- Tapa blanda: 248 páginas
- Editor: Columbia University Press (1 de diciembre de 1996)
- Idioma: Inglés
- ISBN-10: 0231105177
- ISBN-13: 978-0231105170
- Valoración media de los clientes: Sé el primero en opinar sobre este producto
- Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: nº857.978 en Libros en idiomas extranjeros (Ver el Top 100 en Libros en idiomas extranjeros)
- Ver el Índice completo
Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature: Figuring Physical Disability in American Literature and Culture (Inglés) Tapa blanda – dic 1996
Descripción del producto
A well-written and provocative beginning to a conversation about disability that is long overdue among scholars in literary and cultural studies.
Reseña del editor
Inaugurates a new field of disability studies by framing disability as a minority discourse rather than a medical one, revising oppressive narratives and revealing liberatory ones. The book examines disabled figures in Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin and Rebecca Harding Davis's Life in the Iron Mills, in African-American novels by Toni Morrison and Audre Lorde, and in the popular cultural ritual of the freak show.Ver Descripción del producto
No es necesario ningún dispositivo Kindle. Descárgate una de las apps de Kindle gratuitas para comenzar a leer libros Kindle en tu smartphone, tablet u ordenador.
Obtén la app gratuita:
Detalles del producto
Si eres el vendedor de este producto, ¿te gustaría sugerir ciertos cambios a través del servicio de atención al vendedor?
Opiniones de clientes
|5 estrellas (0%)|
|4 estrellas (0%)|
|3 estrellas (0%)|
|2 estrellas (0%)|
|1 estrella (0%)|
Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com
Focusing on the freak show, Thomson writes, “The freak show is a spectacle, a cultural performance that gives primacy to visual apprehension in creating symbolic codes and institutionalizes the relationship between the spectacle and the spectators. In freak shows, the exhibited body became a text written in boldface to be deciphered according to the needs and desires of the onlookers.” (pg. 60) The people on display reaffirmed “normal” by demonstrating its opposite. Thomson writes of Joice Heth, a performer in P.T. Barnum’s act, “She becomes a freak not by virtue of her body’s uniqueness, but rather by displaying the stigmata of social devaluation. Indeed, Joice Heth is the direct antithesis of the able-bodied, white, male figure upon which the developing notion of the American normate was predicated.” (pg. 59) Similarly, romantic fiction demonstrated the intersectional nature of gender and disability. Thomson argues, “Benevolent maternalism not only restates the terms of liberal individualism, but also, by moving from sympathetic identification with the disabled figures to a distancing repudiation of them, ultimately dramatizes individualism’s most vexing internal contradictions.” (pg. 82) Accordingly, “despite the desire to construct a rhetorical model of socially valued feminine selfhood, these novels could only modify the available, dominant script of the masculine liberal self, bending it toward the other-directedness and self-denial mandated by the female domestic role.” (pg. 101) The novels confirmed the very beliefs they attempted to alter. Finally, Thomson writes, “If the cultural work of nineteenth-century benevolent maternalism is introducing the body into politicized literary discourse, that work is continued by several twentieth-century African-American women writers who also used disabled figures in strategies of empowerment that recast benevolent maternalism’s positive version of womanhood.” (pg. 103) According to Thomson, the extraordinary bodies in the authors’ work “demand accommodation, resist assimilation, and challenge the dominant norms that would efface distinctions such as racial, gender, and sexual differences and the marks of experience.” (pg. 130). These novels fully demonstrate the analytical model of Thomson’s work. Thomson concludes, “The rhetorical thrust of this book, then, is to critique the politics of appearance that governs our interpretation of physical difference, to suggest that disability requires accommodation rather than compensation, and to shift our conception of disability from pathology to identity.” (pg. 137) In that respect, she more than succeeds.