The Disabled Body Put in Perspective of Eugenics

Disabled people are generally put into a completely distinct category of their own: neither minority nor majority, they represent the underrepresented grey area but are still afflicted by the danger of norms. In Lennard J. Davis’ text “Constructing Normalcy,” the author presents the idea of a norm giving rise to the concept of a disabled body. The use of norms to describe bodies creates an antagonistic effect with the disabled condition, as it becomes criminalized and from that criminalization results in the ostracization of the afflicted disabled person in the process. A piece of media which best reflects and resonates these points made by Davis is the film I Am Sam, starring Sean Penn and Michelle Pfeiffer and directed by Jessie Nelson. The Davis texts reveals that the disabled body in the movie is an entity removed from the world of the living, placed in a condition separate of the normal realm of being, although the main character is able to display basic signs of human emotions that do not serve to lessen the condition. Hence, it can be derived through the lens of the primary text (“Constructing Normalcy”) that the arguments introduced by Davis in the author’s text reveals that the main disabled character, Sam, is ostracized by a society that is filled with norms that criminalize the disability, which coincide with Davis’ points about the norming of a population giving rise to a “deviant” subcategory due to Sam not fitting in with the molds of the norm despite his ability to show love towards his child.

To first understand the revelations of the target text, in this case, the film I Am Sam, the arguments of Davis for the purposes of this lens must first be established. In “Constructing Normalcy,” despite going into a breadth of topics, what is most pertinent to the application of the film is the discussion surrounding the concept of a fit body, more specifically a body which refers to a nation. Davis states that “if individual citizens are not fit, if they do not fit into the nation, then the national body will not be fit” (Davis 18), which reinforces the focus of eugenics and the norming of a population. This takes place in a world where “the person enters into an identical relationship with the body, the body forms the identity, and identity is unchangeable and indelible” (Davis 15). This concept seeks to normalize through the gaze of the normal and seeks to categorize under a spectrum and set an identity to what is the norm, simultaneously criminalizing and excluding the other persons in the process who fit outside the typical by binding their disabled identities with them. The manner in which the disabled parent in the film, Sam, who is an adult that has the mental capacity of a 7 year old reflects this notion is throughout all his daily activities. This film contends with many of Davis’ points regarding disabled bodies, as the establishment of societal norms clearly affect him in a profound manner. For instance, due to his mental condition, he is unable to express him fully and causes “problems” for not only his child but for other people as well. When confronted in a situation where Sam is not able to get his regular order of “french pancakes” with the fruit topping on the side, Sam throws a bit of a tantrum complaining about his experience (Nelson). This lack of control on Sam’s part not only makes the waitress clearly uncomfortable, but it also silences the rest of the restaurant as everyone is left in shock. Through the lens of Davis, this would be seen as the individual citizen not fitting into the norms of the nation and into the body as a whole, as ordering food in a restaurant is a normal occurrence that should not solicit such a response. This reveals the isolation of the disabled body that is taking place, as surely enough the disabled body is put away from the norm and into their own distinct category as an “other.” The focus becomes on the disabled identity itself as the waitress realizes the man is disabled, which changes the entire waiter-customer relationship.

In addition, this lens established by Davis allows the criminalized condition of the disabled body to be viewed in the film, which introduces the concept of the criminalization of the disabled. Davis states “The loose association between what we would now call disability and criminal activity… established a legacy that people with disabilities are still having trouble living down” (Davis 18). Similarly, in the film, when Sam attempts to throw a surprise birthday party for his daughter by inviting her friends over, an altercation arises in which one of the children refused to comply with Sam’s directions. Sam lightly pushed the child which caused a dispute with the parent of the child, which invoked the direction of the police and Sam’s child being taken away (Nelson). Hence, in a very literal way, the disabled condition as Davis asserts is criminalized. Sam has his child taken away, which is a step towards leaving the norm as a representative of the disabled body, and is left instead with the glaring sign of being a disabled body that is deviant from the norm. It exemplifies that people like Sam are incapable of sustaining children, another component of the normal body, which reinforces the long line of disability and criminal activity that Davis points out. Sam is ostracized for his behavior and is thus deprived of his privilege to raise a child on the premise of his disability that is representative of an unfit body.

Despite this, what raises the stakes significantly is that the “disabled body” in this context is deemed incapable of taking care of a child, which is eugenics in its purest derivation, emphasizing the nation-building points Davis stated. By ostracizing the disabled in their own condition, they are discouraged from having children or are taken away from them as seen in this film. Thus, the unfavorable characteristics associated with the disabled will diffuse out of the social fabric, leaving a “fit nation” deprived of disability, which is at the core of eugenics and Davis’ points. Hence, there is a synergistic relationship between the examples of disability in the film that is revealed through the lens of Davis’ academic text “Constructing Normalcy,” with the involvement of children only problematizing the condition and demonstrating that these disabled bodies should not be allowed to have progeny that will taint the “norms” established by the “fit nation.”

However, despite the prominent examples of the target text amplifying and agreeing with the premises of the Davis text, the return of the child at the end of the movie and the notion of “love” ultimately prevail over his disability. Hence, the film in this instance counters the ideas of criminalizing the norm and the disabled falling outside the norm with the introduction of basic human emotion. When testifying under oath, the child responds to a question of Sam’s ability as a parent by stating that “All you need is love” (Nelson), which is what ultimately sways the court in favor of Sam. The disabled body, due to these signs of “normal human” emotion, does as a result fall within some norm. However, the distinctions come into play during other parts of life and no matter how prevailing a theme love may be, this would only be viewed as the result of the disabled body falling outside the normal but still on the curve itself, as “the idea of a norm pushes the normal variation of the body through a stricter template guiding the way the body “should” be” (Davis 17). Thus, these displays of emotion and characteristics of norms do not serve to integrate the disabled body.

To conclude, it can be ultimately derived through the lens of the primary text (“Constructing Normalcy”) that the arguments introduced by Davis reveals that the main disabled character, Sam, is ostracized by a society that is filled with norms that criminalize the disability, which coincide with Davis’ points about the norming of a population giving rise to a “deviant” subcategory due to Sam not fitting in with the molds of the norm despite his ability to show love towards his child. The film most definitely reinforces and reflects the notions displayed in the lens text, as these applications stretch farther from a text perspective and onto a world basis. The disabled bodies are ostracized by these norms in real life and when placed through this lens, reveals that the instinctive grouping of the eugenicists and people in general serves to divide the people and remove them from the normal processes of life, such as the ability to have children and raise them. This inadvertently supports that they are a completely distinct category from the norm, a body that only serves to pollute the pure world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Davis, Lennard. “Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, the Novel, and the Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century”. The Disabilities Studies Reader, New York, London.

Nelson, Jessie, director. I Am Sam. Bedford Falls Productions, 2001.