https://ebookmass.com/product/shakespeare-and-disability-
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Dramatizing Blindness: Disability Studies as Critical Creative Narrative (Literary Disability Studies) 1st ed. 2021 Edition Devon Healey
https://ebookmass.com/product/dramatizing-blindness-disabilitystudies-as-critical-creative-narrative-literary-disabilitystudies-1st-ed-2021-edition-devon-healey/ ebookmass.com
The Disability Studies Reader 5th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-disability-studies-reader-5thedition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
Liberalism and Distributive Justice Samuel Freeman
https://ebookmass.com/product/liberalism-and-distributive-justicesamuel-freeman/
ebookmass.com
(eTextbook PDF) for Ecological Restoration 1st Edition by
Susan M. Galatowitsch
https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-pdf-for-ecologicalrestoration-1st-edition-by-susan-m-galatowitsch/
ebookmass.com
Learning Cultural Literacy through Creative Practices in Schools Tuuli Lähdesmäki
https://ebookmass.com/product/learning-cultural-literacy-throughcreative-practices-in-schools-tuuli-lahdesmaki/
ebookmass.com
Psychology, 13th Edition David G. Myers
https://ebookmass.com/product/psychology-13th-edition-david-g-myers/
ebookmass.com
Underboss's Retaliation: Dark Mafia Romance (Sicilian Gods Book 2) Via Mari
https://ebookmass.com/product/underbosss-retaliation-dark-mafiaromance-sicilian-gods-book-2-via-mari/
ebookmass.com
Residential Construction Academy: Basic Principles for Construction 5th Edition Mark W. Huth
https://ebookmass.com/product/residential-construction-academy-basicprinciples-for-construction-5th-edition-mark-w-huth/
ebookmass.com
Alpha masculinity : hegemony in language and discourse Eric Louis Russell
https://ebookmass.com/product/alpha-masculinity-hegemony-in-languageand-discourse-eric-louis-russell/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/crossed-skis-carol-carnac/
ebookmass.com
ShakespeareandDisabilityStudies
OXFORDSHAKESPEARETOPICS
Publishedandforthcomingtitlesinclude:
DavidBevington, ShakespeareandBiography
ColinBurrow, ShakespeareandClassicalAntiquity
MichaelCaines, ShakespeareandtheEighteenthCentury
LawrenceDanson, Shakespeare’sDramaticGenres
JanetteDillon, ShakespeareandtheStagingofEnglishHistory
PaulEdmondsonandStanleyWells, Shakespeare’sSonnets
GabrielEgan, ShakespeareandMarx
AndrewGurrandMarikoIchikawa, StaginginShakespeare’sTheatres
JonathanGilHarris, ShakespeareandLiteraryTheory
RussellJackson, ShakespeareandtheEnglish-speakingCinema
JohnJowett, ShakespeareandText
DouglasLanier, ShakespeareandModernPopularCulture
HesterLees-Jeffries, ShakespeareandMemory
AniaLoomba, Shakespeare,Race,andColonialism
RaphaelLyne, Shakespeare’sLateWork
RussMcDonald, ShakespeareandtheArtsofLanguage
StevenMarx, ShakespeareandtheBible
RobertS.Miola, Shakespeare’sReading
MarianneNovy, ShakespeareandOutsiders
PhyllisRackin, ShakespeareandWomen
CatherineRichardson, ShakespeareandMaterialCulture
DucanSalkeld, ShakespeareandLondon
StuartSillars,ShakespeareandtheVictorians
BruceR.Smith, ShakespeareandMasculinity
ZdenekStríbrny, ShakespeareandEasternEurope
MichaelTaylor, ShakespeareCriticismintheTwentiethCentury
AldenT.VaughanandVirginiaMasonVaughan, ShakespeareinAmerica
StanleyWells,ed., ShakespeareintheTheatre:AnAnthologyofCriticism
MartinWiggins, ShakespeareandtheDramaofhisTime
ForFinneasandDelia
Acknowledgements
I’mgratefultotheeditorsoftheOxfordShakespeareTopicsSeries, LenaCowenOrlin,PeterHolland,andStanleyWells,aswellasto EllieCollinsatOxfordUniversityPress,forencouragementand support.Thankyoutothosewhocommentedonchaptersinprogress, amongthemFranTeague,LindaZatlin,LisaUlevich,AlisonLigon, AllisonKellar,andCordaroShaw.ThankyoutoDavidBellwood (Shakespeare’sGlobe),JosefaMacKinnon(RoyalShakespeareCompany),andJulieSimon(OregonShakespeareFestival),whogenerouslygavetheirtimeforSkypeinterviews:I’mgratefulfortheir contributiontothisbookandtotheworkofcreatingaccesstotheatre forpeoplewithdisabilities.PortionsofChapter3 firstappearedas “AutisticCulture,ShakespeareTherapyandtheHunterHeartbeat Method” in ShakespeareSurvey 72(ed.EmmaSmith,2019, pp.256–67)andarereprintedherewiththepermissionofCambridge UniversityPressthroughPLSclear.Thankyoutomyresearchassistants,JabrilLoveladyandArtimusCunningham:Jabrilwasalways patientwithme,andArtimuslearned first-handaboutworkingwith andthroughcriptime.Thankstothefriendswhohelpedmetothink throughchaptersandworkthroughstress,especiallyStephanieFrankumLewis,AnderaJoyRichardson,andAliceSheppard.Finally, thankyoutomyamazinghusband,MattLoftis,andmywonderful mother,SusanFreeman,whoprovidedemotionalsupport,childcare, andpeptalks.
