Erasure and the united way of lenses

Barton makes note of the efforts of United Way that are presented simply as a way to help the disabled (by donating money that will contribute to making their lives “normal”) and that the effect of this is inversely harmful. This “erasure” that Barton offers does suggest the idea that the presentation of handicapped people as other than normal would suggest on the other hand that they are, in fact, normal. In the critical feminist, cultural lens that Barton holds up to present the situation, identification by the target audiences is influenced by the inherently simplistic lens that advertising offers. 

This might be characterized by other cultural critics under Kenneth Burke's terministic screens in that the "screen" placed in front of the audience's eyes deeply influences the notion of normal, disability, and the nature of society and how it is characterized, separated and incorporated by division of things like physical characteristics. The interesting thing about this is that physical characteristics like physical disability are the first to identify because the eye is the first thing to take in information, followed by the ear. This would suggest that the first way we categorize divide and incorporate is based on things like physical disability, race, and gender, respectively. The ear is the next to take things in, and the divisions created related to the ear would be mental disability, language and cultural ethnographic difference. Followed by this, after longer amounts of time allow for discussion of values, ideologies and general opinions, division and incorporation. The observation from the most basic and surface level characteristics through beliefs that are deeply seated and are considered more important because they affect ethical behaviour. In the past, the ethical question was applied to these uncontrollable physical characteristics such as race and certain physical disability, but the current track begins moving towards not only the abstinence from the "judgment" of a person based on attributes that have no real conscious control and are subject only to circumstance, but also to abstain for matters of ideological ethical differences that are consciously taken that more consciously affect decisions and lifestyle.