An idea of Helen Keller had been constructed for me, an idealized version supported by the Florida school board that removed "the radical Keller, a feminist, early advocate for birth control, and lifelong socialist who supported left wing political candidates, marched in socialist parades, and cheered on strikers." (George, 340) and left only the saintly girl who overcame her disabilities with the help of a patient teacher, the almost equally famed Anne Sullivan.
Much like Diane Farvo's reconstructed 3D model of Ancient Rome, information about who Helen Keller really was has been left out or rearranged to construct a more idealized. 'palatable' version.
However, just like Ancient Rome, unpalatable information can be more valuable than constructed realities. In ancient Rome, for example, the vast majority of people were poor and lived in mud huts. The streets were dirty, and the coliseum was a bloodbath, and life was far from ideal for women, plebeians, and non-citizens. While this information isn't as neat and glamorous as learning about the much lauded Senate and the incredible engineering feats like the aqueducts, it is essential to understanding ancient Rome as an accurate whole. It's certainly valuable to see the idealized version, but it is equally important and valuable to see things as they actually were, and how they are now.
Similarly, we must consider the Helen Keller who was a radical, as well as the Helen Keller who inspires elementary school classrooms.
"As a radical woman constrained by her saintly public persona, Keller understood the power of cultural pieties to blind people to alternative perspectives; as a politically minded citizen, she defended her ability to make informed judgements as well as the sighted, explaining that she learned things as they do-not firsthand, but through texts." (George, 340)
It's clear that with both the reconstructed 3D Ancient Rome and the real, radical Helen Keller, the 'unsavory' must also be included in order for representation to be fully accurate and useful.
-Caitlin Lang
I wrote about almost this exact controversy in my blog post! I am glad that someone else made the same discovery. Before reading about Helen Keller, I believed that it could be possible to have a full representation without having to view the "unsavory" as you call it. I now agree with you, that all of the technical details, both good and bad, must be included to be able to view a subject in its full form. I think Keller describes this issue of idealizing perspectives perfectly when she writes in "Blind Leaders", "Very few people open fresh, fearless eyes upon the world they live in. They do not look at anything straight. They have not learned to use their eyes except in the most rudimentary ways," (George 341). People choose not to question the perspectives and representations shown to them. They accept all that is said, including myself, as true and whole. It is not until an outside source comes in and shows them they are wrong that they begin to see the difference in reality and scope. In order to challenge this issue, people need to begin to question everything.
ReplyDelete-Valerie Gardner
I'm glad that you brought up Farvo's reconstructed model of ancient Rome because I was thinking the same thing. Helen Keller believed people to be blind in a spiritual way. I took it as in the sense similar to blissful ignorance. What Favro did to Rome is what elementary schools did to us: romanticized. Favro didn't really show what ancient Rome truly looked like just like our schools didn't tell us much beyond Keller's disabilities.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting that Keller seemed to understand how other humans worked. She commented on the human brain, and understood communication and reality enough to know that her brain had the ability to work like all other human brains, despite her disability. She knew that she could be influenced by her environment and by the world just like everyone else.
ReplyDelete