When it comes to representing Disabled characters in the Television or movies its very rare that they have their own story line, most times the story line is their disability and them over coming it. When you think about T.V. shows like the very popular Freeform show Switched at Birth. One of the sisters is the Deaf and even six seasons in her disability continues to be her storyline. This representation for the Deaf community seemed to be a good one until the community realized that her disability was the the only storyline she really had. Her relationship with her boyfriend wasn't really depicted well and her only family storyline was them getting used to her being deaf
when she was originally adopted.
A few deaf viewers posted their opinion on Deafeyeseeit.com of how they had high expectations for the show only for them to be met with disappointment.
Then you have shows like glee where one of the main characters Artie is paralyzed from the waist down. There are a few episodes that highlight his disability but for the most part it focuses on his vocal abilities, his friendships and bullying for his vocal abilities and not because of his disability. That in my opinion is great representation, you have a character that other disabled people can relate to. Also in Glee there is a character named Becky who suffers from down syndrome and is a cheerleader and although she isn't a main character she is present through all the seasons.
Overall I don't believe all representation for disabled characters is good representation especially on shows or in movies with the disabled character is the butt of a joke or they're only there to be pitied. Cuba Gooding Jr in Radio is a great exampled of disabled characters being used as the butt of the joke even with him as the main character, it didn't bring awareness to his disability instead it made fun of it. I think Hollywood is missing a big opportunity by not casting actual disabled actors for roles, I think that by not casting them for roles about them is ultimately isolating them further, but that's just my personal opinion.
I agree with the idea that not every instance of representation is a good thing. In the essay "The Limitations of the Discourse of Norms," Jay Clarkson quotes Peggy Phelan, who argues that some forms of visibility are negative, suggesting that "visibility is often used to signify deviance and not to promote tolerance." In regard to characters with disabilities, representations in which they are used to mock the disabled or serve only as comic relief without any other major defining traits are overall negative and can be harmful to the community overall. The example you gave of the character from "Switched at Birth" is another good example of a character whose defining characteristic is her disability. Instead of creating a complex, realistic character, disabled and minority characters are often one-note and not representative of actual people. Both types of representation can result in group attribution error, which occurs when the aspects of an individual are reflected onto the group as a whole.This can lead to harmful stereotypes taking root in society's collective consciousness, hurting the entire community. As Phelan suggests, these forms of representation do not necessarily lead to tolerance.
ReplyDelete