Life and research mixing together
I could be totally out of line with this post, but lately what I have been researching at uni has become so enmeshed in my lived experience. So much of what I see in the world is unravelling at such a pace. I can literally see the organic movement of culture/society, the very intricate interplay between people, relationships and environment.
Today a very sad event happened. A lady and her grandson were killed in a house fire. This is tragic, but what interests me is the media and most peoples response to this tragedy by referring to the fact that the lady was in a wheelchair. I guess my question is, does the fact that the lady was in a wheelchair make it anymore tragic? I don't think so, a lady lost her life, along with her grandson, the fact that she was in a wheelchair means nothing.
I say it doesn't matter because it is a tragedy regardless of the symbol of the wheelchair. My research involves looking at the visual representation of disability (having limbs MIA means I think i am fairly qualified to address such issues), and I find that in every relational experience for a person who has an impairment, there is a subtle underline by the impairment. We can never escape the social response to our impairments, whether we want to or not. People always see the impairment first, and hence the supposed "personal tragedy" of it all (even though, trust me, most people with impairments do not feel sorry for themselves, or court pity from other people). Therefore, when people mention that this lady who tragically died was in a wheelchair I question their motives in mentioning this fact, does this make the story more news worthy because the public will view it as a "double tragedy" (on the ladies behalf) because she died in a fire AND was in a wheelchair? And in that case does it make her death more tragic then her grandsons? Again, it is a tragedy because a lady and her grandson were killed in a house fire, not the fact that the lady was in a wheelchair . . .
Today a very sad event happened. A lady and her grandson were killed in a house fire. This is tragic, but what interests me is the media and most peoples response to this tragedy by referring to the fact that the lady was in a wheelchair. I guess my question is, does the fact that the lady was in a wheelchair make it anymore tragic? I don't think so, a lady lost her life, along with her grandson, the fact that she was in a wheelchair means nothing.
I say it doesn't matter because it is a tragedy regardless of the symbol of the wheelchair. My research involves looking at the visual representation of disability (having limbs MIA means I think i am fairly qualified to address such issues), and I find that in every relational experience for a person who has an impairment, there is a subtle underline by the impairment. We can never escape the social response to our impairments, whether we want to or not. People always see the impairment first, and hence the supposed "personal tragedy" of it all (even though, trust me, most people with impairments do not feel sorry for themselves, or court pity from other people). Therefore, when people mention that this lady who tragically died was in a wheelchair I question their motives in mentioning this fact, does this make the story more news worthy because the public will view it as a "double tragedy" (on the ladies behalf) because she died in a fire AND was in a wheelchair? And in that case does it make her death more tragic then her grandsons? Again, it is a tragedy because a lady and her grandson were killed in a house fire, not the fact that the lady was in a wheelchair . . .