Advertisement

Embodiment and Representation

  • Jessica Clark
Chapter

Abstract

The body in disability studies has been characterised as an absent presence (Shakespeare and Watson 2001) and the discipline has been described as having a form of somatophobia (Goodley and Runswick-Cole 2013), paying little attention to the physical body or notions of embodiment. This can perhaps be explained by a desire to embrace the tenets of the social model, whereby environments and cultures are considered disabling and to move away from previously dominant ‘medicalised’ approaches that focussed on the individual and their impairment(s). However, in contemporary disability studies many theorists are attempting to reconnect with the body (Thomas 2007). Advocates of realist (Shakespeare 2006) or Nordic models (Tøssebro 2004) attempt to re-emphasise the importance of the corporeal for theorising about disability and for understanding the experiences of individuals with disabilities. The desire here is to bring the body back from the outskirts and acknowledge that there are distinct experiences and implications for individuals as a result of ‘being a disabled body’. The aim is to avoid ignoring the realities of the body, such as alternative communications or mobilities, exhaustion or pain, but to do so in such a way that we do not return to the medicalised, individualised approaches which characterised much twentieth-century work. This chapter aims to contribute to this resurgence by considering how the ‘disabled body’ is represented in popular culture. What bodies are audiences seeing on their screens, hearing about on their radios or tweeting about on their phones? How are disabled bodies constructed in the mediatised narratives available to children and young people and what is the implication of this for young audiences?

