“Erving Goffman’s classic definition of stigma (stereotype): “an individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance” (Stigma n.p.). The experience of disability is thus more often one of segregation and prejudice than one of integration and welcome, and the representation of difference and separation in charity advertising is one of the most prominent places where such stereotypes are presented and perpetuated.” (Barton 170)
-Note: People in society often think of “disabled” people as being helpless, or not being able to complete or do tasks that someone who is not “disabled” would be able to do. It is also in society, that people tend to try and “help” someone/people who are disabled because of their “generosity,” but I wonder if people have ever thought that when you treat someone different just because of their “disability” does it cause them to fell discriminated against? The media always promotes helping those that are disabled. Is this right? Obviously it is situational, but it could be something to think about.
In Barton’s text there are three main categories, and then there are sub-categories inside of said categories. I give examples and then my thoughts on each of the main three.
Erasure concept was used in the 1950’s as a way of fund raising:
1. A move to using children rather than adults in advertising campaigns that rely on pity and fear.
2. A growing use of extraordinary rather than ordinary individuals in campaigns that emphasize achievement and success.
3. A new focus on the charitable organization itself extolling the United Way as a model American Business.
Pity and Fear:
Society is pressured into thinking that we should “feel bad” and “take care” of people who are considered disabled. But as Barton quotes black on in the text, “No plea for contributions was too maudlin.” (Barton, 172.) Speaking about fund-raising in the 1950’s.
We are also shown that people who are disabled rely on able-bodied people. This is spoken about when Barton speaks about a text that is looking for donations to help “fix” a young disabled child, ““ Arthritis crippled Arthur when he was five years old…take a good look at his hands and knees.” The Second photo, of course, restores Arthur to normalcy: Dressed in play clothes with pants covering his leg braces and football obscuring his hands, Arthur stands, smiling and alert.” (Barton, 175.)
My response: It seems that fear and pity is something that has always been used in discourse. But when using it as a way of manipulating people into giving to a cause conserning people who have disabilities, it seems unacceptable. During the 1950’s, which is what Barton speaks most about, it seems that things in America were unstable. People were coming back from war, the baby-boom was happening, and the media was becoming larger. It seems that this was used in favor of certain entities. I say this because as shown in the quotes before, charities would use a disabled child to appeal to the emotion of the viewers. It would work even if the viewer never actually knew /where/who or what they were donating to. The agent of the agency was used to represent the people who be receiving the money, and apparently that money was going to be used to help these people who “are in need,” but no one actually knew. This is still a method that is used today, when we see all the kids in Africa who are in need of our assistance. But have we ever stopped to think if they actually want our assistance. We are putting them on our televisions as poor third-world people who can’t do anything for themselves, but is that really who they are? Are they really that desperate? We have no way to know unless we are living in their shoes, and frankly, most of us aren’t.
Achievement and Success:
Another way that society discriminates against disabled people is by separating them into sub-categories. An example, “According to Jenny Morris, a supercrip is a person with a disability who loves out the popular representation of disability as adversity to be overcome. Supercrip stories are American success stories.” (Barton, 185.) And even another sub-category “Extraordinary supercrips are the people with disabilities who climb mountains and jog across countries, ordinary supercrips are those who struggle, sometimes mightily, to wear the appellation “no one considers you handicapped.”” (Barton, 185.)
This method seems to show success as being a part of the reason why we should donate. But at the same time, you have no way of actually knowing if this is a real situation. We know in today’s society that their still aren’t cures for things such as cerebral palsy and our technology today is much more advanced then it was back then. (The 1950’s.)
The United Way as American Business:
“Companies became United Way chapters by making a corporate donation and by running a Torch Drive. Workers then donated through the practice of payroll deductions.” (Barton, 189.)
