Best Buddies: Friend or Foe?

"Disability must also be defined as a more complex social construct, one that reflects not a benign evolution of acceptance, but a dynamic set of representations that are deeply embedded in historical and cultural contexts." (Barton, 169) Barton makes a daring claim in her article, "Textual Practices of Erasure: Representations of Disability and the Founding of the United Way;" a claim that, though grounded in a multitude of examples and demonstrations of the United Way's exploitation of media and neglect of the dynamic complexities of being a disabled person, I find hard to fully support.

Barton's conclusions are re-iterated consistently throughout the piece; she is not shy about her antagonistic opinions towards the United Way and their stripping down of the disability identity as dependent, childlike, and inherently "Other." Barton holds a stance that the textual terminology used to describe those with disability are only part of the problem. Words like "cripple," "retard," "spastic," and "handicapped" (Barton, 170) influence public opinion on those who are not as physically or mentally "capable" (Under Barton's beliefs, she might also say that the idea they are not as capable is also a social construct) as those without disabilities. However, she lets the reader know that it is through a compilation of the United Way's principles, goals, and ideals that go into their advertisements that produce advertisements and media that ultimately form a binary between disabled persons and "regular" people. She quotes Carol Gill on the notion that "in the ideal world, differences, though noted, would not be devalued...society would accept disability culture, which in turn would be accepted as part of human diversity...In such a world, no one would mind being disabled." (Barton, 170)

Throughout the article, Barton brutally slaughters every principle the United Way has founded itself on. She discusses their tactic of inducing both pity and fear, the usage of the "supercrip" who overcomes all odds to succeed in this life like a "normal person," and their erasure of the disabled condition through the usage of promoting their "charity" not like an "annoying charity" but a business that makes educated and rewarding decisions. "When charity is abstracted as simple good business, then there is no necessity or motivation to think beyond that level, to think about the specifics of working with a disability or of working with a person who has a disability. Again, disability and the experience of individuals with experiences remain erased." (Barton, 195)

Yes, Barton; we know all media is a publicity stunt. This article comes across redundant, with the sole purpose to tear apart the United Way as an organization, whether than simply a delve into disability studies and the concept that our view of disability may be a world constructed view. Barton consistently states the facts of what we see in each of the United Way's ads; ads that tug on the pathos of any person's heart with pity, fear, and a reminder that the United Way has a singular goal to make money and present themselves as a business. As an individual who has been highly involved with those with disabilities, (am I already presenting them as the Other by this mere statement; is this avoidable?) I find it hard to not get emotionally invested in such an article. Barton has made her point clear and has supported it with a multitude of evidence; the United Way simplifies the disabled experience. But does that mean, for the rest of us, our view of disabled people are MERELY a construction? A person who is blind cannot see; and I don't believe Barton wants us to not acknowledge that fact. However, she makes a case that by the mere acknowledgement of this fact, we are categorizing them into a constructed identity, assuming that this person may want assistance with "seeing." Is it not common knowledge that one may unknowingly put themselves in danger when one cannot see? Is it not common knowledge that ALREADY constructed world we live in requires sight or assistance with how to live without it to become a stable and independent adult? How can one say, "No - that is constructed by the United Way!" When a disabled person left alone may not thrive without the assistance of a non-disabled person. Barton completely takes empathy out of the equation, for empathy, according to her, is a construction based on an advertised pity and fear, not from the human heart. One cannot escape the constructions of our world; yes, the United Way may exploit the disabled experience, and no, it might not be "right." But Barton makes claims about what is "right" and "wrong" when the entire premise of her argument relies on non-essentialist claims to back it up.

Florida State University provides its students with a chapter of an organization called Best Buddies. This organization's mission is to create friendships between those with disabilities and those without. Because of the sign up system, one might say that this organization has a binary between the two built into its system; Buddies (those with disabilities) interview to obtain a Peer Buddy (those without disabilities) and the two are paired. The requirements of the organization are to speak with your buddy once a week, hang out with him/her twice a month, and provide any assistance necessary to that individual given their specific disability. A venture at what Barton would think of this organization intrigued me. As someone specifically involved with this organization, I would say it is innately good. (Yes, I just said something essentialist.) The experience actually highlighted the complexities of the disabled experience for my specific Buddy and I. Clarenia and I's relationship blossomed under the built in binary system Barton so despises! This organization raises millions of dollars every year for the assistance of those disabled, as well as additionally putting out media that presents buddies that are very much dependent on their peer buddies. My buddy, Clarenia, was incredibly dependent on me for conversation, for transportation, for social interaction, for sight. I did not construct this; this was so. And though I would agree with Barton that this is most certainly a case by case observation, Clarenia's differences from me created both of us as Others from each other. We were different, and she was dependent. Through many of the trips we took together, Clarenia could not experience the beauty of the trees, the beauty of the deep valleys of North Carolina, touched with glistening globs of snow. And I felt pity, through no assistance from the media, but through the assistance of my own heart's sadness that she did not know what she was missing. Barton gives many a good point about the United Way and the corrupt way in which they handle their media; but she completely neglects to address the human experience.