upon a PhD
project that was conducted at the University of Leeds and funded
by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, grant number
ES/J500215/1). At the very core of this project was an attempt to attend
to the ways in which disabled people make sense of their experiences of
 1 Introduction 19

hate within the context of their everyday lives. Developing beyond this,
I sought to explore the diverse ways that hate crime impresses upon, or
harms, those who are targeted, and to draw attention to the dynamic
ways that disabled people actively navigate and resist these experiences.
Throughout the project, I worked with six organisations based in the
Midlands and North-West of England. Organisations were selected due
to their interest in disability and/or hate crime and included disabled
people’s organisations (DPOs), disability charities, and peer-support
groups. While all organisations were connected by the above criteria, they
similarly centred around wider interests and more specific identity groups
(such as LGBTQ+ and learning disability). As such, the sample universe
across these organisations was broad and included members who identi-
fied as having a learning disability and/or a physical impairment. In total,
I worked with a much larger sample size than originally outlined (a total
of 71 participants). This was due to the flexible nature of the groups
that I was working with, as it was not possible to determine that number
of members who would be available to participate on the day. Fortu-
nately, the workshop setting allowed for the unpredictability of numbers
by accommodating for a larger number of participants than typical focus
groups might allow. Of this sample, 63 participants contributed to work-
shop discussions, and 20 took part in semi-structured interviews (12 of
which were also involved with workshops).
Having made initial contact with organisations via telephone and
email, I met with members during their usual meeting time and place.
During this informal meeting, I was able to introduce the research
project and get to know potential participants. We discussed a research
information sheet and I gave participants the opportunity to ask ques-
tions about the research aims and design in an open and conversational
way. All participants who took part in this research gave written informed
consent and were asked to choose their pseudonyms which have been
adopted throughout this book.
The fieldwork took part in three stages. Stage 1 involved arts-based
and reflective workshops that sought to explore participant’s understand-
ings of disability hate crime and gain a sense of any personal experiences.
Workshops, as opposed to traditional focus groups, were employed as
a means of enhancing the opportunity for collaboration and creativity
20 L. Burch

between myself and participants. They allowed for greater participation

and direction from participants and facilitated more organic observa-
tions of groups in action together. Located within the confines of their
usual meeting space (e.g. DPOs or support groups), workshops similarly
helped to tap into the ‘everyday’ lives of participants by attending to their
‘noise, randomness and interruptions’ (Wood 2014, p. 218). During
the first workshop, participants were provided with a range of resources
which they could use to create their mood-boards. This included news-
papers, real-life magazines, TV guides, hate crime related posters, pens,
pencils, and a word pack comprising of a range of terms relating to hate
crime. Participants were asked to use these materials to make a mood-
board that represented their own understandings and experiences of hate
crime and were assured that there was no ‘right way’ of completing
this. Many participants chose to use the resources available, while some
preferred to draw or write. The diversity of approaches used has created
a unique range of mood-boards that contribute to the knowledge that
was shared within workshops, and the type of data that has been anal-
ysed. Some of these mood-boards are drawn upon throughout this book.
The broadness of this activity and lack of any rigid workshop struc-
ture allowed the process of making mood-boards and the accompanying
dialogue to direct the conversations (Clark-Ibanez 2007). In this way, it
was hoped that participants could use the activity as an opportunity to
generate knowledge together as experts of their own experiences (Wang
et al. 2017).
Once workshops had been audio-recorded and transcribed, I produced
an accessible workshop summary for organisations, which shared the
mood-boards created by participants, and my own preliminary reflec-
tions. During this time, I also conducted semi-structured interviews with
a small number of participants in order to explore their experiences on
a deeper level and to think more specifically about these experiences in
the context of their everyday lives. Indeed, these interviews provided an
opportunity to build upon the themes that emerged throughout work-
shops, and allowed participants greater control over the topics discussed.
A flexible approach to interviewing was employed in order to capture
an interview process that is both ‘dynamic’ and ‘iterative’ (Rubin and
Rubin 2005, p. 15). In this way, my approach to interviewing accounted
 1 Introduction 21

for the way in which data is co-constructed and collaboratively gener-

ated between two social actors (Oakley 1981). Moving away from an
approach that objectifies participants as ‘epistemologically passive and
mere vessels of data’ (Elliott 2005, p. 22), I consciously sought to
open up the interview to flow in the directions and avenues defined by
participants (Shah 2006). Indeed, the flexible nature of semi-structured
interviewing marked an explicit move towards participatory research. In
addition to this, it offered an exciting opportunity to explore previously
unconsidered ideas.
In the final stage of the research, I met with participants to collab-
oratively reflect upon key research findings and ask further questions
about moving forwards as a collective. We co-constructed concept maps
centred upon the key themes that I had identified throughout the
research. Upon identifying, debating, and analysing themes as a collec-
tive, the final workshop also provided the opportunity to think more
about the relationship between communities and academia. In doing so,
we were able to identify possible ways that research might work with
disabled people in the community in order to challenge and disrupt some
of the issues that had been identified in prior stages of the fieldwork.
These findings form the basis of Chapter 6 (Impressions of Disability
Hate Crime), where the diverse ways of navigating, negotiating, and
resisting hate crime are discussed.
All stages of the research were audio-recorded and transcribed
verbatim. Following this, I employed thematic analysis, coding the data
in both inductive and thematically constructed ways (Braun and Clarke
2006). Following the final workshops, I re-read much of the data and
re-thought many thematic categories as a result. My engagement with
the data in this way, moving within and between coding categories and
themes, reflects the organic nature of thematic analysis. Employed in
this way, thematic analysis allowed for the development of codes and
themes ‘informed by the unique standpoint of the researcher, and that
is fluid, flexible and responsive to the researcher’s evolving engagement
with their data’ (Braun et al. 2015, p. 223). Overall, four over-arching
themes of analysis were established, each with more specific categories of
thought within. The following chapters of analysis open up these themes
22 L. Burch

to analytic inquiry and consider the following: understandings of hate,

geographies of hate, harms of hate, and challenging hate.

