Foucault & Disability draft 2

Free writing rough draft

Just like the last draft, this comes from Foucault's Discipline & Punish, Vintage, 1995

Just after the other quote, there's this:

11
"Physical pain, the pain of the body itself, is no longer the constituent element of the penalty. From being an art of unbearable sensations punishment has become an economy of suspended rights. If it is still necessary for the law to reach and manipulate the body of the convict, it will be at a distance, in the proper way, according to strict rules, and with a much 'higher' aim. As a result of this new restraint, a whole army of technicians took over from the executioner, the immediate anatomist of pain: warders, doctors, chaplains, psychiatrists, psychologists, educationalists; by their very presence near the prisoner, they sing the praises that the law needs: they reassure it that the body and pain are not the ultimate objects of its punitive action."

When drawing parallels between this text and disability, there obviously has to be a distinction drawn between crime/ convicts and people with impairments. Then again, I have to wonder which do people fear more: disability/impairment or being convicted or being branded a criminal? That would make an interesting distinction and study. similarly, it would be interesting to see which position is regarded as having lower status within the culture--at least based upon stereotypes. Wow, that could be potentially very depressing. Which do you fear more happening to you: losing your sight or being convicted to five years in prison and being marked as a convicted felon?

On to Foucault:
"Physical pain, the pain of the body itself, is no longer the constituent element of the penalty."
This is perhaps one of the most important places to distinguish between convicts and impairment, and this point was made quite clearly in one of the readings we had (books not with me now) where people often overlook or ignore the veracity and very real nature of pain. In this text, Foucault is assuming the norm of able bodied people, people who do not suffer pain or limited access. This is a huge difference from and for people who have impairments and/or experience chronic pain. So I'm not sure to do with this qualifying statement.

"From being an art of unbearable sensations punishment has become an economy of suspended rights. If it is still necessary for the law to reach and manipulate the body of the convict, it will be at a distance, in the proper way, according to strict rules, and with a much 'higher' aim."
This I think is particularly usable in the discussion of disability and impairment. If an economy of suspended rights is seen as punishment, then what do we call the inability to access texts, physical spaces and places? Those things can easily be read as suspended rights--you cannot get to them right now. And since you cannot get to them, that is a form of punishment. I do not know if this is circular logic or not, but at least I think this is worth thinking about. Again, the built in antagonistic nature/attitude towards non-normatives.

"As a result of this new restraint, a whole army of technicians took over from the executioner, the immediate anatomist of pain: warders, doctors, chaplains, psychiatrists, psychologists, educationalists; by their very presence near the prisoner, they sing the praises that the law needs: they reassure it that the body and pain are not the ultimate objects of its punitive action."

This reminds me of all the trouble, doctors, experts, paperwork, etc., that is required for some students to get access to extra learning materials. Come, you must prove your lack of abilty. we must test you, we want to see exactly what it is you can and cannot do. ugh. Sometimes I wonder if we as a culture do not enjoy spending more time and resources performing as if we are concerned and making things more accessible--see, watch how much cash we spend on the process of certifying all these people as disabled--instead of actually investing the monies into resources, phsycial and staff and enforcement. what I mean is do we send resources that are meant to discuss/address the issue of disability/impairment proving to nondisabled people that we are generating accessible materials than we are in creating actually meaningful changes and adjustments so material, so structures actually are accessible. I don't know.

From personal experience, I do know that often people are far more interested in performing the socially acceptable, desired, or rewarded role so that they can make the claim that they are not sexist, racist, etc., instead of actually working towards changes which embody those values. "Reward me for my claims of equality while I continue to embody and perpetuate the problems I claim to have resolved." Or something like that.

This has something to do with hegemony. End post.