The conversations around the subject of death – a natural part of human life, is often taboo to raise. Death is the unavoidable end of human life that we all encounter and when we talk about the end of life that is death, the focus tends to be on the life of the person and the discourse surrounding a ‘good life’ is to be youthful and able-bodied. But how does the conversation shift when a person has a disability or lives outside the normative view? How is their life valued? And how does film and television perpetuate these norms? The Death Café presented by the ARTivism Lab raises concerns about the relationship media makers have with death and how it is represented.
Eliza Chandler proposes the issues that arise when representing minorities and racialized bodies in the media. How do we include them without using them as a means for aesthetic purposes of having “diversity?” The talk in the media about representation in film is very prevalent. In order for a film to not be ostracized by the media, there needs to be an emphasis or inclusion of people of colour, people with disability, and overall people whose stories, historically have not been told by the media. While it is important to be inclusive, Chandler points out an idea that I have only recently come to realize; while having a person of colour in a film looks good, what is more important is the way in these bodies are presented in the medium. Hayes describes the way disability is presented in film as a something to pity and to fix. Death is seen as the solution and we are challenged to think about alternative ways “a good life” is approached.
As a creator of media, it is important to be genuine and authentic in the ways minorities and racialized bodies are represented, especially when the media maker does not personally familiar with the life of that person. We cannot use people as means to progress personal political agendas. The way in which it needs to be done, like discussing the idea of death is in safe spaces and open spaces – meaning spaces in which people do not go in with pre-conceived judgemental ideas.
What I have and still do struggle with is how to find that medium between acknowledging a visible difference; and glossing over their difference and assimilating that difference into the “norm.” When is the appropriate times to celebrate and acknowledge their differences and their struggles, and when is the appropriate time to demonstrate that ‘they’ are just like ‘us.’ I feel like normalizing a disability is not the solution because it enforces an unfair power relation and reinforces the idea that their way of living is not challenging and devalues their real struggles to live in a world that was constructed for able bodied people. Living a life in a space where one is not a welcome guest is what Walcott refers to “refusing a life that is a living death” (Walcott 196). Where living is tolerated and living a life that is invisible by means of disregard.
Sources Referenced
Chandler, Eliza & Ignani, Esther, “Strange Beauty: Aesthetic Possibilities for Desiring Disability Into the Future” (unpublished)
Hayes, Michael T., “Troubling Signs: Disability, Hollywood Movies and the Construction of a Discourse of Pity”, Disability Studies Quarterly Spring 2003, Volume 23, No. 2 pages 114-132.
Walcott, Rinaldo, “Black Queer Studies, freedom and Other Human Possibilities” in Queer Returns, Insomniac Press 2017