In Barton's text “Textual Practices of Erasure” she starts off
discussing disability . Then she connects disability with language and rhetoric
by using the term "discourse of disability" and with that
term he states that they are "stretches of language...." I was
wondering how the original definition played a part in rhetoric but then he
goes on to say that disability is not solely a medical condition, it can also
be a complex social experience as well. By that she means the disability culture
has been accepted because there are many schools and foundations that are
willing to help disabled people, that it's almost normal.
Barton
then describes three textual practices the United Way used for fundraising
money for the disabled children. The first attempt they used to make she world
aware of disability was putting children in the light of pity and fear. They
placed these kids on advertisements with crutches and stale looks on their
faces as if they wanted say "please help me by donating money." Also
their choice of diction was very important to observe. They used words like
"neglected, arthritis, sick dependent and more words of that nature to
really get people to feel bad for these kids and donate money. In all
honesty I feel as if they did a good job in getting people to donate. Whether
the money really went to where it was suppose to go or not, it served its
purpose.
This also brings me the to
Heilbrun and how she says women can't differentiate between public and private,
however women still accomplished the task and the autobiography that they were
writing still served its purpose because I know there is someone out there from
who read it from the first page and back. I don't want to say that women will
do anything just to get people to read their work but that is the way it is perceived
to the readers. However that is not the case for Barton and the different advertisements
that we were able to see from the 50's.
I like how you point out the basics of the connection between discourse and disability, and I agree with you that some of the techniques for getting people to donate money seemed flawed, even though they frequently do the job. It’s sad that many people do think “women will do anything just to get people to read work,” but I also reject that. True, many—most—writers take their readers in some kind of consideration when they are working (like we have discussed earlier in class, authors don’t think about them individually, but rather as a collective body), because if no thought was put into how the novel or article could be conceived, the author would be writing for him/herself. This would be fine, except for the fact that publication is a stage that necessitates the presence and approval of the editor, who represents potential readers. But the point is that female and male authors say what people “want to hear” in a way, because it is a characteristic of good writing and shows that the author cares about their audience. That’s usually who novels are written for, anyway. I also like your idea of presenting the positive perspective of disabled children and adults, but at the same time, this would have to be done carefully to garner the same amount of funding, as you mention.
ReplyDelete