Outline of the Book

Chapter 2 (Disability Hate Crime and the Policy Landscape) presents an
overview of hate crime policy in England and Wales. In this chapter, I
explore some of the developments underpinning this policy framework,
which has been heralded as one of the most sophisticated in the world for
tackling hate crime. While recognising these developments as progres-
sive, I consider some of the ongoing criticisms of hate crime policy in
relation to the hierarchical protection that it affords. Further to this, I
draw upon recent recommendations made by the Law Commission to
widen our policy framework and implement a system that offers equal
protected across the five protected strands, as well as the wider inclusion
of other marginalised groups. Finally, this chapter highlights the current
inability of hate crime policy to account for the phenomenon of everyday
hate that, as I have discussed, disproportionately impacts disabled people.
In turn, the chapter raises a number of implications for policy that are
necessary to consider in order to prevent disabled people’s experiences of
hate slipping through policy gaps.
In Chapter 3 (Affect Theory and Circulations of Hate), I draw upon
Sara Ahmed’s ‘circulation of hate’ as a means of understanding the
different ways that hate moves within space and comes to be impressed
upon disabled people and other ‘Other’ bodies. Such an approach
explores how the relationship between disability and hate shapes, and
is shaped by, the ordinary spaces of everyday life. Beyond this, a turn to
affect theory similarly develops an understanding of the ways in which
impressions of hate come to inform the way in which disabled people
navigate future spaces and encounters according to past experience. I
introduce ‘affective possibilities of hate’ as a theoretical framework able
to explore the unique ways that these affects take shape upon the bodies
of those targeted, who thus come to develop an intricate sense of the
world around them. Importantly, this theoretical framework recognises
 1 Introduction 23

the diverse ways that hate crime is understood to ‘hurt,’ while simul-
taneously calling for greater appreciation of the ways in which hate is
negotiated, navigated, and resisted within the ordinary spaces of everyday
life.
Chapter 4 (Understanding and debating the concept of ‘hate crime’)
is the first chapter that draws directly upon research findings. In this
chapter, I explore the ways that disabled people came to understand and
articulate their experiences of hate. Indeed, in order to respond to the
disconnect between academia, policy, and reality, this opening chapter of
analysis re-conceptualises hate crime by engaging with participants own
reflections of the meaning of their experiences. In doing so, I explore
the range of terminology used by participants in order to help them
make sense of their experiences. Notably, I demonstrate the ambiguity
of hate crime described by many participants, and share their difficul-
ties in relating this ‘fuzzy’ concept to their own, everyday experiences.
Finally, I explore how intersectional understandings of hate can further
complicate the way that experiences are interpreted and made sense of
within the context of everyday life. To take these diverse understandings
into account, I reconsider the conceptual boundaries of hate crime and
suggest that as academics and policy-makers, we need to work towards a
shared language of hate crime.
In Chapter 5 (Geographies of disability hate crime), I explore the ways
in which participants reflect upon the spatial and temporal characteristics
of their experiences. In doing so, I ask questions about the ways that
hate can become an ordinary and anticipated encounter within particular
time-spaces. The chapter is organised according to different locations and
considers hidden spaces such as the home, institutions, and the school,
as well as more public spaces such as public transport and social hubs.
I explore how the structural and symbolic make-up of these spaces is
felt as uncomfortable and risky by participants, and uncover the ways in
which participants feel the surface of their bodies as fitting in or outside
of, these boundaries. Such an approach explores how relations with other
bodies, objects, and our surroundings can be felt, both during encounters
and in the future. Indeed, this chapter prompts a closer engagement with
the way in which hate can become stuck upon particular individuals as
it moves between bodies within social space. In addition, the chapter
24 L. Burch

poses further questions about the types of incidents that are, and are
not, included within the parameters of hate crime policy.
Chapter 6 (Impressions of Disability Hate Crime) presents the
different ways that hate can come to impress upon the bodies of those
targeted. Based upon participant reflections, I consider the range of long-
lasting impressions that are suggested to shape future navigations of the
social world. The impressions discussed in this chapter are diverse and
operate on a plethora of levels. By attending to the intimacy of these
impressions, I show how hate can harm the psycho-emotional well-
being of individuals who can come to see themselves (and their futures)
through the ‘markers’ and ‘scars’ of hate. Such impressions constitute
laborious identity-work as they impact the extent to which individuals
see themselves as fitting in, or out of, their surrounding world. Finally,
this chapter begins to unveil the laborious, time-consuming, and expen-
sive strategies that disabled people enact within their everyday lives in
order to manage or avoid hateful encounters with others.
Chapter 7 (Everyday Resistance and Collectivity) considers the diverse
ways that disabled people are actively navigating and resisting hate crime
within the context of their everyday lives. By calling attention to these
moments of resistance, self-empowerment, and ownership, it is recog-
nised that ‘the bodily self ’s interaction with his/her environment can
either increase or decrease that body’s conatus or potential ’ (Braidotti
2006, p. 241). Indeed, by attending to the ‘affective possibilities of hate,’
I show that while hate can become a part of day-to-day life, so too can
subtle forms of resistance and self-empowerment. Thus, in this chapter,
I also consider the way that disabled people come together to collec-
tively challenge hate crime, disrupt negative and disabling attitudes, and
provide a safe and supportive space for one another. By drawing attention
to the diverse ways that disabled people are already resisting hate, both
as individuals and as a collective, I suggest a range of ways that greater
collaboration with research can harness this further.
In the final chapter (Towards an analysis of the affective possibilities of
everyday hate), I reflect upon the findings presented within this text and
consider how they can help hate crime research move forwards. Notably,
I emphasise the responsibility of academics working in the field of hate
 1 Introduction 25

studies to reflect upon current conceptual boundaries of hate crime, and

who these parameters support. In doing so, I offer a wider, yet workable,
conceptualisation of hate crime that takes into account the experiences
and perspectives shared by participants. Importantly, this chapter does
not intend to present a rigid assessment of what should, and should
not be classified as a hate crime, but instead as a prompt to help talk
and think about hate crime in more explanatory and expansive ways.
This expansion is important not only for welcoming the diverse range
of incidents that are experienced currently, but for being flexible to the
changing face of violence in modernity. With this in mind, the proposed
understanding of hate crime aims to be responsive to the range of bodies
that become othered, and the diverse ways that this can be enacted. As
such, this text is a timely and distinctive contribution to the field of hate
studies, and in particular, of the possibilities offered by this emerging and
developing discipline in the future.