References

  1. Ackerly, B., & True, J. (2010). Doing feminist research in political and social science. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media: An exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. London: BCODP.Google Scholar
  3. Bleiker, R., Campbell, D., Hutchison, E., & Nicholson, X. (2013). The visual dehumanisation of refugees. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  5. Bressey, C. (2002). Forgotten histories: Three stories of black girls from Barnardo’s Victorian archive. Women’s History Review, 11(3), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brook, S. (2010, February 1). Charity recreates famous advert to highlight muscular dystrophy. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/feb/01/muscular-dystrophy-advertising-campaign
  7. Burnett, K. A., & Holmes, M. (2001). Bodies, battlefields and biographies: Scars and the construction of the body as heritage. In S. Cunningham-Burley & K. Backett-Milburn (Eds.), Exploring the body (pp. 21–36). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bury, M. (1996). Defining and researching disability: Challenges and responses. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Exploring the divide (pp. 18–38). Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  9. Campaign Brief. (2013). Common Ventures creates pro-bono campaign for Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. Retrieved from http://www.campaignbrief.com/2013/05/common-ventures-creates-pro-bo.html
  10. Campbell, F. (2008). Exploring internalized ableism using critical race theory. Disability and Society, 3(2), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Channel 4. (2017). We’re the Superhumans Rio 2016. Retrieved from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/were-the-superhumans
  12. Clark, J. (2013a). Passive, heterosexual and female: Constructing appropriate childhoods in the ‘sexualisation of chidlhood’ debate. Sociological Research Online, 18(2). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/18/2/13.html
  13. Clark, J. (2013b). Embodied childhoods. In J. Taylor, E. Bond, & M. Woods (Eds.), Early childhood studies: An multidisciplinary and holistic introduction (3rd ed., pp. 46–64). London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, J. (forthcoming). ‘There’s plenty more clunge in the sea’: Young masculinities and sexual talk. Journal of Sexualisation, Media and Society.Google Scholar
  15. Couldry, N., & Curran, J. (Eds.). (2003). Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Crow, L. (2014). Scroungers and superhumans: Images of disability from the summer of 2012: A visual enquiry. Journal of Visual Culture, 13(2), 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cumberbatch, G., & Negrine, R. (1992). Images of disability on television. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Cunningham, H. (2005). Children and childhood in western society since 1500. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Dahl, M. (1993). The role of media in promoting images of disability – Disability as metaphor: The evil crip. Canadian Journal of Communication, 18(1). Retrieved from www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/718/624
  20. Den-Ouden, E. (2011). Cerebral Palsy Alliance [Blogspot]. Retrieved from http://emmadenouden.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/cerebral-palsy-alliance.html
  21. Devine, D. (2002). Children’s citizenship and the structuring of adult-child relations in the primary school. Childhood, 9(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Disability Rights UK. (2012). Press portrayal of disabled people: A rise in hostility fuelled by austerity? DRU/PLMR. Retrieved from https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/sites/default/files/pdf/disabilitypresscoverage.pdf
  23. Dolezal, L. (2016). Representing posthuman embodiment: Considering disability and the case of Aimee Mullins. Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 46(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donnelly, C. E. (2016). Re-visioning negative archetypes of disability and deformity in fantast: Wicked, Maleficent and Game of Thrones. Disability Studies Quarterly, 36(4.) Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/5313/4470.
  25. Ellis, K. (2015). Disability and popular culture: Focusing passion, creating community and expressing defiance. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2015). Disability and the media. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality. Vol. 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  29. French, S., & Swain, J. (2003). There but for fortune. In J. Swain & S. French (Eds.), Disability on equal terms. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Garland Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  31. Garland Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How we look. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. George RR Martin. (2013). Media access award for game of thrones. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://www.georgerrmartin.com/media-access-award-for-game-of-thrones/
  33. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2013). The body as disability and possability: Theorising the ‘leaking, lacking and excessive’ bodies of disabled children. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hadley, B. (2016). Cheats, charity cases and inspirations: Disrupting the circulation of disability-based memes online. Disability and Society, 31(5), 672–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, S. (1980[1973]). Encoding/decoding. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies 1972–1979 (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  37. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Harnett, A. (2000). Escaping the ‘Evil Avenger’ and the ‘Supercrip’: Images of disability in popular television. The Irish Communications Review, 8, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayes, M., & Black, R. (2003). Troubling signs: Disability Hollywood movies and the construction of a discourse of pity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23(2), 114–132. Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/5313/4470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heeney, J. (2015). Disability welfare reform and the chav threat: A reflection on social class and ‘contested disabilities’. Disability and Society, 30(4), 650–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoijer, B. (2004). The discourse of global compassion: The audience and media reporting of human suffering. Media, Culture and Society, 26, 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holt, L. (2010). Young people’s embodied social capital and performing disability. Children’s Geographies, 8(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hughes, B. (2009). Wounded/monstrous/abject: A critique of the disabled body in the sociological imaginary. Disability and Society, 24(4), 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability and Society, 12(3), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. James, A. (2000). Embodied being(s): Understanding the self and the body in childhood. In A. Prout (Ed.), The body, childhood and society. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Loja, E., Costa, M. E., Hughes, B., & Menezes, I. (2013). Disability, embodiment and ableism: Stories of resistance. Disability and Society, 28(2), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lomax, E. M. R. (1996). Small and special: The development of hospitals for children in Victorian Britain, medical history. London: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine.Google Scholar
  48. Longmore, P. (2003). Why I burned my books and other essays on disability. Philadelphia: Temple UP.Google Scholar
  49. Matthews, N. (2009). Contesting representations of disabled children in picture-books: Visibility, the body and the social model of disability. Children’s Geographies, 7(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McRobbie, A. (2004). Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 4(3), 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mills, C. (2002). The portrayal of mental disability in children’s literature: An ethical appraisal. Horn Book Magazine, 78(5), 531–542.Google Scholar
  52. Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. (2001). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies of discourse. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newlife. (2017). Rare disease day: Rare still get care from newlife. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from http://newlifecharity.co.uk/docs/latest_news/EullFppluEELzMJjNv.shtml
  54. Newton Dunn, T. (2012). Blitz the £1.2bn fiddlers. The Sun [Online archives]. Retrieved from https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/411981/blitz-the-1-2bn-fiddlers/
  55. Norden, M. (1994). The cinema of isolation: A history of physical disability in the movies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Office for Disability Issues. (2011). London 2012: A legacy for disabled people. London: ODI.Google Scholar
  57. Oliver, M. (1990, July). The individual and social models of disability. In Joint workshop of the living options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians (Vol. 23).Google Scholar
  58. Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability and Society, 28(7), 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peers, D. (2009). (Dis)empowering Paralympic histories: Absent athletes and disabling discourses. Disability and Society, 24(5), 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reid-Hresko, J., & Reid, K. (2005). Deconstructing disability: Three episodes of South Park. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(4). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/628/805
  61. Rieger, A., & McGrail, E. (2015). Exploring children’s literature with authentic representations of disability. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(1), 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Runswick-Cole, K., & Goodley, D. (2015). DisPovertyPorn: Benefits Street and the dis/ability paradox. Disability and Society, 30(4), 645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  64. Shakespeare, T. (1994). Cultural representation of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowal? In L. Barton & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disability studies: Past, present and future (pp. 217–233). Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  65. Shakespeare, T. (2000). The social relations of care. In G. Lewis, S. Gewirtz, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Rethinking social policy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Exploring theories and expanding methodologies. Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shaw, M. (2010). ‘The specials’ shows life with special needs, especially watchable. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.tubefilter.com/2010/06/02/thespecials-shows-life-with-special-needs-especially-watchable/
  69. Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  70. Shildrick, M. (1997). Leaky bodies and boundaries: Feminism, postmodernism and (bio)ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Snyder, S. L., & Mitchell, D. T. (2006). Re-engaging the body: Disability studies and the resistance to embodiment. Public Culture, 13(3), 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sontag, S. (1978). Illness as metaphor. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  74. Thomas, C. (2007). Sociologies of disability, ‘impairment’ and chronic illness: Ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. Hampshire: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Toffoletti, K. (2007). Cyborgs and Barbie dolls: Feminism, popular culture and the posthuman body. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  76. Tøssebro, J. (2004). Understanding disability: Introduction to the special issues of SJDR. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. United Nations. (1989). Conventions on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  78. United Nations. (2006). Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  79. Willis, P. (2003). Foot soldiers of modernity: The dialectics of cultural consumption and the 21st century school. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 390–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zola, I. (1989). Towards the necessary universalising of disability policy. The Milbank Quarterly, 67, 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zola, I. (1991). Bringing our bodies back in: Reflections on a past, present and future medical sociology. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 32(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SuffolkIpswichUK

Personalised recommendations