I’mgratefultomystudentsatMorehouseCollege,especiallythe studentsinmyIntroductiontoDisabilityStudiesclassesandmy DisabilityandRaceclassesduringthe2018–20schoolyears.Many studentsparticipatedindiscussionsaboutthedisabilityissuesdiscussedinthisbookduringclass,duringofficehours,andbyemail: specialthankstoCordaroShaw,StevenAnderson,JulianHemmings, ArtimusCunningham,JabrilLovelady,andDaleKight.
1.Cripping(andRe-Cripping)Richard:WasRichardIII Disabled?18
2.MakingitAccessible:BuildingAccessinShakespearian Spaces51
3.PlayforAll:ShakespeareTherapyandtheConceptof Inclusion77
4.NeurodiverseShakespeares:MentalDisabilityin StillDreaming 101 Afterword:TheBrilliantRedofShakespeare119
Introduction
Theory,Access,Inclusion
I’maShakespearian,andIhaveadisability.Insomesituations,Ido notneedanydisabilityaccommodationstoengagewithShakespeare’ s plays.Inothers,Ineedsomanyaccommodationsthatitisdifficultto includeme.Forexample,theexpectationssetfortheatregoers(sitting stillinacrowdedtheatre)werenotdesignedforsomeonewithmy impairments.Thus,IamaShakespearianwhorarelygoestothe theatre.Modernrequirementsfortravel(flyingonaplane,stayingin ahotel,navigatingcitystreets)werenotdesignedwithmeinmind either.Thus,IamaShakespearianwhorarelytravelstoprofessional conferences,andonewhonevertravelswithoutsubstantialhelp.Itis difficultformetonavigatetoandfromandaroundthecampus library almosteverythingIreadasIwasresearchingthisbook cametomeelectronically(viainterlibraryloanorKindlee-book). BecauseIamaShakespearianwhoseexperienceofdisabilityaffects myaccesstowhatmanypeopleconsidertobecentraltothestudyof Shakespeare(attendingplays,goingtolectures,readinginthelibrary), Ihaveapersonalinvestmentinthetopicofthisbook:thecritical connectionsbetweendisabilitystudiesandShakespearestudies.
Whilethereareimportantintersectionsbetweenthesetwo fieldsin myownlife,thejoiningofShakespearestudiesanddisabilitystudies hasseemedlikealessintuitiveuniontosomescholars.Asaninterdisciplinary fieldofcriticalinquiry,disabilitystudiesgrewintandem withthedisabilityrightsmovement,anddisabilitystudiesapproaches toliteraturehaveincreasedinpopularitysincethe1990s.Likefeminist theory,criticalracetheory,andqueertheory,disabilitytheoryfocuses
onaminorityexperienceofembodiment,examinesthewaysthatthis embodimentcanbeunderstoodasaculturalconstruct,andinvestigatesthepowerdynamicbetweentheassumed ‘ norm ’ (thatwhichis labelled ‘able-bodied’)andthosewhoexperiencethesocialeffectsof theminoritylabel.Giventhehistoryofdiscriminationandoppression thatpeoplewithdisabilitieshaveexperienced,prioritizingthelived experienceofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasasourceofknowledgeisa centraltenetofdisabilitystudies.Ableistdiscriminationandassumptionsmeanthatitisalltoocommonforadultswithdisabilitiestobe treatedasthoughtheywerechildrenandforthemtobeseenas ‘incompetent’ tospeakforthemselvesortomaketheirowndecisions (thisisespeciallytrueforthosewithmentaldisabilities).Comingin thewakeofamodernhistoryinwhichmanypeoplewithphysicaland mentaldisabilitieswereinstitutionalized,theirdecisionsmadefor thembyparentsorcaregivers,thisprioritizingoflivedexperienceas asourceofknowledgeisencapsulatedinthemottoofthedisability rightsmovement: ‘Nothingaboutuswithoutus’.Hence,theopening ofthisbook,inwhichIdisclosemyowndisability,isacommon criticalmanoeuvreindisabilitystudiesscholarship butamore unusualoneinShakespearestudies.Afarmoretraditional fieldof criticalinquiry,Shakespearecriticismmoreoftenconveysasenseof theauthorasadisengagedanddisembodiedcriticwhoreadstheworks ofShakespearefromanimaginedimpersonalviewpoint.Unsurprisingly,mostapplicationsofdisabilitytheorytoShakespearefollowthis ‘disembodiedShakespearian’ stance,focusingonRenaissancecharactersthatamodernaudiencemightviewasdisabledratherthan examiningthelivedrealityofusersofShakespearewithdisabilities. However,thisconceptionofdisabilityasresidingwithinindividual literarycharactershaslimitedunderstandingsofdisabilityin Shakespearestudies.1 Bytheorizingdisabilityvis-à-vischaracters, manystudieshavelargelyoverlookedreaders,performers,andaudiencememberswhoself-identifyasdisabled.Thus,thisbookfocuses onwaystoreadShakespearethroughthelensofcriticaldisability theorythatworkoutsideofliterarycharacter,encouragingusersof ShakespearetoconsiderhowShakespeare(asindustry,ashighart,as culturalsymbol)affectsthelivedrealityofthosewithdisabledbodies and/orminds.
