Race, Disability and Denial

by Guest Contributor A. Rahman Ford


Although I have been both black and disabled my entire life, for years I lied to myself about being disabled. I could appreciate the pride that accompanied the black experience, the historic and perpetual triumphs and tragedies that inspire the progress of a people. But disability was different. Disability was a curse much worse than the curse of Ham, and instead of accepting it I fled into a lie of being someone I could never be and should have never wanted to be. I became a victim of an able-bodied orthodoxy, one memorialized into my memory, derived from the seeds of my lived experiences and the veil of myths through which those experiences are strained. I believe we all succumb to societal orthodoxies in some way, because the procurement of favor demands it and it allows us to live without troublesome confusion. But for many of us, orthodoxies become a memorial, a shine at which we pray and to which we cling, all the while privately acknowledging that the shrine is not of our making, not to our liking and that it segregates and kills us very casually, very privately and very slowly. This photo helped free me from my denial.

Feeling starved, sunken, gaunt and untouchable, I long held certain conceptions of who or what I had and wanted to be, but could not, and thus did my best to hide it from others and myself. For me, poverty is fundamentally about not only the absence of choices, the impossibility of choices and the consequences of that impossibility. I decided to take this photo as a challenge to myself to confront the poverty of my own body and to better understand the costs of my negotiations with my own public and private identities. Many of us fear how easily we parade and perpetuate our public selves, while at the same time fearing the vulnerable, deviant and shameful self we can only be in private. When I saw the photo for the first time I was both shocked and surprised because even though I had lived with that person my entire life, I could never before accept how spent he was. Nothing had ever frightened me more than having to face the nakedness of my own indigence.

The photo, titled “undesirable,” is essentially about me ultimately beginning the journey of accepting my disability as I have my blackness. More broadly, it is to protest what I refer to as the negative fetishism of poor bodies, bodies that are deemed broke and broken, crooked and criminal, dilapidated and degenerate, ugly and useless. It was influenced in part by depictions of Holocaust victims – persons with disabilities among them – determined by the Nazi regime to be “undesirable” and anathema to the Aryan archetype because they did not and could not conform. “Undesirable” is also meant to invoke sexuality and how poor male bodies navigate the difficulty of being sexually desirable because of the physical valuation males and females deploy to determine sexual attraction. These are issues and feelings that I have dealt with and I used the photo to embody both my struggle and progress.

For me, the photo represents a minimalist confrontation of the intersections of not only race and disability, but also class and sexuality, as seen through my own experiences as a disabled Black man who at one point earned a six-figure salary. At various times and places, one or some of these identities would protrude publicly, others would recede into privacy, not always consciously and not always willingly. Sometimes, however, protrusions and recessions were purposeful. In my own confusing quest for acceptance I could fully embrace being Black, and to a lesser extent being formally educated, but to be disabled was to be diminutive and I could not stand having to crane my neck upward and be forced to be jealous at how tall the world is. I am now coming to realize that there is in fact a difference between being big and being tall. To explore the heights of my own physical vulnerability, I took the photo to make all identities so collectively and simultaneously prominent that I could no longer choose to focus on one and leave another peripheral. At my request, the camera made the choice for me.

The “I AM A MAN” sign represents a protest of how labor, disability and masculinity had come to define my own conception of manhood. It was borrowed from signs held by AFSCME workers at a 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike. Orthodoxy teaches us that muscles are the currency of masculinity, a constant reproduced through labor, production and provision. Manhood is tightly rolled in wads beneath the skin, casually inspected by others to estimate worth and value. Men work. And for those flimsy and flaccid males who cannot, who cannot pronounce manhood loudly, highly and in concert, but are instead forced to be mute, low and isolated, how are they to define their manhood? Cracked and splintered male bodies cannot perform the masculine ethic, and this inability to perform an identity that is inculcated illegitimately and relentlessly, can place a disabled male at the perilous risk of being emasculated at best and feminized at worst. And for a man, or for a male who wants to be one, convention dictates that the only thing worse than being a eunuch is being a woman because to be a woman is to be an expletive.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Reading on the Rails: Whiteness, Ability, & Representation « thebibliophile Weblog on 04 Feb 2010 at 11:07 am

    [...] but not least, Racialicious posted a beauitful piece by A. Rahman Ford entitled, “Race, Disability, and Denial” confronting disability, gender, and race. It is powerful and a wonderful work that looks at [...]

