Reclaiming Native Narratives: Applying Tribalography in Diverse Spaces

The Art of Accompaniment:

Negotiating Conventional Communication and Caring Presence

The Disability Reader gave unprecedented context for understanding the word 'normal'. Historically, as the ideas of the average and the ideal converge, the creation of a hierarchical structure of normal is born. Normal and desired become relaitvely synonymous. We strive to be smart, looks beautiful, and conform to the gender identity society places upon us. Ironically, we have merged the ideal with the normal. Somehow, as time progressed, we expected ourselves to achieve the ideal becuase we perceived that to be possible. So who, yoiu may ask, lies at the bottom of this hierarchy? The 'deviants', 'undesireable', 'poor', and 'disabled'-- the Other. We have 'othered' all who deviate from the already unrealistic expectations of society. In doing so, we have dehumanized those poeple.

Chapter 3 introduces the idea of either confining or sending away a mental impaired (or perceived mentally impaired) family member. I want to discuss this origin story to draw comparison to how mental institutions work today. I want to analyze the fact that towns would pay individuals to take care of the "crazy" people and how families would lock their own kin in a basement or room. It was illuminating to understand these roots because I see similar trends in mental institutions, nursing homes, and prisons today. 

WEEK FIVE: THE HEGEMONY OF NORMALCY AND REASON

This week I want you to think about how the institution of the selective liberal arts college measures and norms us to assess our fitness. Who has access to the institution, and who doesn't? Who is deemed most "fit" for this context? Who "fits in" and who doesn't? 

1) Lennard J. Davis, "Introduction: Normality, Power, and Culture" in: The Disability Studies Reader (DSR, available as ebook and also in bookstore) (12 dense pages)

The thread that I followed was the concept of community and who had access to the larger community or the ability to dictate their community. Within Native American communities the distinction of disability was far different than what it is today. People who were ostracized or seen as less than were ones who did not give back to community members in some way, with the example of a man with a disability of some sort that would be strong enough to deliver water as someone who would not be ostracized because of his disability. As our history progresses and with colonism in the Americas concepts of what makes a good community member shifts. It is not that someone is expected to provide for others in some way but more that they are viewed as fit.

In the book we read for class this week, I was most interested by the classification and categorization of appropriate citizenship. The need for a uniting collective (and normative) bodily identity emerged specifically within the USA after periods of war and revolution, it seemed. A standard of citizenship was used to bring people who differ--whether in original nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, etc--together under a unifying idea of what it means to be a citizen, i.e. productive, contributing to the community, self-sufficient. Ironically enough, some people with disabilities didn't (and still don't) 'measure up' to those ideas of citizenship that so intentionally try to bring diverse people together under one national identity.

The transformation of the societal views on Disability confused me: How can it go from ordinary physical variation to symbol of incompetency and shame?