DisabilityTheoryandShakespeare
Oddlyenough,earlymoderndisabilitystudies’ centralfocusonliterary characterssometimesleadsthe fieldindirectionsthatarenotin keepingwiththebodyofscholarshippublishedindisabilitystudies proper;specifically,thefocusonanindividualbodyinsuchcriticismis atoddswiththelargertrajectoryofthe field,whichemphasizes disabilityasaminorityculturalexperience.Disabilitystudies revealsdisabilityasacomplexandspecificallyculturalphenomenon. Ioften findthatmyable-bodiedstudentshavegivenlittlethoughtto thismatter:manycomeintomyclassesunderstanding ‘disability’ asa simplefactofbiology(thisbodyand/ormindisdifferentfromthe able-bodiednorm).Inotherwords,mostofthemareonlyfamiliar withthemedicalmodelofdisability aworldviewthatseesdisability asanindividualdeficitorprobleminneedoftreatmentorcure. Disabilitytheorypositsotherwaysofunderstandingdisability;for example,thesocialmodelofdisabilitycreatesadistinctionbetween ‘impairment’ and ‘disability’,defining ‘impairment’ asthebiological factofdifferenceand ‘disability’ asthephysicalandsocialenvironment’sfailuretoaccommodateimpairment.Thus,someonewho cannotwalkisimpaired butheorsheisonlydisabledwhenencounteringanenvironmentthatusesstairsinsteadofprovidingwheelchair ramps.Inthisway,thesocialmodelofdisabilityviewsdisabilityasa socialconstruct:impairmentisabiologicalfact,butthroughthefailure tocreateaccommodatingenvironmentsthatwelcomedifferentkinds ofbodiesandminds,humansocietycreatesdisability.
Mypersonalexperienceofdisabilityhastaughtmethatableistsocial attitudesandunaccommodatingenvironmentscreatemanyofthe challengesinmylife thesedifficultiesarerarelycausedsimplyby myimpairment.Iftheable-bodiednormisitselfasocialconstruct,itis possibletoimagineaworldinwhicheveryonehadmyimpairments and,inthatworld,everything(includingtheatresandlibraries)would bedesignedsothatpeoplewithmyimpairmentscouldeasilynavigate andusethem.Ratherthanregardingimpairmentasapathological state,asthemedicalmodelofdisabilitydoes,thesocialmodelof disabilityregardsimpairmentasanormalformofhumandiversity. Forexample,theneurodiversitymovement,asubsetofthedisability
rightsmovement,arguesthatmentaldisability(autism,schizophrenia, intellectualdisability)isanaturalandpotentiallyvaluableformof humandiversity.Fromthismovement,wegainnewterminologyfor mentaldisability:aneurodiversepersonissomeonewithamental disability,whileaneurotypicalpersonissomeonewhodoesnothave amentaldisability.Disabilitystudies’ emphasisondisabilityascultural constructalsoemphasizesdisability asculture.Althoughthemedical modelregardsdisabilityasa ‘problem’ thatresideswithinindividual bodiesandminds,disabilitystudiesrecognizesdisabilityasafundamentallyculturalmatter peoplewithdifferentkindsofdisabilities (blindpeople,autisticpeople)formculturalgroupswiththeirown uniquedisabilitysubcultures.Ironically,earlymodernstudiesthat focusonliterarycharactermayunintentionallyparallelthemedical modelofdisability.Byregardingdisabilityasanindividualdifference thatresideswithineachseparateliterarycharacter(ratherthanasa broadersocialphenomenonthataffectsreaders,audiencemembers, andperformers),manyofthesereadingsforegrounddisabilityasan individualconditionthatonecharacter/figurehasasopposedto regardingdisabilityasasocialphenomenonthatbringscertainpeople togetherintoadisabilitycommunity.
Indeed,disabilitystudiesreadingsofShakespeariancharactershave avexedcriticalhistory.Inspiteoftherapidgrowthofdisabilitystudies asa fieldofliterarycriticism,scholarsapplyingdisabilitytheoryto literaryworkshavefacedawidevarietyofcriticalmisconceptions.As DavidHoustonWoodhasnoted,thereis ‘ageneral,ifnotinstitutional,reluctancetoengagedisabilityasatheoreticalmodelforearly moderntopics’ ,a ‘scholarlyhesitationtopursueearlymoderndisability studiesasaseriouscriticaltheoreticalparadigm’ . 2 Confrontedwith doubtaboutthedefinitionofdisabilityitselfandhauntedbyaccusationsofanachronism,earlymoderndisabilitystudieshasfacedoppositionfromdisabilitystudiesscholarsaswellasShakespearians.3 The questionofwhatconstitutesa ‘disability’ isnotoriouslydifficultto define thus,itisnotsurprisingthattoclaimaShakespeariancharacter(anyShakespeariancharacter)asdisabledisoftenmetwith scepticism.Definitionsofwhatcountsas ‘disability’ inthemodern worldareoften flexibleandvague.Forexample,theAmericanswith DisabilitiesAct(ADA)offersadefinitionofdisabilitythatis extremelybroad:theADAclaimsthatapersonwithadisabilityisa
personwhohas ‘aphysicalormentalimpairmentthatsubstantially limitsoneormoremajorlifeactivities;hasarecordofsuchan impairment;orisregardedashavingsuchanimpairment’ . 4 According tothisdefinition,theterm ‘disability’ couldapplytoanyonewithany kindofphysicalormentaldifferencethatlimitstheiractivityina significantway,anyonewhohasbeenmedicallylabelledas ‘disabled’ or hasapasthistoryofthelabel,oranyonewhomotherpeople perceive to bedisabled.Thisdefinitionallowsforanincrediblywidevarietyof conditionstobeconsideredas ‘disabilities’,anditisonlyonepossible definitionamongmany.