  2. Links of Great Interest 2/5/10 | The Hathor Legacy on 05 Feb 2010 at 3:40 am

    [...] This is a great piece on disability, race, and gender. [...]

  3. A striking piece of reflection « Sans Cilice on 08 Feb 2010 at 3:34 am

    [...] striking piece of reflection From a guest contributor on Racialicious— a self examination of male identity, race and disability. Powerfully written and [...]

  4. Weekend Link Love « The Feminist Texican on 14 Feb 2010 at 2:21 am

    [...] Racialicious: Race, Disability and Denial [...]

Comments

  1. Celeste wrote:

    This was an amazing piece.

  2. Kris wrote:

    Whoa! I want to read more! I was having a similar discussion with a friend about this topic last week and the collective denial many POC (and some poor whites) have when it comes to our bodies, disability, and health. Those of us who are disabled or with chronic illness learn early on to basically shut up about it, ignore it, and keep trudging along. When you have so many strikes against you already, why draw attention to another one, right? And if you come from a long line of folks who struggle, you got no right to complain, right?

    I see this internalized ableism play out so often amongst my folks. We have rendered ourselves and our (”undesirable”) bodies invisible. Thank you for sharing your story! My experiences have been vastly different but so many of the themes of invisibility and acceptance you brought up reflect my own journey to come to terms with my illness and “broken body.”

  3. Big Man wrote:

    This is not going to address the main thrust of the post and I apologize for that. I understand if Latoya or whoever doesn’t let it through.

    But, I have to correct the thing about the “Curse of Ham.”

    That curse, which has been used to justify and explain the mistreatment of black folks, is a myth. Noah did not curse Ham, or all of his descendants. Noah cursed one of Ham’s four sons, Canaan. That curse was applied to only one of four sons, all of whom can be traced as the ancestors of black folks. Moreover, the curse was fulfilled with the Ancient Israelites drove the Canannites from the Promised Land and claimed it for themselves.
    I know this might see trivial to some, but I feel it’s a lack of knowledge about what the Bible actually says that has caused many problems for black people. We have been fed misinformation, and I believe it was purposeful.
    Once again, sorry for the rant that was somewhat off-topic, but I felt it needed to be addressed.

  4. Big Man wrote:

    After reading that actual post, it was an interesting discussion on how we define masculinity.
    We still do believe that a man’s job is to physically protect and provide for his family and without that capability, or the appearance of it, men are discounted. Good thoughts.

  5. aviva wrote:

    thanks for the dissertation; made me think a lot about my feelings about my own body. i’ve had MS for 20-odd years and am a mass of twistings and spasms and scars–and yet when i look in the mirror, i rarely see anything but the beauty that comes with an indomitable spirit–the same i see in you. i have also been blessed or cursed with asperger’s, which enables me to shrug off societal perceptions wholesale and focus on my own. you ARE a man, mr. ford. don’t ever forget it.

  6. kaninchenzero wrote:

    Thank you, Mr. Ford.

  7. AMarie wrote:

    “The “I AM A MAN” sign represents a protest of how labor, disability and masculinity had come to define my own conception of manhood. It was borrowed from signs held by AFSCME workers at a 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike. Orthodoxy teaches us that muscles are the currency of masculinity, a constant reproduced through labor, production and provision. Manhood is tightly rolled in wads beneath the skin, casually inspected by others to estimate worth and value. ”

    Whoa. I was just thinking about this- how masculinity (as constructed by societal discourses) is actually contingent and fragile. I hadn’t actually factored in disability, however.

    This is just so powerful. I need to ruminate on this for a day or so…

  8. Eva wrote:

    This is a VERY important article for everybody to read. I am 50 years old now, not disabled but I can see how my body can no longer do what it did 20, even 10 years ago. It is always a shock to me but these are the things that happen as you grow older.