References
Ahmed, S. 2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Allen, C. 2015. ‘People hate you because of the way you dress’: Under-
standing the invisible experiences of veiled British Muslim women victims
of Islamophobia. International Review of Victimology 21 (3): 287–301.
Awan, I., and I. Zempi. 2020. ‘You all look the same’: Non-Muslim men who
suffer Islamophobia hate crime in the post-Brexit era. European Journal of
Criminology 17 (5): 585–602.
Barnes, C. 2012. Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and
future. In The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, ed. A. Roulstone, C.
Thomas, and T. Watson, 12–29. London: Routledge.
Barnes, C. 2020. Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present
and future. In The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, ed. N. Watson
and S. Vehmas, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bauman, Z. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.
26 L. Burch

Bê, A. 2019. Disabled people and subjugated knowledges: New understand-

ings and strategies developed by people living with chronic conditions.
Disability & Society 34 (9–10): 1334–1352.
Bê, A. 2020. Feminism and disability: A cartography of multiplicity. In The
Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, ed. N. Watson and S. Vehmas,
2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bell, J., and B. Perry. 2015. Outside looking in: The community impacts of
anti-lesbian, gay, and bisexual hate crime. Journal of Homosexuality 62 (1):
98–120.
Benier, K. 2016. Global terrorism events and ensuring hate incidents. In The
Globalization of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime?, ed. J. Schweppe and
M. Walters, 79–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biale, D. 1986. Power and Powerlessness in Jewish History. New York: Schocken.
Borell, K. 2015. When is the time to hate? A research review on the impact of
dramatic events on Islamophobia and Islamophobic hate crimes in Europe.
Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 26 (4): 409–421.
Borsay, A. 2005. Disability and Social Policy in Britain Since 1750: A History of
Exclusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Braidotti, R. 2006. Affirmation versus vulnerability: On contemporary ethical
debates. Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy 10 (1):
235–254.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3 (2): 77–101.
Braun, V., V. Clarke, and N. Hayfield. 2015. Thematic analysis. In Qualitative
Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, ed. J.A. Smith, 3rd ed.,
222–249. London: Sage.
Burch, L. 2018. ‘You are a parasite on the productive classes’: Online disablist
hate speech in austere times. Disability & Society 33 (3): 392–415.
Burch, L. 2020. Towards a conceptual and experiential understanding of disab-
list hate speech: Acceptance, harm, and resistance. In Disability Hate Speech:
Social, Cultural and Political Contexts, ed. M. Sherry, T. Olsen, J. Vedeler,
and J. Eriksen, 67–87. Abingdon: Routledge.
Burch, L. 2020. ‘The stuff of nightmares’: Representations of Disability on
the online bulletin board, Reddit. In Disability, Media, and Representations:
Other Bodies, ed. J. Johanssen and D. Garrisi, 19–34. New York: Routledge.
Burnap, P., and M. Williams. 2015. Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An appli-
cation of machine classification and statistical modelling for policy and
decision making. Policy and Internet. 7 (2): 223–242.
 1 Introduction 27

Briant, E., N. Watson, and G. Philo. 2011. Bad News for Disabled People: How
the Newspapers Are Reporting Disability. Strathclyde Centre for Disability
Research and Glasgow Media Unit. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
Briant, E., N. Watson, and G. Philo. 2013. Reporting disability in the age
of austerity: The changing face of media representation of disability and
disabled people in the United Kingdom and the creation of new ‘folk devils.’
Disability & Society 28 (6): 874–889.
Brookes, M., and D. Cain. 2015. A different reality. In Tackling Disability
Discrimination and Disability Hate Crime, ed. P. Shah and P. Giannasi, 90–
97. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Byers, B., and J. Jones. 2007. The impact of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on
anti-Islamic hate crime. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 5 (1): 43–56.
Cameron, C. 2014. The historical construction of disability. In Disability
Studies: A Student’s Guide, ed. C. Cameron, 65–68. Los Angeles: Sage.
Campbell, T. 2013. Dyslexia: The Government of Reading. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Chakraborti, N. 2015. Introduction and overview. In Responding to Hate Crime:
The Case for Connecting Policy and Research, ed. N. Chakraborti and J.
Garland, 1–11. Bristol: Policy Press.
Chakraborti, N. 2016. Mind the gap! Making stronger connections between
hate crime policy and scholarship. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 27 (6):
577–589.
Chakraborti, N., and J. Garland. 2012. Reconceptualising hate crime victim-
ization through the lens of vulnerability and difference. Theoretical Crimi-
nology 16 (4): 499–514.
Clark-Ibanez, M. 2007. Sociology of childhood and photo elicitation inter-
views. In Visual research methods, ed. G. Stanczak, 167–196. London:
Sage.
Copson, L. 2018. Beyond ‘criminology vs. zemiology’: Reconciling crime with
social harms. In Zemiology: Reconnecting Crime and Social Harm, ed. A.
Boukli and J. Kotzé, 33–57. Palgrave Macmillan.
Costello, K., and G. Hodson. 2009. Exploring the roots of dehumaniza-
tion: The role of animal—Human similarity in promoting immigrant
humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 13 (1): 3–22.
Davis, L. 1995. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. London:
Verso.
Davis, L., 2013. Introduction: Normality, power, and culture. In The Disability
Studies Reader, ed. L. Davis, 1–16. New York: Routledge.
Elliott, J. 2005. Using Narrative in Social Research. London: Sage.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 left. Two
depressions on the
top of the skull;
dura mater
depressed and
adherent to
convolutions. Some
pachymeningitis.
28 M. 34. Attacks of right-sided epilepsy every Sarcoma. E. C. Seguin,
four or six weeks; later, every week or Opera Minora, p.
oftener. Spasms wholly restricted to the In centrum ovale, 499, and Journ.
right arm or leg; the slightest attacks underneath the left of Nerv. and
only momentary shocks on the right side cortical motor area, Mental Dis., July,
of the body. No spasm in the face. Only and completely 1881.
very rarely lost consciousness. Never undermining it, was
frothed at the mouth, bit his tongue, or a large cavity which
micturated in the attacks. In intervals contained a large
had good use of his right hand and leg amount of coffee-
up to a late period. Paresis of right limbs red serum, and also
came on with indefinite numbness of a tumor lying on its
right leg. Diffused headache, mostly inner side near the
frontal. No facial palsy; no anæsthesia. paracentral lobule.
Knee-jerk absent on left side and strong The tumor was
on right. Later, complete paralysis of connected behind
right arm and leg, with œdema. Violent with the falx cerebri
headaches, more to the left of the in the region of the
median line at the vertex; photophobia, paracentral lobule.
nausea, and vomiting. No neuro-
retinitis. Still later, paresis, and then
paralysis of right face. Atrophy;
contractures; bed-sores; semi-coma;
profuse sweating; high temperature;
conjugate deviation of the eyes to the
right; head straight.
29 M. 22. First symptom was a fit, which was Enchondroma. T. P. Pick, St.
followed by a rigor. After this fit paresis George Hosp.
of right arm and leg, with inability to In left hemisphere,
 articulate properly. Could not raise the between anterior Rep., vol. ix. p.
affected arm, but could grip objects part of corpus 663.
weakly. Paralysis of right side of face striatum and
and tongue. Was quite rational. No loss “surface of frontal
of sensation. Later, violent headache, lobe.” The cortex
followed by vomiting. Slight amelioration over tumor and the
of many symptoms, soon followed by outer and anterior
second attack of violent headache, portion of corpus
which could not be localized; complete striatum were
right hemiplegia and aphasia. Later, softened and
dysphagia. Death rather sudden. broken down.

