Ellen L. Barton’s article “Textual Practices of
Erasure: Representations of Disability and the founding of the United Way” made
me think a lot about rhetoric, the discourse of charitable organizations and
how these organizations can use pity, fear, and degrading terminology in their
advertisements that are supposed to be so called ‘charitable campaigns.’ I want
to one talk about how charitable advertisements have essentially changed a bit
over time and also how I can agree with Barton, yet disagree at the same time.
Barton claims that “charitable discourses contribute to the social construction
of disability” (170). Barton writes this essay to inform readers and to talk
about how rhetoric that negatively effects our perception of the disabled
should be denounced and revealed for who they really are. Terminology is a big
factor that comes in to these advertisements. The rhetoric used in these ads is
often degenerative and stereotypical. “Uses of language and discourse socially
construct the experience and understanding of disability in the United States”
(170).
Representations of disabilities are presented to the
American public through rhetoric and sometimes are presented in a negative
connotation. We use words such as “cripple, retard, spastic, and handicapped.
This kind of terminology contributes significantly to the misrepresentations of
disability. Back in the 1950’s, the United Way used these terms in their
advertisements. Sayings such as, “you can help a retarded boy not become a
retarded adult” were considered acceptable by advertising campaigns back then. “This
kind of language and terminology diminishes the understanding of disability by
not only the American public but society in general” (170). I agree with Barton
on this statement. She does provide the right evidence as in posters and
advertisements that show how exaggerated these people with disabilities in a
negative way to have some sort of effect on the reader.
While I do agree with Barton on that statement, I
just would like to understand to what degree is this ACTUALLY wrong? I
understand that degrading a child with special needs and even adults with
special needs and wrong. Yet, back then I am not quite certain people actually
knew what half these diseases were so the terminology used was not necessarily considered
“wrong” or “degrading” to them like it is to us today. I obviously think that
exploiting a child or adult with disabilities and using them to scare readers
is wrong; but again, to what degree? If the United Way had to do this back then
to raise money for those adults and children and that was the only tactic that
worked then I wouldn’t necessarily consider it ‘wrong.’ Think about the
cigarette commercials we see on television today. These commercials are so over
exaggerated, yet when readers see it, I don’t suppose they will want to go
smoke a cigarette after watching it. While the scare and pity tactic is wrong,
to some degree, it has to get through to people. Again, I am NOT in any way
saying exploiting children and adults with disabilities is right, I can’t
stress that enough.
Today, we rarely see advertisements involving
disabilities. Again, I think they were so prominent back then because a lot of
the money went to researching these diseases. Today, we know that there are people
are that have disabilities and we now know the kind of help they need. We also
have more money today to fund these organizations that support adults and
children with disabilities. Think about it, we rarely see commercials on
disabilities today. Instead, we see various advertisements regarding charitable
donations towards these disabilities. These advertisements rely more on gaining
donations compared to the past, where the goal was essentially aimed towards
spreading awareness.
Essentially, While Barton does bring some
knowledgeable thoughts and ideas to the table that I do agree with, I also
disagree with her as well. Ultimately, advertisers’ goals today focus on
garnering monetary attention, while in the past the goals primarily centered
around spreading awareness.
-Dina Kratzer
I don't think Barton necessarily said that raising money for said diseases is wrong, she was more bringing attention to how powerful and all-encompassing rhetorical practices can have on entire societies. Despite whatever 'good-natured' intentions the United Way charity had, they still inevitably had the agency which misrepresented the lives of an already-ostracized minority. If people knew little about these diseases and 'disabilities' before the campaign, then a whole lot of people ended up learning the wrong things about those who had them by the end of it. I would agree, and I'm sure Barton would agree, that raising money for the treatment of diseases is a good thing; however, the way that it was done did a tremendous amount of damage to the social and cultural perceptions of those whom it affected.
ReplyDeleteThe approach you took on Barton is similar to the one I took as well. We both focused on the advertisements that Barton was showing us. I do agree with you that the way the advertisements came off was a bit pitiful and wrong. For all I know the children can be fine the way they are, having accepted their flaws and all, and then this advertisements goes against the postive mindset that they have going on. I think don't people in the 50's cared about whether or not the disabled felt. They more so had the mindset of doing whatever possible to get the money and that's when things can go a bit sour. You mentioned how today, you see a difference in the advertisement meaning that people actually take their time to research some of the disease rather only thinking about what can be a good advertisement technique. Nonetheless, I'm glad things have changed and people have become more aware of other feelings.
ReplyDelete