Clare makes an argument about the reckless and hypocritical aspects of society’s innate desire to make a distinction between “natural and unnatural”, “normal and abnormal”. The fact that the disabled body is directly linked to a state of being unnatural, defective, abnormal, or special, he argues, is a form of condescension that aims to eradicate the abnormal bodies of society.
Up to this point, I find it very easy to agree with him. Equating a person with words denoting objects in need of disposal is never the right way to address anyone. However, I found his later arguments to somewhat counter, and elevate one group of disabled individuals over the other. Here, I am talking about people who, later in life, form disabilities. I personally fall under this “category” of disability, and I found Clare’s arguments themselves to be patronizing. I felt as though as if Clare was just haphazardly just mentioning the fact that oh yes, he recognizes that disability does not just limit itself to what you are born with, but then go on to shift focus onto congenital disabilities.
For one, all the examples he gives, fishing for support, are of congenital disabilities, ranging from Type I diabetes, facial birthmarks, all the way to himself as an example. There is nothing innately wrong with writing about one’s own personal experiences, as this is what is driving me to find his argument to be skeptical, but also because sharing our experiences with others is a form of social growth that I actively find encouraging. However, the fact that his writing on the topic of “restoration” of disabled bodies, and how unnecessary this is, seems to essentially erase out the identities of those who have grown into their disability.
Clare seems to denote the desire for “restoration” and “respect for abnormal bodies” as two things that can never coexist together. The desire to restore a body to its “original” state (if there is one) is only because the society does not respect its abilitative state, and thus wants to restore it to its “natural” ecosystemic state. But I honestly don’t think it’s safe for Clare to make these broad assumptions and arguments that restoration is disrespectful. This might hinder individuals from actually seeking the help they need for their body to not be in complete, abysmal pain.
It seems as though humans have a tendency towards a desire to revert back into a prior state, as a form of nostalgia and retrograding. That’s why so many people theorize about the womb, desires, and general nostalgia. So, although I hate to use the word “normal”, feel like it is generally a “normal” tendency for people who later on in life conceive disabilities, to desire some form of restoration, both for “bodily comfort” (Clare 246) and because they have witnessed what they reflect now on, as an easier way of life for themselves personally. Calling a desire for bodily restoration as “not the answer” (255) and a mechanism to enable “social control” (255) seems like it’s kicking out this group of disabled individuals out of both the “normal” social group and the “disabled” social group.
LUCY MOON 