    If you live long enough, your body will change and all of us will have to deal with those changes.

  9. CVT wrote:

    This was something beautiful – a great perspective that is too often ignored in the greater discourse about “masculinity” and what it should mean in the world.

    Thank you for this – only a real man could share something this powerful . . .

  10. Charles J wrote:

    Thank you for posting A. Rahman Ford. As young, black, able-bodied, male I often see how men are boxed into a the construct of masculinity, but then I see that we Black men are boxed even further.

    I have come to the realization that ability is another social construct that we all get caught in. Many of us fully able-bodied people forget that with age comes automatic disability be it sight or hearing etc.

    Thanks for highlighting that we men do come in all different shapes, sizes, colors and abilities AND WE’RE STILL MEN!!! :-)

  11. amandaw wrote:

    this is beauty.

  12. Restructure! wrote:

    Cracked and splintered male bodies cannot perform the masculine ethic, and this inability to perform an identity that is inculcated illegitimately and relentlessly, can place a disabled male at the perilous risk of being emasculated at best and feminized at worst. And for a man, or for a male who wants to be one, convention dictates that the only thing worse than being a eunuch is being a woman because to be a woman is to be an expletive.

    How is this not sexist? When I first saw the photo, I interpreted “I am a man” to mean “I am a person”, but now I learn that “I am a man” really means “I, although disabled, am still superior to women.”

  13. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Restructure –

    Read the sentence carefully –

    And for a man, or for a male who wants to be one, convention dictates that the only thing worse than being a eunuch is being a woman because to be a woman is to be an expletive.

    This isn’t praise of the status quo, but an indictment of the structures of society.

  14. Adrienne wrote:

    Restructure!

    I interpreted it to mean “I want to be who I am (a man)”

    He has the right to want to be a man, because it is who he is.

  15. tenya wrote:

    This was a stunning, powerful piece, and I thank for sharing it.

  16. B. wrote:

    Restructure!: I agree and disagree with you. I think that Mr. Ford’s comment is a critique of our culture’s hierarchies as opposed to a sexist statement, but also feel that he could have elaborated a bit more after making that point as he may (accidentally) be leaving room for his comment to be interpreted as sexism. (Of course, it’s certainly possible for there to be some shared experience between groups of people who are considered by mainstream culture to be “less than” because they are not muscular and “masculine”.)

    Otherwise, a wonderful post.

  17. Rachel wrote:

    Wow. This piece is very moving, and the prose is beautifully written.

  18. luckyfatima wrote:

    Bravo. Excellent piece.

  19. CVT wrote:

    As my day moves on, this post and this image sticks with me – has inspired me to write and – as an educator – I’m already forming a conversation on masculinity for youth with this photo as a centerpiece . . .

    However, before I get too far, I’d like to request permission from the author to use this image for those purposes (I’m in China, so I can’t access his personal site and don’t know how to contact him, otherwise). I really hope you agree, but I completely understand if that is something you’re not okay with.

  20. rahman wrote:

    thank you all for your insightful comments. perhaps i did try to squeeze too many thoughts into only a few paragraphs, but i think the main ideas came through. i’m no more immune to gendered conventions than anyone else, even as i am oppressed by them and do my best to reject them. this is the struggle, and it is in part a struggle with the danger/safety of dichotomies – wanting to be something you can never be (in this case a “man”), while refusing to accept the obvious alternative (here a “woman”) because of its perceived inherent repulsiveness and repugnance. yes, it’s hypocritical and maybe sexist, but it’s also a reflection of my own ongoing identity negotiation.

    cvt, please feel free to use the photo. i won’t sue you :)

  21. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Restructure –

    Guess I was wrong. Carry on.

  22. Restructure! wrote:

    Yeah…. My second interpretation when I saw the photo but before I read the text was “My gender is not between my legs,” which would be awesome and more interesting than my “I am a person” interpretation. It would be a visual representation of gender identity being self-defined, and also a rejection of cis people wanting to know about trans people’s genitals. So it’s not like I haven’t considered the idea of gender being self-defined (@Adrienne).