Patient had had amputation of thigh

about six months before for
sarcomatous enchondroma of head of
the tibia. Had also had chancre four
years before.
30 F. 16. Patient was a wayward, hysterical girl of Tumor in right A. Hughes-
neurotic family, precocious, and with hemisphere, size of Bennett, Brain,
abnormal sexual instincts and hen's egg, 1878, vol. i. p.
indulgences. Had a sudden attack of translucent, and 114.
total blindness, then sudden recovery; nodulated, soft,
sudden blindness again, and deafness; highly vascular, with
then restoration of hearing; loss of small
power in lower limbs, ending with total extravasations of
blindness, deafness, and paraplegia. blood on its surface,
Had dilated pupils and some occupied medullary
hyperæsthesia; also marked hysteroidal substance of middle
attacks, becoming at last maniacal. lobe superior to
lateral ventricle
Negatively, no constant headache or causing bulging of
affection of ocular, facial, or lingual roof of ventricle.
muscles, no convulsions or vomiting; no
abnormal ophthalmoscopic
appearances (except slight choked
disc).
 The case had been diagnosticated by
many doctors and one of the “first
authorities in Europe” to be hysteria.
Postero-parietal Region.
31 M. 25. Kicked on the head. Headache, nearly Fibroma. C. K. Mills, Arch.
continuous, with violent paroxysms. Med., vol. viii. No.
Vomiting at intervals, most when Adherent to 1, August, 1882.
headache was most violent. Vertigo. membranes, and
Mental confusion; sometimes maniacal. involving the left
Left convergent strabismus. Partial right postero-parietal and
hemianæsthesia. Patellar reflexes occipital region to
slightly exaggerated; slight ankle-clonus within half an inch
on the right side. Blind in both eyes; of longitudinal
sight of right eye lost first. Choked discs, fissure. The brain-
and eventually optic atrophy. Hearing tissue around
defective in right ear. Constipation. softened and
Head-temperatures taken once; right broken down, the
parietal region, 98° F.; left parietal, 97.8° parts disintegrated
F. being chiefly the
white matter of the
postero-parietal and
occipital lobes.
32 M. 49. Dropping of left hand at intervals, with Carcinoma. James Russell,
power regained in about an hour. Brief Brit. Med. Journ.,
attacks of loss of speech, and It occupied nearly 1876, ii. p. 709.
numbness in lips and tongue on both exactly the site of
sides. Numbness in tips of his fingers the right “poster-
and the left hand. Slight paroxysms of parietal lobule”
general rigidity. Severe frontal (superior parietal). It
headache. No vomiting. Loss of sight, was clear of the
gradually increasing to total blindness. ascending parietal
Involuntary micturition. Increasing convolution in front,
hebetude. Slow but probably correct and behind did not
intellection. Left upper extremity, toward quite touch the
last, paretic. Was able to stand, but external parieto-
could scarcely walk. Hearing and taste occipital fissure;
preserved. Some doubt as to smell. below it extended
 Later, imbecile. After a severe fit of just short of the
general convulsions he died. Duration, intraparietal fissure,
about four months. and on inner face of
hemisphere
reached for half an
inch into
quadrilateral lobe.
Below tumor toward
ventricle brain-
substance softened.
33 F. 36. Right-sided temporal and orbital Gummata. Broadbent,
neuralgia. Anæsthesia of left arm. Lancet, Jan.,
Epileptic attacks. Slighter attacks of In right Feb., 1874,
spasm, without unconsciousness, in left supramarginal quoted by
face, left arm, and hand. Paresis of left lobule two tumors Bernhardt, p. 68.
arm. Blindness. Optic neuritis. Pupils size of pea, lying
dilated and immobile. Later, loss of superficially. Beitrage zur
smell and taste. Mental depression. Symptomatologie
und Diagnostik
der
Herngeschwülste,
von Dr. M.
Bernhardt, Berlin,
1881.
34 —— Left hemiplegia with some anæsthesia. Tumor size of an Strümpell,
Deafness developed in the left ear, with apple in middle of Neurolog.
a total inability to localize the origin of ascending parietal Centralb., Aug.
sounds. convolution and 15, 1882.
backward. Around
the tumor white
softening, which
extended forward
as far as the fissure
of Rolando, and
backward
throughout the right
parietal lobe, and
 beneath almost into
the central ganglia.
35 M. 54. Middle finger of the right hand began to Gliomata. H. C. Wood. Not
jerk violently, also some of the flexor before published.
tendons. Twenty minutes after this he A small tumor
had a fit, in which he became occupies the lower
unconscious and beat himself violently end of the left
on the chest with the right arm. Had supramarginal
three of these fits. Aphasic after this for convolution, just
two weeks. Had high fever at the time of where it joins the
the seizures; was rubbed all over the foot of the
body with ice. The fingers became ascending parietal
paretic, not the forearm or arm. Arm convolution. The
became numb at times, especially after latter convolution
exertion. With dynamometer, left hand, was not involved in
75; right hand, 55. Headache, which the tumor, but was
ceased after some months. Right optic distinctly pressed
disc abnormally red, but not choked; left upon in its lower
disc normal. Had a convulsive attack in third. The
the Philadelphia Hospital, in which the ascending frontal
four fingers of the right hand rapidly convolution was
vibrated, contracting and extending entirely healthy.
without pain; no loss of consciousness
or other disturbance. The tongue was In right hemisphere
also affected, so that speech was a similar gliomatous
impossible. Later, the patient had a growth in the foot of
general convulsion, preceded by a the angular
drawing sensation in the face; convolution where it
convulsive movements began in right runs into the middle
hand. Tongue bitten. Attack preceded by temporo-sphenoidal
severe headache. Had another attack convolution,
without loss of consciousness or involving also the
convulsion, preceded by a sensation as upper part of this
of a knife cutting through the flesh, convolution, and to
which travelled up from the left hand to a slight extent the
the shoulder, and then to the head. deepest portions of
Increasing loss of sensation in the the superior
 fingers of the right hand. Increasing temporo-sphenoidal
difficulty of speech, with spells of convolution.