Atoonarrowconceptionofwhatdisabilityiseasilymisleads:when askedaboutdisabilityandShakespeare,manycanthinkofonlyone characterinShakespeare’stextswhomightbeconsideredas disabled RichardIII.5 Althoughitistruethatdisabilitytheory’ s engagementwithShakespeareinitiallyfocusedprimarilyon RichardIII(MitchellandSnyder’sfamousreadingin NarrativeProsthesis isagoodexample),morerecentcharacter-centredapproaches havecometofocusonawidevarietyofcharactersandtypesof impairment:CaesarandOthellohaveseizures, KingLear’sGloucester isblind, TheTamingoftheShrew’sKatherineisdescribedbyPetruchio aswalkingwithalimp,manyofShakespeare’stragicheroesaresaid tobe ‘mad’ atonepointoranother,anddisabilityreadingsin Shakespearecanbe(andhavebeen)extendedtoincludeobesityand infertility.6 Earlymoderndisabilitystudieshasalsoexpandedto includenon-ShakespearianRenaissancedrama: EarlyModernTheatre andtheFigureofDisability and DissemblingDisabilityinEarlyModern England arebothrecentbooksthatoffercharacter-basedreadingsof disabilityinnon-Shakespearianplaysfromtheearlymodernera.7
Criticalsuspicionaboutthesesortsofreadingsoftenstemsfrom largerculturalanxietiesabouthowdisabilityshouldbedefined.Uncertaintyaboutdefiningdisabilitysometimesbetraysableistfearsthat peoplewhoclaimtohaveadisabilitymaybe ‘fakingit’ inordertotake advantageofofferedaccommodationsorcharity.Infact,peoplewith ‘invisible’ disabilitiesfrequently findthatanyclaimtothelabelof disabilityintheabsenceofavisiblemarkerofimpairmentisalltoo oftenmetwithsuspicionandhostility.8 Becausemydisabilityisnot visibleandIamabletopassasable-bodied,Ioncehadafreshman classthatadamantlyarguedwithme,tryingtoconvincemethatIam
notdisabled.Onotheroccasions,myneedforaccommodations duringtravelhasbeenmetwith(inappropriateifnotalwaysunkind) interrogationsaboutthenatureofmydisability.Thestatusof ‘disability’ isaninherentlyephemeraland flexiblelabel.Impairmentscanbe invisible,andpainalmostalwaysis.Someimpairmentscanvaryin severityfromdaytoday.Animpairmentthatisextremelydifficultin onesituationorenvironmentmayposenodifficultlyinanother.Thus, disabilityisalways fluid,neverstaticor fixed.Inthefaceofthisprotean force,thereisanoverwhelmingculturaldesiretolabel,classify,and definedifferenttypesofdisabilities:indeed,disabilitystudiesscholars havearguedthatourmodernculturalmomentisobsessedwithhow disabilityisdefined,labelled,andregulated.9 Itistheseveryconcerns aboutaccuracyandfraudthathaveproducedacultureinwhich studentsmustofferlargeamountsofpaperworkanddocumentation (oftenlargeamountsofpaperworkanddocumentationcostingtheir familiesthousandsofdollars)inordertosecureevenbasicclassroom accommodations.Allofthisharkensbacktothemedicalmodel ofdisability inamodelinwhichthemedicalprofessioncontrols thedefinitionofwhatdisabilityis,thelabelof ‘disability’ requiresthe documentationofaphysicianorpsychiatrist.Thus,thepowerto definedisabilityisgenerallycontrolledbyable-bodiedmedicalauthorities.Thisisyetanotherexampleofthewaysinwhichpeoplewith disabilitiescanberenderedvoicelessandinwhichtheiropinionsabout theexperienceofdisabilitycanbediscountedordiscredited.Our culturehastaughtpeopletoregarddisabilitywithsuspicion,andthe relianceonofficialpaperworkanddocumentationtoassuagefearsof malingeringandfraudonlyservestoreinforcedoubtsincaseswhere copiousmedicaldocumentationislacking.Ifpeoplewithdisabilities havetoworryaboutaccusationsoffraud,itmakessensethatreadings ofliterarycharactersasdisabledmightalsobemetwithsuspicionfrom literarycritics.Ifitisdifficulttoconvincesomeonethatanactual personisdisabled,itwillbeevenmoredifficulttoconvincehimthat animaginarypersonis.