    Although the text itself can be interpreted as an indictment, and the photo can be interpreted in positive ways, the text combined with the photo kind of narrows it down… to misogyny.

  23. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Restructure –

    It’s a shame too, because I really, really like that turn of phrase. Yesterday, I was in the elevator in my building and someone was on the phone. Presumably, this man was angry at another man for some kind of issue but it was his choice of language that really stood out to me.

    He was saying “I told him he was acting real bitch-made, like some pussy-ass nigga. Yeah, he was acting real female.”

    It was three different indictments of things associated with women, and they were all being treated like curse words. Especially the word “female” which was spat out as if it was particularly worthy of scorn. So the woman as expletive concept fascinates me.

    But apparently, this observation doesn’t equate to grasping gender dynamics and oppression.

    One more thing to add to the submissions guide.

  24. Kandeezie wrote:

    Latoya – “So the woman as expletive concept fascinates me.” – That’s what grabbed me too. At first I thought it was an indictment against the convention as well. Even still, it is worth examining because I too have seen how much it is used as a curse word – a way to demean other human beings, even at times women themselves, by saying “the word ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ is not enough! I need to find something stronger…like pussy/bitch-ass/female!” Why on earth is the female a stronger representation of bad? Why is it the ultimate example of wrong? (Then these men want to convince me they love women – and want our affection?)

  25. Big Man wrote:

    Latoya

    As someone who has used that type of language in the past, I too find it interesting. The idea that for a “real man” to behave like a woman is the lowest of low is not a new concept. We assign certain traits to men and women, and when someone crosses those lines, we get angry.

  26. the hippo wrote:

    wow, the fact that you have lived your life this way without a single complaint is amazing. A. Rahman Ford, I respect, to servive with muscular dystrophy makes you a bigger Man than most stereotypical men that obey gender roles. Your a bigger man than me! Your article how incredibly shallow and inflexible our ideas of masculinity are, such as our physique, to our ability to commit needless violence, to how many women we bed, and if you so much as waver from these laws even slightly, you get called a fag,queer,bitch,nerd,geek,freak,female,etc. I can identify, because I never really fit the ideas of masculinity, being a autistic who was more interested in science fiction and anime than sports and fighting.

  27. kkm wrote:

    wow, mr. ford. thank you for revealing yourself in so many ways. this is amazing & thoughtful.

  28. Angry Angel wrote:

    I’ve never commented here before.

    This piece made me feel like I needed to say thank you to Mr. Ford for this beautiful and insightful piece of writing.

  29. Shiyo wrote:

    What a beautiful piece. Thanks for sharing it with us, Mr. Ford. (And best of luck with your treatment in Beijing. My family lives there and the medical care of my relative, who had cancer, was top-notch.)

    “Masculinity” has always been some uber-ideal throughout history, while “femininity” is not even a particularly nice compliment for women, and anathema for men. To be a “real man” is a meaningful thing, something to strive for, to dedicate and sacrifice your life for; to be a “real woman” means nothing. It is not even a concept, much less an ideal. In fact we argue that it is a construct that we have to break down. While entire genres of literature have been dedicated to the growth of a boy to a man, “women’s literature” (apparently half of humanity cannot be human literature) have focused on the limitations of Womanhood, on the social constraints, on the bitterness and frustration – not growth, but realization. Being a man comes from within; being a woman is imposed from without.

    For both men and women, being called a “pussy” is a gross insult, embodying all the notions of the female sex as cowardly and weak; for both men and women, “having balls” is a compliment, embodying all the notions of “real men” and their monopoly of courage and honor. I am well aware of how masculinity is prized, such that even those who already have courage and pride and all those good things still feel compelled to crave the validation of their manhood, because it is more than the sum of these parts; and as a woman I will always be on the sidelines like I was as a girl, shaking my head in amusement at the boys and their stupid rituals as they tell me I just don’t “get” it.