melancholia and crying. Right side of
face markedly paralyzed. Right arm
almost entirely paralyzed and much
swollen. Speech much affected;
difficulty in swallowing. Paralysis
involves the right leg.
Occipital Region.
Occipital lobe—cortex and centrum ovale.
36 M. 57. Headache. Vertigo. Paresis of left side. Glioma. Petrina, op. cit.
Left facial paralysis, especially middle
branch. Vomiting. Right pupil dilated. In middle of right
Tongue not involved. Uvula directed to occipital lobe; lobe
left. Left velum palati relaxed. Taste, softened. Right
smell, sight, and hearing normal; lateral ventricle
sensibility of whole body normal. narrowed and left
Reaction of degeneration on left side of dilated. Right
face. Left side of body shows reaction of posterior horn and
convulsibility. Slight quantity of albumen. right thalamus
Paresis declined with exception of facial opticus
nerve. Apathetic. Œdema of lung. compressed.
37 M. 27. Dysphagia, most marked with liquids, Fibroma. Cruveilhier, Bull.
caused by paresis of pharynx, more de la Soc. Anat.,
marked on left. Left hemiparesis for On posterior face of 1855, xxx. 475-
three years. Headache (frontal and left petrous bone 479.
temporal), which is of a boring, tearing and inferior occipital
character. Failure of memory. Speech fossa, extending
guttural and monotonous. Puriform behind occipital
expectoration. Later, feeble voice, foramen and to right
hiccough, yawning, somnolence. of cerebellar falx. A
prolongation
involving the
pneumogastric and
glosso-pharyngeal,
and spinal
 accessory. Also
cerebellar abscess.
38 F. 20. Headache. Dimness in right eye, then in Sarcoma? S. O. Habershon,
left; finally, blindness in both. Guy's Hosp.
Convulsions. External strabismus; right Occupied all the Rep., 3d S., xx.
pupil dilated, left contracted. Coma, posterior part of 330-334.
alternating with consciousness. Vertigo. right hemisphere of
Optic discs congested, presenting small cerebrum, pressing
hemorrhages; exophthalmus. Paresis of upon and indenting
right arm and leg; partial anæsthesiæ opposite
on same side. Earache. Vomiting, not hemisphere and
frequent. Coma and death. right half of the
cerebellum.
Duration, about three months.
39 M. 18. Periodical headaches. Pains in the neck Echinococcus. Visconti, Annal.
and vertebral column. Points of exit of Univer., Oct.,
trigeminal nerve sensitive. Staggering In right occipital 1869, quoted by
gait. Diplopia. Confused sounds in right lobe. Bernhardt, p. 98.
ear. Tetanoid contractions of neck.
40 F. 21. Right hemianopsia. Central vision good. Cystic glioma. Jany, Knapp's
Other symptoms: headache, dysarthria, Archiv f.
anæsthesia of the right half of the face. In the left occipital Augenheilk., vol.
No paralysis, no mental symptoms. lobe; had reached xi. p. 190, quoted
Choked discs. and destroyed the by Starr, Am.
cortex of the lobe at Journ. Med. Sci.,
Duration seven months. its apex, and had N. S., lxxxvii.,
extended inward, Jan., 1884, p. 72.
nearly reaching the
inferior cornu of the
lateral ventricle.
The entire inner half
of the occipital lobe
was thus destroyed.
41 M. 42. Right hemianopsia. Central vision good. In left occipital lobe, Hirschberg, Deut.
Other symptoms: aphasia, right surrounded by a Zeitsch. f. Prakt.
complete hemiplegia, with facial zone of softening, Med., 1878, No.
paralysis. reaching inward to 4, quoted by M.
 and involving the Allen Starr, Am.
pulvinar of the left Journ. Med. Sci.,
optic thalamus. N. S., lxxxvii.,
Optic tracts normal. Jan., 1884, p. 69.
42 M. 42. Right hemianopsia, not quite reaching Gelatinous Jastrowitz, Arch.
the point of fixation. Central vision good sarcoma. f. Augenheilk.,
in both eyes. Ophthalmoscopic 1877, p. 254,
examination negative. Other symptoms: In the left occipital quoted by Starr,
vertigo, loss of memory, aphasia, and lobe, involving all Am. Journ. Med.
partial agraphia, with temporary right three of its Sci., N. S.,
hemiplegia. convolutions, as lxxxvii., Jan.,
well as the 1884, p. 71.
præcuncus.
Softening extended
inward through the
white substance to
the posterior cornu
of the lateral
ventricle. Thalamus
and optic tracts
normal.
43 M. 40. For seven years epileptic seizure, Cyst filled with Traube,
beginning with spasm of left leg and serum. Gesammt
going on to general convulsions; Beitrage zu
motions more violent on left side. An In white matter of Pathologie, ii.
aura consisting of a darkness, coming the right occipital 1083, quoted by
gradually over the field of vision from lobe, surrounded by Starr, Am. Journ.
the left side, always preceded the a zone of softening Med. Sci., N. S.,
attack. During the intervals left-sided which did not vol. lxxxvii., Jan.,
headache was the chief symptom. It involve either the 1884, p. 73.
seems probable that a temporary left cortex or the wall of
hemianopsia preceded the attack. the lateral ventricle.
44 M. 52. Headache. Numbness down right arm. Malignant tumor. J. C. Langmore,
Later, paroxysms of headache lasting Trans. Path. Soc.
twenty to forty minutes, generally Size of pullet's egg Lond., iii. pp. 246-
preceded by pain and numbness in right at inferior portion of 248.
hand and arm, ascending to head, and posterior lobe on
 so intense as to produce profuse right side in
perspiration. Delirium (lasting two days) substance of
during these attacks. No paralysis or cerebrum,
previous fit, nor vomiting. Few hours approaching within
before death had convulsions. a few lines of
surface.
The pain and numbness were in right
arm, although tumor was in right
hemisphere.
Temporo-sphenoidal Region.
Temporo-sphenoidal lobe.
45 M. 33. History of syphilis. Blows on the head. Gumma. C. K. Mills, Arch.
Headache, continuous, usually dull, Med., vol. viii. No.
occasionally severe. Occasional One and a quarter 1, August, 1882.
vomiting. Stupidity, want of energy, inches in diameter,
drowsiness. One general convulsion a attached to
few hours before death. Partial adherent
anæsthesia on the right side. membranes, and
Hyperæsthesia of left side. Sight involved the middle
impaired. No ophthalmoscopic portions of the first
examination. Hearing defective in right and second
ear. Constipation. temporal
convolutions of left
hemisphere. A layer
of brain-substance
both anterior and
posterior to the
tumor was
softened. The tumor
grazed the
ascending parietal
and inferior parietal