This shows that the charities not only dug their fingers into the public at home. But also at work, getting into partnerships with companies that donated to them, as well as making regulations on what a, “fair share,” (Barton, 189.) was. I believe that this is a form of monopolizing. These fund-raising companies would not only present people with disability as being completely different from the normal public, but would then go through these lengths to get people to contribute to their “cause.” It seems as if discrimination in itself is actually used as an agent. The discrimination that is forced upon society can be used to make money, as well as continue to pass-along such thinking to younger generations.
The concept of erasure almost seems to imply completely erasing people that are different (disabled) in this case; in the form of discrimination this agent is used.
1. A move to using children rather than adults in advertising campaigns that rely on pity and fear.
2. A growing use of extraordinary rather than ordinary individuals in campaigns that emphasize achievement and success.
3. A new focus on the charitable organization itself extolling the United Way as a model American Business.
Pity and Fear:
Society is pressured into thinking that we should “feel bad” and “take care” of people who are considered disabled. But as Barton quotes black on in the text, “No plea for contributions was too maudlin.” (Barton, 172.) Speaking about fund-raising in the 1950’s.
We are also shown that people who are disabled rely on able-bodied people. This is spoken about when Barton speaks about a text that is looking for donations to help “fix” a young disabled child, ““ Arthritis crippled Arthur when he was five years old…take a good look at his hands and knees.” The Second photo, of course, restores Arthur to normalcy: Dressed in play clothes with pants covering his leg braces and football obscuring his hands, Arthur stands, smiling and alert.” (Barton, 175.)
My response: It seems that fear and pity is something that has always been used in discourse. But when using it as a way of manipulating people into giving to a cause conserning people who have disabilities, it seems unacceptable. During the 1950’s, which is what Barton speaks most about, it seems that things in America were unstable. People were coming back from war, the baby-boom was happening, and the media was becoming larger. It seems that this was used in favor of certain entities. I say this because as shown in the quotes before, charities would use a disabled child to appeal to the emotion of the viewers. It would work even if the viewer never actually knew /where/who or what they were donating to. The agent of the agency was used to represent the people who be receiving the money, and apparently that money was going to be used to help these people who “are in need,” but no one actually knew. This is still a method that is used today, when we see all the kids in Africa who are in need of our assistance. But have we ever stopped to think if they actually want our assistance. We are putting them on our televisions as poor third-world people who can’t do anything for themselves, but is that really who they are? Are they really that desperate? We have no way to know unless we are living in their shoes, and frankly, most of us aren’t.
Achievement and Success:
Another way that society discriminates against disabled people is by separating them into sub-categories. An example, “According to Jenny Morris, a supercrip is a person with a disability who loves out the popular representation of disability as adversity to be overcome. Supercrip stories are American success stories.” (Barton, 185.) And even another sub-category “Extraordinary supercrips are the people with disabilities who climb mountains and jog across countries, ordinary supercrips are those who struggle, sometimes mightily, to wear the appellation “no one considers you handicapped.”” (Barton, 185.)
This method seems to show success as being a part of the reason why we should donate. But at the same time, you have no way of actually knowing if this is a real situation. We know in today’s society that their still aren’t cures for things such as cerebral palsy and our technology today is much more advanced then it was back then. (The 1950’s.)
The United Way as American Business:
“Companies became United Way chapters by making a corporate donation and by running a Torch Drive. Workers then donated through the practice of payroll deductions.” (Barton, 189.)
This shows that the charities not only dug their fingers into the public at home. But also at work, getting into partnerships with companies that donated to them, as well as making regulations on what a, “fair share,” (Barton, 189.) was. I believe that this is a form of monopolizing. These fund-raising companies would not only present people with disability as being completely different from the normal public, but would then go through these lengths to get people to contribute to their “cause.” It seems as if discrimination in itself is actually used as an agent. The discrimination that is forced upon society can be used to make money, as well as continue to pass-along such thinking to younger generations.
The concept of erasure almost seems to imply completely erasing people that are different (disabled) in this case; in the form of discrimination this agent is used.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.