The main message throughout the film was that disabled bodies are just as functional, if not more, as able-bodied persons. The USA paraplegic rugby team is a fierce example of what disabled persons can accomplish. The documentary explains the relative aspects of becoming, being, and embracing physical disabilities. There were examples of many different ways these men became disabled; ranging from polio, blood disorders, neurological disorders, fights, and car accidents. You can’t predict what situations you may be placed into, you can only challenge yourself to rise above them.
Keith, experienced a motocross accident that put him into a wheel chair for the rest of his life. While he will regain most of his strength within two years, his body will be relatively fragile until then. Physically disabled persons can live similar lives to that of the default category (able-bodies). He was deeply inspired by Mark Zupan (USA Paralympic team captain) during his visit. Zupan’s ability to invite and confide in the friend who placed him in a wheel chair was not only moving, but a step towards coming to terms with his accident. A large process of becoming disabled is going through the motions of denial and acceptance. His friends claimed that he was grumpy to begin with; the wheel chair had no inherent effects on his personality. However, I found that his fierce athleticism was more implicit in his personality then being “grumpy.” This was an aspect I feel many of the men displayed in this video.
Smith writes that we assume all cripples are either the “Good Cripple” or “Bad Cripple.”
She says:
“The Good Cripple is the safe, comfortable depiction of disability. Good Cripples don't want to rock the boat. They are quiet, and patient. They are stoic. They never complain. Not about pain, not about lack of accessibility, not about the piles of medication they take every day, not about anything. Indeed, the Good Cripple is cheerful. Upbeat. The Good Cripple will do well in spite of disability, the disability is an obstacle to be overcome, but cheerfully overcome. Preferably in an “inspiring” way.”
Please watch this video and tell me what you think. Inspiring? Yes. Disability is not an excuse, is the ultimate message I got from the film. Does this make him the “good cripple” because of his ability to triumph or a deviation from his already deviant group?
What do we assume is disabled?
Those both physically or mentally deviant from the default or able-bodied community. Our underlying assumption is to lump both groups together-deviant is deviant, right? Wrong. Mentally disabled is a separate matter from physically disabled. The social construction of able-bodied is based on our values, so how do we value disabled-bodied persons? We lump them.
There is an assumption that disabled people cannot do what able-bodies can. Can they play sports? Yes. Can they have sex? Yes. Like Temple Grandin suggests, “the world needs all types of minds to work together.” Just because some people do not fit the standard default, doesn’t mean that the same exact things aren’t possible. The men on the Paralympic rugby team are assigned points for their movement abilities. The points range from .05-3.5, based on arm function, hand movement, and various other things. Players on the court cannot exceed 8.0 points total. Andy, one of the players, is a 2.0 because he has arm function but limited hand function. The lower one’s score, the higher their movement ability.
The movie did an excellent job of representing this when one player shared a personal story about meeting his girlfriend’s aunt at the wedding. She asked him if he was getting ready to participate in the Special Olympics. He said he “went from being the man of the year, to a f***ing re***d.” We assume that disabled means you can’t do for yourself, you need to be pitied. The default position is secure if we assume the deviant desire is to be like the default. I found the representation of assumptions about disabled bodies to be the most convincing argument throughout the film. There are many things (like sex, that I’ve wondered about but never questioned) that we assume they’re incapable of. I did not find anything unconvincing. Taylor expresses how deviant can affect each person differently, when around those who are considered the default-many deviant members become more aware of their difference. When in similar community environments, their deviance isn’t seen as problematic. “People within the network, therefore, are not based on such characteristics,” (Taylor 179).
Research study?
I think it would be interesting to see how able-body rugby teams would do in “Murderball” in comparison with the men depicted in this film. Would the public have the same ability expectations of these men now that they must operate wheel chairs as opposed to using their feet? It would be important to ask such questions prior to and after the results of the game.