convolutions. A
large foyer of
greenish-yellow pus
was found to the
 inner side of the
tumor.
46 M. 42. At first an attack of vertigo which lasted Epithelioma. H. C. Wood,
over twenty-four hours: some “Trans. of Path.
unconsciousness for a time. Continued Ovoid tumor about Soc. of Philada.,”
headache; loss of memory; giddiness one and a half 1880, Med.
and vomiting, the latter occurring inches in diameter Times, vol. xi.,
without connection with the state of the in the central Jan. 29, 1881.
stomach as to food. Partial bilateral portion of the
deafness, which the patient stated was temporo-occipital
of long duration. No paralysis, but right region.
hand a little weaker than left. Distinct Hippocampal
mental failure during last two weeks of convolution grazed.
life; incoherence and faulty memory. Some surrounding
softening and
meningitis. One
corner of tumor had
produced a small
spot of softening in
the cerebellum.
47 F. 40. Suffered from a light form of epilepsy At lower part of right Allan McLane
dating from tenth year, which resulted, it temporo-sphenoidal Hamilton, New
was believed, from a fall. Rarely bit her lobe a shrinking and York Med. Journ.
tongue, but usually frothed at the mouth. induration involving and Obstet.
No history of one-sided spasms. Always the uncinate gyrus Review, vol.
had an aura of a peculiar character. She and parts of the xxxv., June, 1882,
suddenly perceived a disagreeable adjacent p. 575.
odor, sometimes of smoke, sometimes convolution. The
of a fetid character, and quite olfactory nerves
uncomplicated by other sensory were not involved.
warning. Developed phthisis, her A form of low-grade
attacks occurring from time to time until hemorrhagic
her death. pachymeningitis
present.
48 F. 39. Attacks of convulsion seven weeks Sarcoma. W. H. Draper,
before her death. In two weeks mind New York Hosp.
affected; drowsy and stupid; condition of Occupied the Histories, N. S.
 dementia. Passed into a state of semi- posterior part of the vol. x. p. 445,
consciousness. No eye symptoms. No fourth and fifth quoted by M.
paralysis. Percussion on left side of temporal Allen Starr, Am.
head painful. convolutions, and Journ. Med. Sci.,
the third convolution N. S. vol. lxxxvii.,
was atrophied. Did April, 1884, p.
not involve the 383.
lateral ventricle.
Under surface
flattened and
resting partly upon
the left lobe of the
cerebellum.
Basal Ganglia and Adjoining Regions.
49 M. 59. Contractures of right arm and leg since Osteoma. A. Bidder, Arch. f.
childhood. Death from accident. The Path. Anat. und
arm was atrophied and shortened, Tumor in left corpus Physiologie, und
flexed at elbow and wrist; striatum on “surface f. Klinische Med.
disappearance of some cartilages at of anterior thick Virchow, 1882, p.
wrist and wasting of joint-surface of half,” projecting 91.
radius. Femur flexed at hip; knee-joint outward into white
flexed; ankle-joint in position of equinus. substance of brain,
Other bone-changes. Right leg and inward into
shortened. anterior portion of
optic thalamus.
50 M. 30. Right frontal and occipital headache. Myxo-sarcoma. Schüppel, Arch.
Vertigo. Paræsthesia of the toes, d. Heilk., p. 357,
particularly the right. Face drawn to the In right corpus 1867.
right. Left face paretic. Right eye smaller striatum protruding
than left. Weakness and fatigue of into right lateral
limbs. Convulsions. Vomiting. Slow ventricle and cortex.
pulse.
51 M. 34. Walked a mile to an infirmary, and in Myxomatous Dowson, Med. S.
less than one hour went into a series of glioma. and Gaz.,
severe epileptic attacks, which London, 1878, p.
continued for four hours. The spasms It exactly occupied 333.
were clonic, and chiefly in upper the place of right
 extremities, with violent contortions of nucleus caudatus,
face; the latter most marked on left side extending outward
and in zygomatici. Between the fits as far as white
there was deep coma, especially three fibres, but not
hours before death, when, after another involving them.
violent fit, he died, seven hours after Brain-tissue in
first seizure. No paralysis, and report proximity normal.
says nothing about any previous fits.
52 —— Partial anæsthesia of right half of trunk. Tubercle. Fleischmann,
Hyperæmia of retina, and capillary Wien. med.
hyperæmia of left optic disc. Left pupil In left optic Wochenschrift, 6,
dilated; left ptosis; left diverging thalamus. Partial 7, 8, 9, 1871,
strabismus. Paralysis of right side and destruction of left quoted by
extremities. Paralysis of muscles around peduncle of Petrina.
right corner of mouth. Incontinence of cerebrum.
feces and urine. Redness of face.
Variations in temperature.
53 F. 44. Severe headache on left side. Sarcoma. Friedreich,
Sensibility lessened in left extremities, quoted by
at same time frequent pain. Intelligence Right optic Petrina, op. cit.
diminished. Speech retarded. thalamus. Corpora
Strabismus of left eye. Amblyopia. Left quadrigemina
pupil alternately dilated and contracted. compressed.
Left lagophthalmos. Chattering of the
teeth. Twitchings on the left paralyzed
half of the face. Tongue and uvula
tending toward the left.
54 F. 38. Headache. Creeping sensations in right Glioma. Bruzelius and
arm and leg. Right facial paresis. Blix, 1870,
Paresis of left extremities. Convulsions. Left optic thalamus. quoted by
Dimness and confusion of sight. Bernhardt, 153.
Diplopia. Hardness of hearing. Failure of
memory. Difficulty in speaking and
swallowing. Improvement under iodide
of potassium.
55 F. 14. Headache, vertigo. Epileptic attack. Sarcoma. Rusconi, Gaz.
Right hemiplegia. No anæsthesia. Slight Med. Ital., 1874,
 dilatation of pupils. In left optic No. 11.
thalamus. The right
optic thalamus also
affected. Corpora
quadrigemina
enlarged and
pushed backward.
56 M. 30. Headache. Left ptosis; fixation of left Serous tumor. Troschel, Med.
eyeball. Drowsiness. Retarded speech. das ver. für Heilk.
Gait unsteady. Paresis of right hand and Large as a nut, in in Preussen, xliii.,
foot. Emaciation; incontinence of urine. posterior half of 1839, quoted by
right optic thalamus. Petrina.
57 F. 36. Imbecile. Speech inarticulate. Pupils Cancer. Brenner, quoted
contracted. Spasms in arms, but light in by Petrina, op.
limbs. Left optic thalamus cit.
and corpus striatum
without definite
boundary, extending
into brain-mass.