Evenoncetheviewofwhatconstitutesdisabilityisexpandedtothe widestpossiblescopeandFalstaff ’sfatnessisreadasdisability,thus provingtheviabilityofdisabilitystudiesreadingsinShakespeare studiesviathesheernumberofcharactersconsidered,such character-centredreadingsmustcontendwithongoingclaimsthat
theyareanachronistic.Moderndisabilityterminologyiscomplicated, andearlymoderndisabilityterminologyevenmoreso.Leading scholarsindisabilitystudies,suchasLennardJ.Davis,haveargued that ‘disability’ asaconceptisaninventionofthelateeighteenthand nineteenthcenturiesandthatunderstandingsof ‘disability’ arosein relationtotheconceptofthestatistical ‘ norm ’ . 10 Consequently,some Shakespearians,suchasJeffreyR.Wilson,havearguedthatdisability hasnoplaceinShakespearestudies.11 Becauseearlymodernpeople hadnounderstandingofdisabilityasanidentitycategory,some scholarsclaimthatearlymoderndisabilitystudiesisfundamentally anachronistic.Thus,criticscontinuetocontesttheviabilityof ‘crip’ (a reclamationofthedisabilityslurword ‘crippled’ asamarkerofdisabilityprideandidentity)theoryreadingsofearlymoderntexts even ofcharacters,likeRichardIII,whoopenlydescribethemselvesas havingphysicalimpairments.Itistruethatdisabilitywasnotunderstoodasaminorityidentitycategoryintheearlymodernperiod,and althoughthetermdisabilitywas firstusedtomean ‘aphysicalor mentalconditionthatlimitsaperson’smovements,senses,oractivities’ in1492, ‘deformed’ wasbyfarthemorefrequentlyusedtermin Shakespeare’sday.12 TheseobjectionstodisabilitystudiesinShakespearearecompletelyvalid andalsoabsolutelyirrelevant.Elizabeth Beardenpointsoutthatearlymodernpeoplehadaconceptionofwhat wasconsidered ‘natural’ eveniftheydidnotusetheconceptofthe ‘ norm, ’ arguingthat ‘LennardDavisdeftlyexcavatesthedevelopment ofthestatisticalnormanditsimplicationsforthesocialconstruction ofdisability,buthemissesthemarkinclaimingthatinpremodern societies,nonorminginfluencemaybefound’ . 13 Certainly,itwas possibleforearlymodernpeopletoapprehenddifferencesinbodies andmindsandtolabelthosebodiesandmindsdeemeddifferentas ‘deformed’ or ‘mad’ .
Moreimportantly,argumentsagainstdisabilitystudiesapproaches toShakespeareelidethepotentialofcriptheoryreadingsoftheliterary pasttoaffectourunderstandingofthelivedandembodiedpresent. Shakespearestudiesdidnotendintheearlymodernperiod.Thatis whenit began.Toeliminatetheword ‘disability’ fromdiscussionsof ShakespeareistoignorethemodernusestowhichShakespeareisput. Itistoignorethemodernreaders,audiencemembers,andactorswho engagewithShakespeareandhavedisabilities.Tosaythattheword
‘disability’ shouldnotbeusedinrelationtoShakespeareittoignore modernoppressionbecauseofearlymodernsemantics.Suchargumentsmayseemtoimplythat,whiletheinteractionofable-bodied peoplewithShakespeare’splaysisasubjectworthyofstudy,the engagementofpeoplewithdisabilitieswithShakespeare’splaysis notasubjectworthyofstudy.Iwillnotarguethatearlymodernpeople self-identifiedasdisabledinthemodernsenseoftheterm.Rather, Iwillarguethatsincemodernreadersself-identityasdisabled(orablebodied),thewaythatthosereadersreadShakespearematters.
DisabilityAccessandShakespeare
Whiletherearelimitationsinandcomplicationstoapplyingdisability theorytoShakespeare’scharacters,therearealsokeyreasonstokeep the fieldsofShakespearestudiesanddisabilitystudiesindialoguewith eachother.Character-basedreadingsofdisabilitycontributesignificantlytoknowledgeaboutwhatdisabilitywasinearliercultures.There isvalueformodernpeoplewithdisabilitiesinexploringthehistoryof disabilityanditsrepresentationinearlierliteraturesandcultures: reclaimingthelosthistoryofaculturalminoritygroupisanundertakingwellworthmaking.14 Moreimportantly,excludingdisabilityas asubjectofdiscussionfromShakespearestudieswouldbetheultimate symbolicfailureofwhatdisabilitystudiesterms ‘ access ’.Disability accessisachievedwhenaphysicalenvironment,informationinfrastructure,orsocialnetworkismadeavailabletosomeonewitha particularimpairment:theenvironment,infrastructure,ornetworkis constructedinsuchawaysothatsomeonewithaspecificimpairment caneasilyandfullyuseit.Failuresofaccesssometimesindicatefailures ofimagination theymaysuggestthatthedesignersoftheenvironmentorprogrammehavefailedtoimaginethatacertainkindof personexists.Forexample,abuildingthatisconstructedwithout rampsorelevatorshasfailedtoprepareforsomeonewhousesa wheelchair:whenthebuildingwasdesigned,thearchitectdidnot imaginethatsomeonewhocouldnotwalkwouldeverneedtoenter thebuilding.Whenatheatrecompanyputsonathree-hourproductionof Hamlet thatwouldrequiremetositstill,incloseproximityto theaudiencemembersoneithersideofme,inalargeandnoisytheatre containinghundredsofpeople,itdidnotoccurtothemthatsomeone
withmyimpairmentsmightwanttocometotheshow.Inthisway, failuresofaccessare,attheirbest,unintentionalfailuresofhospitality (‘Wearesorry wedidnotimaginesomeonelikeyoucominghere’). Attheirworst,failuresofaccesscanbefundamentaldenialsofequality thatpreventsomeonewithadisabilityfromfullyparticipatingin society(‘Wefeelthatyouarefundamentallyunequaltoanablebodiedperson.Howcouldsomeonelikeyoupossiblyunderstand andappreciateShakespeare?’).
