March 22, 2016 - 01:42
One of the quotes that I found very intriguing from the introduction is "I do not give diagnostic categories for myself and my own physical and mental differences" (6). This immediately brought me back to my Mental Affliction class last Fall, where the first thing our professor said was that this was not a class focused on nosology, or trying to define the narratives by their diagnosis. Instead we were to look at the pieces as they were, a subjective or fictional sharing without the medical or psychological stigma associated with diagnosis. When Kuppers proceeded to do the same, it got me thinking about labels, diagnoses and how they relate to disability culture. We have addressed a bit in our class about how these labels exist for insurance purposes, and therefore I find it compelling to think of disability culture as a "process" and how diagnostic labels appear to be secondary.
This brings me back to what Ali W. brought up in her mid-semester project about various actors not identifying with specific diagnoses. Yes doing so makes them appear entitled that they can act "above" their characters disability, but isn't what they are doing also reflective of what Kuppers was addressing (going beyond the diagnosis--> but this also gets be worried because it sounds like the sentiment of color-blind)? Feel free to debate me on this one, I'm still playing with this idea... and could have also read Kuppers intention wrong.