58 F. 33. Headache and vomiting for three weeks: Glioma. Owen, St.
for one week had been maniacal. George's Hosp.
Convulsions. Apoplectiform attack, Between left optic Rep., ix., 1877-
marked by unconsciousness, general thalamus and 78, p. 150.
muscular flaccidity, and stertorous hippocampus minor,
breathing. Paralysis of left face; extending from the
twitching of right face. ventricle to the
under surface of the
brain. Corpus
striatum and optic
thalamus
unaffected.
Hemorrhage on
under surface.
59 M. 45. Vertigo, headache, and tinnitus. Five Glio-sarcoma. F. Woodbury, Am.
years before attack had fallen and Journ. of the
struck the back of his head. Much Tumor size of Med. Sci., N. S.
exposed to the sun. One day in August walnut in third
 a general feeling of numbness came ventricle, moulded lxxvi., July 1,
over him. This was followed by vertigo, to the interior. 1878.
etc., as above. Staggered and stumbled Extending to base
in walking as if intoxicated. Unable to of brain just above
maintain his balance in the dark or with corpora albicantia,
his eyes closed. Some numbness in and forward as far
legs and arms, but no actual loss of as anterior
sensibility. No neuro-retinitis; no commissure. A
paralysis. When erect had a constantly caudate
increasing tendency to stagger prolongation
backward. Divergent squint and diplopia completely blocked
appeared. Potassium, iodide blisters, up the Sylvian
and seton were used. Noises and aqueduct. Owing to
headaches disappeared. During last two this obstruction, a
or three weeks some difficulty in large quantity of
swallowing. Involuntary evacuations. serum had been
Occasional hallucinations. imprisoned,
enormously
distending the
fourth and lateral
ventricle. The
growth invaded left
optic thalamus.
Superior surface of
cerebellum
softened from
median line to
middle of right
hemisphere.
60 M. 15. Epileptic from childhood: had had no fits Sarcoma. Russell, Med.
for last three years. Had tremors and Times and Gaz.,
was dull. Short-sighted, and had a habit In third ventricle, 1873 (1), p. 522.
of absurdly frequent winking. Nothing lying between
else wrong with eyes. Suddenly, after a corpora striata and
mental disturbance, had intermitting optic thalami of
pulse. Cold surface, dulness, head and opposite sides. It
face swollen and flushed. Then tonic completely
 spasms, loss of consciousness, enveloped optic
involuntary micturition. General tremors, commissure, and
dilated pupils, stupor. Next diffused partially involved
dusky-red flush of both cheeks, also track of optic nerves
over back of hands and forearms. issuing from front.
Temperature depressed to 92° in axilla. The sole organic
Automatic repetition of words. Taste and connection of tumor
smell normal. He recognized himself in was with the
looking-glass on the day he died. commissure. The
tuber cinereum was
distinct from its
tissue.
61 M. 19. Periodical headaches. Unsteady gait. Echinococcus. Yates, Med.
Left hemiparesis. Peculiar swelling of Times and
face. Delirium. Convulsions and sudden In left lateral Gazette, Aug.,
death. Bad-smelling discharge of the ventricle; the whole 1870.
nose. of the ventricle a
sac.
62 M. 14. Convulsions; vomiting; internal Glioma. David Ferrier,
strabismus of right eye; gradually Brain, vol. v. p.
increasing paresis of left leg and arm. Involved right 123.
Reeling toward left side. Occipital anterior tubercle of
headache. Pain and numbness in left corpora
arm. Lateral movements of eyes lost; quadrigemina; also
paralysis of accommodation; right optic thalamus,
nystagmus. Oscillation of left hand. Left posterior part of
leg ataxic. Patellar reflex exaggerated, internal capsule,
and ankle-clonus present on left side. and tegmentum of
Superficial reflexes increased on right crus cerebri. The
side. Partial anæsthesia on left side. enlarged optic
Sight good; double optic neuritis. Left- thalamus pressed
sided hearing impaired. Taste and smell back upon right
normal. Toward end, increasing torpor; anterior portion of
left hemiplegia, except slight power cerebellum and
retained in face, with anæsthesia and middle peduncle,
analgesia. Tonic fits. Right pupil dilated, and exerted some
and external strabismus in right eye. transmitted
 Slow respiration. Ankle-clonus and pressure upon
increased knee-jerk in right. medulla oblongata.
63 F. 29. Cervico-occipital headache. Vertigo. Glioma. Annuske, Von
Convulsions. Right facial paresis. Graefe's Arch.,
Tendency to fall backward. Uncertain In corpora 1873, Bd. xix.,
gait. Optic neuritis. Double amblyopia. quadrigemina. quoted by
Difficulty in moving both eyes toward the Cerebellum not Bernhardt, 167.
left. Diminished intelligence. Vomiting. involved. Tumor lay
upward and
outward from the
left cerebellar crus
ad pontem.
64 M. 21. Right temporo-frontal headache. Lipoma. Hirtz, Bull. de
Vertigo. Pains in right leg. No Société Anat.,
anæsthesia. Right leg paretic. Tinnitus. Tumor compressed Mars and April,
Atrophy of the right optic nerve. corpora 1875, quoted by
Abnormal somnolence. Sexual quadrigemina and Bernhardt, 168.
inclination diminished. Vomiting. geniculate bodies.
Blindness, first of the right and then of
the left. Right divergent strabismus.
Pupils dilated.
65 F. 3. Right hemiparesis. Right-sided tremor. Tubercle. Pilz, Jahrbuch.
Contraction of the right elbow. Late, loss für Kinderkrankh.,
of sight in left eye. Ptosis, dilatation of At site of corpora iii., 1870, 2, 133,
the left pupil. Stupidity. Peculiar quadrigemina, quoted by
movements when seated from right springing into the Bernhardt, 168.
backward to the left. third ventricle. Left
cerebral peduncle
compressed.
66 M. 25. Cervico-cephalic pains. Vertigo. Glioma. Duffin, Lancet,
Uncertain gait. No paralysis. Tension of June 17, 1876.
muscles of neck. Optic neuritis. Double Tumor displaced
amaurosis. Tinnitus. Diminution of corpora
hearing. Intelligence clear until within quadrigemina and
fourteen days of death. Insensibility, pineal gland.
delirium, coma. Small irregular pulse. Projected into the
third ventricle
 through aqueduct of
Sylvius and into
fourth ventricle.
67 M. 7. Occipital pains. Staggering gait toward Tumor took the Kohts, Virch.
right and backward. Hydrocephalic place of posterior Arch., Bd. lxvii.,
cries. Tendency of head forward. part of corpora 1876, quoted by
Alternating diverging strabismus. quadrigemina and Bernhardt, 168.