Failuresofaccessmeanthatpeoplewithdisabilitieswillnotbeable toparticipate(orfullyparticipate)inaparticularactivity,willexperiencesignificantpainorstressinordertoparticipate,orwillneed individualaccommodations(changestotheenvironmentorstructure) inordertoparticipate.Thus,creatingaccesscanhaveasubstantial impactonpeople’slives.Onthelogisticallevel,creatingaccessand/or providingaccommodationsmakesitpossibleformorepeople toparticipate.Ontheethicallevel,itallowspeoplewithdisabilities toparticipatefullyandequallyinsociety.Onthesociallevel,itmakes peoplewithdisabilitiesandtheircaregiversandfamilymembersfeel welcomeinspaces(whetherintellectual,social,orphysical)wherethey mightnototherwisefeelwelcome.Ontheintellectuallevel,creating accessand/orprovidingaccommodationsremindsallofusofthe diversityandvalueofdifferentkindsofhumanbodiesand/orminds. Forthesereasons(andothers),oneofthemajorgoalsofthemodern disabilityrightsmovementisto fightforequalaccessforpeoplewith disabilities.ToexcludedisabilitystudiesfromShakespearestudies wouldbeasymbolicfailureofaccess,afailureoftheShakespearian imaginationtoanticipatethepresenceofdifferentkindsofbodiesand minds.
Ifwearethinkingspecificallyaboutequalaccesstoeducation,art, andhighculture,Shakespearenaturallybecomesacontestedzonefor disabilityequalityintheintellectualrealm.ThatShakespearehasa specialculturalpower,asymbolicimportgiventonootherauthorin theWesterncanon,cannotbedenied;thus,therearemultiplereasons whyquestionsofaccesstoShakespeare(ratherthantotheworksof otherauthors)areparticularlyloaded.Socialjusticecallsforthefull equalityandinclusionofpeoplewithdisabilities andthatincludes equalaccesstoeducation.Whetherwepersonallybelievethat Shakespeareisforeveryone(IdonotbelievethatShakespeareisfor
everyone),itisclearthat,atleastintheEnglish-speakingworld, Shakespearehasbecomeasymbolofelitecultureandhighart knowledgeofShakespeareisoftentakenasthedefinitiveproofof beingwellreadandwelleducated.Inmanyhighschools,colleges,and universities,educationincludesShakespeare,andhisworksarea standardstapleofthecurriculum.Thus,therearelotsofstudents whohavedisabilitieswhoaredesiringtoengagewith(orarebeing requiredtoengagewith)Shakespeare.Oneoftheprimaryarguments ofthisbookisthatanunderstandingofdisabilitytheoryisessentialfor scholars,teachers,anddirectorsofShakespeare.Statisticssuggestthat asmanyasoneoutoffourpeoplecouldpotentiallybeconsideredas disabled.15 Sinceprovidingqualityaccommodationsandpedagogical materialsforuserswithdisabilitiesrequiresabasicunderstandingof disabilitytheory,teachersanddirectorsofShakespearewhowishto reachgeneralaudienceshaveagoodreasontoengagewithdisability studies.SurelyShakespeareshouldnotbedeniedtooneoutofevery fourpeople.Toreturntothesymbolicimportofaccessasdelineated above,todenyorrefusedisabilityaplaceinShakespearestudiesisto denythatreaders,students,audiencemembers,scholars,andtheatre practitionerswithdisabilitiesexist.AslongasthereareShakespearians withdisabilitiesinourclassrooms,theatres,andlibraries,weshould haveShakespeareanddisabilitystudies andnotsimplyanengagement withliterarycharacterbutalsoanengagementwiththelivedexperience ofusersofShakespearewithmentalandphysicaldisabilities.
IfpeoplewithdisabilitiesshouldhaveequalaccesstoShakespeare, therearestillalotoftheoreticalandpracticalquestionsthatremain abouthowShakespearianscanorshouldworktogethertocreate disabilityaccess.Creatingaccessisimportant,butitisnoteasy.One ofthegoalsofdisabilitystudiesasacritical fieldistoachieveuniversal design to findawaytomakeeverythingaccessibletoeveryoneinall situations.Asatheoreticalideal,universaldesigniswonderful.Asa realisticachievement,itisimpossible.16 Somedisabilityaccommodationswillnaturallyconflictwitheachother forexample,making musicloudersothatpeoplewhoarehardofhearingcanhearitwill causesensoryoverloadforautisticaudiencememberswhoarehypersensitivetosound.17 Inaddition,aclassroomattemptingtoprovide universaldesignwouldbeextremelyexpensivetocreateandtimeconsumingtomaintain;andsinceoneclasswouldnotbelikelyto
containstudentswitheverydisabilityimaginable,itisprobablethat manyexpensiveaccommodationswouldregularlygounused. Althoughuniversaldesignisatheoreticalidealthatcanneverbe fullyachieved,approachingpedagogyandtheatricalpracticewiththe mindsetofuniversaldesigncanhavebenefitsforbothstudentsand audiences.
Thisbookarguesthatthereisacomplexinterdependenceamong theory,access,andinclusion demonstratingthecrucialroleofdisabilitytheoryincreatingaccessandexaminingthewaysthataccess maybothopenandforecloseinclusivedramaticpractice.Thosewho wanttocreatequalitydisabilityaccessneedabasicunderstandingof disabilitytheory:attemptingtocreateaccesswithoutanunderstanding ofdisabilitytheoryandtheconcernsofthedisabilityrightsmovement canresultinaccessthatissuper ficial,unhelpful,orunsustainable. Sometimesitevenresultsin ‘ access ’ thatisnotreallyaccess.For example,ifamajorpremiseofdisabilitytheoryisthattheembodied andlivedexperiencedofdisabilityisavaluablesourceofknowledge, andthemottoofthedisabilityrightsmovementis ‘nothingaboutus withoutus’,thiswouldsuggestthatpeoplewithdisabilitiesshould haveleadershiprolesinconversationsaboutdisability.Disabilitytheorytellsusthatpeoplefromspecificdisabilitycommunitiesshouldbe involvedinplanningandimplementingprogrammesandperformancesthattargetpeoplewiththesamekindsofimpairments. Althoughthismightseemlikeacommon-sensesuggestion,many programmesforpeoplewithdisabilitiesarecompletelyrunbyablebodiedpeople.Whenprogrammesforpeoplewithdisabilitiesneglect centraltenetsofdisabilitystudies(suchasfailingtoincludepeople withdisabilitiesinleadershipandplanningroles),theeffortsofsuch programmesmayunintentionallycomeacrossaspatronizing.Thisis anexampleofaccessthatisnotreallyaccess theprogrammemight bedesignedforusersoraudiencememberswithdisabilities,butits leadershiprolesareonlyaccessibleforable-bodiedpeople.Ifwewish toseekaccess,wecanonlyseekthatgoalcompassionatelyandresponsiblybyunderstandingandapplyingdisabilitytheory.
