During his speech today on the war in Iraq (which the president calls "the war on terror") George W. Bush told the story of a soldier named William Gibson who lost a leg while fighting in Iraq. In the president’s narrative, William Gibson came home and received a prosthetic leg and then went on to compete in triathalons. While competing in the famous Alcatraz swim in San Francisco Bay William Gibson was observed by a U.S. General who asked him if he could use any help. Again, according to the president, Gibson asked to be allowed to return to Iraq. He is there today.
Like so many of the president’s stories the point of this was unclear. In Bush’s framing of the narrative one should imagine that the stamina and heartfelt concern of William Gibson means that we will triumph over our foes.
As I like to say in disability studies classes: disability functions as a complex metaphor—really, for all intents and purposes you can think of this metaphorical process as having layers like an onion.
Disability is a "foe" that we must conquer.
Conquering disability is heroic.
A disabled person who is heroic inevitably inspires everyone.
Inspired people are the good guys.
Good guys don’t need complex medical or psychiatric care.
I admire bravery and I further admire William Gibson for his fighting spirit. I have no qualms about his patriotism and his concern for his fellow soldiers and the people of Iraq.
The thing that concerns me is that there are tens of thousands of veterans who have been shattered by their experiences in Iraq and in Afghanistan and these veterans are finding it’s very difficult, if not virtually impossible to get good health care.
If disability can be used as a heroic metaphor for overcoming or fighting the odds does it follow that "not talking" about the majority of disability experiences faced by our soldiers means their stories are insufficiently symbolic?
S.K.
Recent Comments