Double optic neuritis. Sudden death in velum. Cyst in the
paroxysm of pain. Paresis of bladder. midst of the
Vomiting. cerebellum,
reaching the fourth
ventricle.
Cerebellum.
68 M. 1. Frontal headache. Slight control over Glioma. H. Green, Trans.
arms and legs. Stiff neck. Dilated pupils. Path. Soc., vol.
Sopor. Vomiting. Duration, one year. Size of an orange in xx., 1870.
the middle of
cerebellum. Chronic
hydrocephalus.
69 F. 21. Fall from a swing upon the head, Tubercle. H. F. Formad, Tr.
followed by loss of consciousness for a of Philada. Path.
few minutes. Occasional headache In left and middle Soc., 1879-81,
during eleven years, always located at lobe of cerebellum, vol. x. p. 178.
the occipital region. Eight months before involving the pia
death severe paroxysmal headaches, mater. Over the
increased to one every five or six days, tumefaction
and lasting three to four days. Great leptomeningitis.
hyperæsthesia of the head. Choked
discs in both eyes. Complete blindness.
Slight paresis of left side of body;
twitching of muscles of left side of face.
Staggering gait; sometimes complained
of a momentary swinging or rotary
sensation. Intellect clear. During last few
days of life loss of power of deglutition,
and also of taste, smell, and hearing.
70 F. 27. History of syphilis. Headache, with A nodulated mass C. K. Mills, Arch.
 paroxysmal exacerbations. Vomiting, involved the right Med., vol. viii. No.
frequently recurring; for four weeks middle cerebellar 1, August, 1882.
before death vomited almost peduncle and the
incessantly. Vertigo; impossible to sit or adjacent region of
stand because of vertigo late in illness. the right cerebellar
Slowness of mind and hebetude. hemisphere. The
General muscular weakness. Right right upper half of
partial hemiplegia and hemianæsthesia. the floor of the
Trigeminal neuralgia. No fourth ventricle
ophthalmoscopic examination, but sight superficially
impaired. Marked slowness of softened. A small
respiration; respirations ran down as low area of softening
as four and five per minute two weeks was also found
before death. involving the under
outer surface of the
left optic thalamus,
the breadth of the
internal capsule,
and a small
segment of the
lenticular nucleus.
71 F. 13. Tubercular history. Headache, with Tubercle. C. K. Mills, Arch.
severe paroxysms; most marked in Med., vol. viii. No.
frontal and occipital regions. Vomiting; A large nodulated 1, Aug., 1882.
vertigo; attacks of reeling and falling. mass occupied the
Mental dulness. Weakness of limbs, but lower two-thirds of
no distinct paralysis. Hyperæsthesia; the right cerebellar
severe pains in limbs. Gradually went hemisphere; one
blind, first in left eye, and then in right. small nodule
Descending neuritis determined nearly a extended across
year before death; marked optic atrophy the posterior
observed a month before death. extremity of the
Constipation. superior vermiform
process, destroying
altogether about
one-third to one-half
of a cubic inch of its
 substance. Internal
hydrocephalus.
72 F. 20. Headache. Occasional vomiting, but Tubercle. L. S. Clark for A.
only upon a full stomach and at the S. Gerhardt, Tr. of
beginning of a paroxysm of headache. In right lobe of Philada. Path.
No impairment of intellect; no paralysis; cerebellum. Soc., 1878-79,
no convulsion; no inco-ordination. Tubercular disease vol. ix. p. 144.
During last few days, when in of both lungs with
paroxysms of headache, her face would pleuritic adhesion.
be drawn toward left side, accompanied Fatty liver.
by a rigid drawing backward of the
head, by pain in left shoulder and arm,
and by a marked diminution of
sensation in the same shoulder and
arm. Head-pain excruciating, at first
involving the whole cranium, afterward
only the forehead and temples, but
finally only the back of the head and
nape of the neck. Died of sheer
exhaustion. Symptoms and physical
signs of phthisis.
73 M. 45. Occipital headache. Movements weak; Tumor size of nut, Luys, Gaz. des
gait staggering. Inability to fix eyes; compressing Hôp., 1867, 105,
sight retained. Pupils unequal. Partial cerebellum and quoted by
deafness in both ears. Vomiting. Sopor. pons, situated Bernhardt, p.
Sudden death. History of fall upon head between pons, 225.
at twenty years of age, since which time middle peduncle of
much headache. cerebellum, the
cerebellum, and
brain. Corpora
quadrigemina
atrophied.
74 F. 52. Violent and continuous headache. Tumor size of hen's M. Boullet, Gaz.
Gradual loss of sight. Very irritable. egg lodged méd. de Par.,
Psychic pain and complaints. between the 1834, 2d S., vol.
Incoherence of ideas. In three to four superior surface of ii. p. 264.
years some anæsthesia of left leg; the
 left hand became rebellious to the will. the cerebellum and
Paralysis progressed; symptoms cerebrum.
increased very slowly. Intense coryza,
with running from the nose,
accompanied with a feeling as if a
strange body filled up this cavity. Great
appetite. Had an attack of
unconsciousness, preceded by violent
pains and creepings in the left hand,
and presenting the following conditions:
Dorsal decubitus; flushed face; head
strongly retracted; frowning; respiration
difficult, but not stertorous; pupils large
and insensible to light; the left eye
widely opened, the right shut; very
marked contraction in the orbicular
muscle; stringy mucus in large
quantities from right nostril; the left
commissure of the lip strongly carried
downward and backward. Tongue white,
not deviated. Limbs of the right side not
anæsthetic or paralyzed; the hand
strongly shut. On the left arm painful
pricking; the elbow flexed at a right
angle, hand completely paralyzed.
Motion diminished in left leg; sensibility
not altered; intelligence obtuse, but the
patient responds to questions. Nausea;
hiccough. Finally, diaphragmatic
breathing; asphyxia by strangulation.
75 F. 64. History of a fall down stairs. Headache. Tumor size of a B. Bramwell,
Frequent vomiting. Stupor, and when greengage plum, quoted in Med.
admitted to the hospital three weeks sprang from the and Surg. Rep.,
before death could not give any account dura mater just vol. xxxiv., Mar.
of herself or of her complaint. Semi- under the tentorium 11, 1876.
comatose. No definite paralysis. She cerebelli on the left
could move both arms and legs, but side. It had caused