Overthepasttwentyyears,Shakespearetheatreshavebeenparticularlyinnovativeintheareaofaccessibility.Thisis,inpart,because modernShakespearianshavealwaysbeendrivenbytheneedfor access.Shakespearehasacentralplaceinthecurriculum,andmaking
Shakespeareaccessibletostudentshaslongbeenagoalinthemodern classroom.All(good)teacherstrytomakethesubjectmatteraccessibletotheirstudents.Shakespearians,inparticular,areinspiredto workhardinthisarea:fourhundredyearshavealreadyreducedthe accessibilityofthesourcetextforlayreadersandaudiences.Indeed, popularcultureoftendepictsShakespeareasinherentlydifficultto understand.Shakespearehasbecometheclassicsymbolofthat whichishighbrow,andteachersanddirectorsarechargedwithmakinghisworkaccessibleforeveryone frompopularaudiencesto reluctanthighschoolers.ThismeansthatShakespeariansareina naturalpositiontoconsiderdisabilityaccess;itmakessensethat Shakespearetheatreswouldapproachdisabilityasjustonemore pointofpotentialinaccessibility.Afterall,Shakespeariansarealready trainedtothinkaboutaccesstoShakespeare’sworkintermsofsocial class,culturalrelatability,andeducationallevel.Infact,accessibilityis socentraltotheShakespearianmindsetthat ‘ access ’ isakeytermin themissionstatementsofboththeRoyalShakespeareCompanyand Shakespeare’sGlobe(formoreonthis,seeChapter2).Unsurprisingly, thesekindsofartisticvisionshaveledShakespearetheatressuch asShakespeare’sGlobe,theRoyalShakespeareCompany,andthe OregonShakespeareFestivaltobeparticularlyinnovativeinthearea ofdisabilityaccess.Accesscanbeartistic itcanbeanintegralpartof theperformanceexperience,shapingtheinterpretationbothofthe showandofShakespeare’stext.
DisabilityInclusionandShakespeare
OnedrivingforceinthesearchforaccessibleShakespeareisthe conceptof ‘inclusion’.Creatingan ‘inclusive’ environmentorprogrammemeansachievingaccessinsuchawaythatpeoplewitha varietyofdiversebodiesandmindscanparticipateequally.The theoreticalquestionsthatsurround ‘inclusiveShakespeare’ become particularlycomplexinthecaseofprogrammesthatemployShakespeare ’stextasaformoftherapy.Theuneasyalignmentoftherapy withtheconceptofcureraisesproblems,sincecureisacontroversial topicinmanydisabilitycommunities.Somepeoplewithdisabilities regardtheirimpairmentasanessentialpartofself-identityanddonot wanttobecured.Shakespearetherapyprogrammesareoftenindanger
ofreplicatingthepowerdynamicsofthemedicalmodel,inwhich thosewhooffertherapyandcure(theable-bodiedteacherofShakespeare)isplacedinapositionofpowerovertheparticipantsinthe programme(peoplewithdisabilities).Thesearchforgenuineinclusionisfraughtwithcomplexethicalquestions,inpartbecauseinclusionisdifficulttodefine.Ingeneral,Iwouldsaythatinclusionusually entailsbothparticipatingequallyandparticipatingtogether.Some Shakespearetherapyprogrammesencouragebothofthosegoals (equalparticipationforpeoplewithdisabilitiesandable-bodied people,aswellaspeoplewithdisabilitiesandable-bodiedpeople participatingtogether).However,someShakespearetherapyprogrammesencourageneither,offeringunequalparticipation(therapy isgivenbytheable-bodiedandreceivedbypeoplewithdisabilities) anddiscouragingcertainpeoplefromparticipatingtogether(for example,offeringseparateperformancesthataredesignedforpeople withaspecifictypeofdisabilityratherthanaccommodatingthose audiencemembersinperformancesintendedforthegeneralpublic). However,genuineinclusiondoesnotalwaysinvolveequalparticipationandparticipatingtogether,bothofwhichmaysometimesbe logisticallyimpossible(seeChapter3).
