In the last section of the chapter “From
Thinking to Feeling” Rebecca Campbell explores how rape is a transformative
event with long-term effects. Campbell discusses how, during her research
project, it was the stories of two interviewees that clearly demonstrated to
her and her research team that it is impossible not to be changed in some way
by rape. While I agree that many women continue hurting years after the assault,
I would hesitate to point to the experiences of two women who were “permanently
disabled from [their] assault” (63) as the two stories that best evidence how
surviving from rape is an ongoing and not always possible process. I would
hesitate because I think saying this carries with it ableist undertones. In
this post I would like to point out two central ways I think Campbell and her
team deploy ableist assumptions on the two survivors: first in their
consideration of disability as a negative experience, which ultimately leads to
the second, their understanding of recovery from a rape involving disability as
impossible.
The two stories in the final segment of
the chapter exploring recovery from rape and the long-term effects of rape both
involve a survivor whose assault transformed their bodies very literally and
visibly. The bodies of these two women present in the interview made clear to
the interviewers “exactly what rape can do and how long and how permanent its
effects can be” (61). However, what I have a hard time understanding is why it
was specifically these two cases that demonstrated this transformative effect
of rape, rather than the case in which the survivor had a baby as a result of
the rape. I think that the interviewers were able to realize this effect of
rape upon hearing these stories because of ableist understandings of disability.
The researchers ableist attitudes are evident throughout the final part of the
chapter, specifically by the simple fact that the disability of each survivor
is discussed more than the rapes. When the researchers discuss these cases they
emphasize their shock and sorrow for these women for their loss of the ability
to walk “normally”. Because disability is understood as something negative, the rape and disability itself are presented as
equally awful.
Beyond viewing the disability of the
survivors as an extremely negative long-term effect of rape, the researchers
also assume disability has effects on recovery. The fact that one of the women
will never again stand (61) and that the other can still “barely walk” (63) are
stressed as reasons for understanding why these rapes are particularly hard to
recover from. I would argue that the reason bipedal ambulation is discussed as
a marker of recovery and closure is because of the researchers assumptions that
as disabled women, these survivors cannot ever live the full lives they would
have before their disability was required. While it is very difficult to think
about disability as a positive life variation when it comes to be in such a traumatic way, Campbell and her team do not consider the possibility for these
women to experience their bodies positively.
I agree that the use of the last two examples highlighted ableist attitudes held by the interviewers. I also found it odd that the woman and child were not highlighted as a case where the woman was given an obvious physical manifestation of the assault she survived. Yet I both agree and disagree with their use of these two examples. On the one hand they chose to use the stories of these women to highlight the irreversible physical and psychological harm done unto them. On the other hand they chose use the stories of these two women as the bench mark, the ultimate result, of rape.
ReplyDeleteThe other query that arises from your discussion of the topic is a bit more sensitive and I hope to frame my question in the most sensitive way possible: Does Campbell’s ableist attitude overshadow the fact that after sexual assault no one can return 100% to the normalcy they inhabited before? Does Campbell’s use of their stories (those last two used) allude further to ableist attitudes that healing can only happen when someone is able to pass as normal?
The issue you address is one which I always struggle with when considering disability discourse. While I understand the importance of reframing cultural narratives to reflect disability as a spectrum of experiences rather than somehow inherently negative, I have difficulty knowing how to think about situations such as those of the women discussed in the article. It is, of course, incredibly important for us as a society to stop positing disability as intrinsically traumatic, but what about people for whom their disability was born out of traumatic injury? And for whom it is inseparable from physical and emotional pain? I do not know how to understand experiences like these positively. I hope that these women are able to experience their bodies and disabilities positively one day, but I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to learn how to interact with the world as a person with a new disability when that disability itself may be triggering.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, and likely, more importantly, I agree that the researches own prejudices likely affected their perceptions of these women and their ability to recover, as well as reflect the large-scale, institutionalized ways in which such ableism impedes the lives of people with disabilities. It seems certain that the residual effects of these women's experiences, both present and future, would no doubt be lessened by radical changes to the underlying ableist cultural stigmas against disability, and the effects these changes would have on the world and people's ability to navigate it.