SomeShakespearetherapyprogrammesarebasedonbeliefsthat Shakespeare’splayssomehowencapsulatewhatitmeanstobehuman. ApopularculturebeliefthatShakespeare’splaysexpresssomething uniquelyhumaniscommon;however,theconceptthatShakespeare’ s workscontainsomethingquintessentialaboutthehumanmayleadto thefeelingthathumansneedShakespeare thatShakespeareisnecessary inordertobe human. 18 Suchideasmayleadpeopletofeelthatto knowandappreciateShakespearesomehowprovesthatoneis human.19 IfShakespeareexpressesthehumanandisneededtovalidatehumanity,onemaycometoseeShakespeareasbeingableto restorehumanitywhereitisbelievedtobelacking;fromthislineof thinkingcomesthebeliefthatShakespeare’slanguagemaybeableto healpeoplewithdisabilities.Ableistattitudeshavelongimagined peoplewithdisabilitiesasless-than-peopleornothuman.20 Shakespearetherapysometimescombinesthesearchfortreatmentwitha needtorestoreahumannatureimaginedtobemissing,joiningthe medicalmodel’sagendathatseekstoeliminatedisabilityfromsociety
throughtreatmentorcurewiththebeliefthatthosewithdisabilities willnotberestoredtofullhumanitywithouttreatmentorcure.
Inaddition,manyShakespearetherapyprogrammesareinvestedin theideathatShakespeareis ‘universal’.ThebeliefthatShakespeare shouldbelongtoeveryonemayinspireadesiretocreateprogrammes thatareinclusive.Thus,iftherearedisabilitycommunitiesthat seemtolackaccesstoShakespeare,acolonialimpulseisborn:the able-bodied/neurotypicalShakespearianmust findawaytobring Shakespearetothosewhoareperceivedtobewithouthim.21 Ironically,Shakespearetherapyprogrammespresentasituationinwhich inclusionmaybecomeexclusion:theimpulsetocureissometimesthe impulsetoeliminatedisableddiversity.Inthisway,someShakespeare therapyprogrammesmaydescribethemselvesas ‘inclusive’ (because theyaremakingShakespeareaccessibletopeoplewithdisabilities), whenthey,infact,arenot(sincetheirmotiveto findtreatmentorcure ultimatelyseekstoenddisabilityratherthantoincludeit).When divorcedfromdisabilitytheory,thedesiretoincludecanbetransformedintothedrivetohealorcureandbecome,inboththoughtand practice,aformofcovertexclusion.However,therearewaysinwhich someShakespearetherapyprogrammesfunctionsuccessfullywithout embracingthemedicalmodelandwhilefosteringagenuinesenseof inclusionforpeoplewithdisabilities(seeChapter3).
Intheend,absoluteinclusionmaybeimpossibletoachieve,butthat doesnotmeanthatweshouldnotstriveforourclassrooms,performances,andprogrammestobeasinclusiveaspossible.MaybeShakespeareisnotforeveryone,butIwouldlikeforhisworks,performances ofhisworks,scholarshipabouthisworks,andthebodyofknowledge andsocialnetworksthatconstituteShakespearestudiestobeavailable tothefullestextentpossibletothelargestandmostdiverseaudiences possible.Ofcourse,theveryconceptofmakingShakespeareinclusive mayraiseissuesforsometeachersandscholars.First,academiaplaces valueonitsstatusasthatwhichisintellectuallyelite;toopenacademic spacestodifferentkindsofmindsmayraisequestions,forsome teachers,regardingacademicrigour.Forexample,somemightwonder whetherShakespeare’stextshouldbemadeaccessibletothosewith intellectualdisabilities(peoplewhotestashavingalowIQ).Ifso, thereareplentyofquestionsabouthowfullaccesstoShakespearefor thosewithintellectualdisabilitiesmightbestbeachieved.Second,
manyprogrammesandperformancesmakeShakespeareaccessibleby makingfundamentalchangestoShakespeare’stext.Forexample, FluteTheatrehasexperimentedwithproductionsinwhichShakespeare ’splaysarepareddowntobemoreaccessibleforaudience memberswithmentaldisabilities.22 IfShakespeare’stextissimplified tobemoreaccessible,someShakespearians(seeingthemselvesasthe guardiansofintellectualrigour)mightregardthisnotastheinclusivity ofShakespearebutratherasareductionofShakespeare.However,itis alsopossibletounderstandsuchuseofShakespeareasexpanding Shakespeare notonlybyincludingnewaudiencesbutalsoby encouragingspecificdisabilitycommunitiestoappropriateShakespeare ’stextsinwaysthatareuniqueandauthenticrepresentations ofthosecommunities.Ihopethatthisbookwillencouragescholars, teachers,anddirectorstocreatebothartistryandintellectualrigourin waysthatwillengagethewidestpossiblediversityofpotentialusersof Shakespeare.
CrippingShakespeareStudies
Thisbookisorganizedtofocusonthreekeythemesthatbuildoneach other:theory,access,andinclusion.Understandingandemploying disabilitytheory(Chapter1)arenecessarytocreatinghigh-qualityand meaningfulaccess(Chapter2).Withouttheoryandaccess,therecan benorealinclusion(Chapters3and4).Eachchapterfocusesona differentkindofShakespearianencounterwithdisability,fromthe theoreticalandhistorical(Shakespearestudies’ theoreticalresponsesto thebodyofRichardIII)tothepracticalandcontemporary(accessible performances,Shakespeare-basedtherapy,performancesincluding actorswithdisabilities).The firstchapter, ‘Cripping(andReCripping)Richard:WasRichardIIIDisabled?’,tackleskeyquestions ofterminology,identity,andhistoricalidentification.OfferingadifferentkindofcripreadingofShakespeare’svillainousking,this chapterfollowsthehistoryofcriticalreceptionsof RichardIII into thepresent,seekingtoanswerthesymbolicallycentralquestionof disabilitystudiesasahistorical field: ‘wasRichardIIIdisabled?’ . Examiningthewaysinwhichthecharacterhasbeeninterpretedby readersandportrayedinstageand filmperformance,thechapter addressesShakespearestudies’ historicalresistancetoRichard’ s
