Tag Archives: art

An Interview with Elisabeth Harrison, PhD Candidate in Critical Disability Studies at York University

An Interview With Elisabeth Harrison, PhD Candidate in Critical Disability Studies at York University.
By Derek Newman-Stille

Q: So, to start our interview, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Elisabeth (She/her or They/Them): Sure! I’m a PhD candidate in Critical Disability Studies at York, where I’m researching trans, genderqueer, gender non-binary and non-conforming people’s experiences in the mental health care system in Ontario. I’m 33, and I’m a white AFAB (Assigned Female At Birth) genderqueer femme. I come from Brockville, ON. I also identify as a psychiatric survivor, which is part of what brought me to the work I’ve been doing. Besides that all, I have a day job at the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto where I work for the Direct Funding Program.

I want to add at the start of our interview that my perspectives are my own and do not reflect those of my employer

Q: What got you interested in exploring Trans, genderqueer, and nonbinary experiences of mental health care?

Elisabeth: I think it’s a little bit of “me-search,” which is a phrase one of my research participants introduced me to.

Q: I really like that term “me-search”. What is it like to do research that brings yourself into the narrative? So often academics pretend that they research objectively, but there is something powerful about involving the personal in our research.

Elisabeth: Isn’t it a good phrase? The person who introduced me to it explained that it’s often used in a criticizing sense in their (allegedly “empirical”) field, but I liked it because it reflects the way that we bring ourselves to our work, and I think that’s important to acknowledge and it isn’t a bad thing. Obviously, as a community member I have some kinds of knowledge that can come with personal experience. But of course, this isn’t to say that my experience is also quite limited and shaped by the specificities of my identity. So even in doing “me-search,” I’m learning a lot about those limitations and learning so much from people who have had similar and different experiences to mine.

I was interested in this topic basically as a result of my own difficult experiences in what I perceived as a sexist, heterosexist and transphobic (not that I even knew that word at the time) mental health care system. The experiences I had seemed to be much more oriented toward control and maintaining unequal power structures than toward providing support or opportunities to heal, so I wanted to look into some aspects of that in my work.

Most of those experiences were when I was a teenager, so my knowledge was limited and I think some things have changed (hopefully) since the early 2000s, but that’s what I was starting from.

My undergrad and my MA are both in Gender Studies, and I was introduced to Critical Psychology and a bit to Mad Studies there, then I went into CDS to focus a bit more on that.

Q: The medical profession has incredible power over our identities and ways of knowing ourselves, particularly since they shape text about us. Yet they also claim objectivity in labelling us. What are some of the problems that come with this power and ability to create labels about us?

Elisabeth: I understand that labels are ways of organizing information. In some ways they can be helpful and help us communicate with each other. So for example, when I learned terminology like “genderqueer” and “enby” (nonbinary) for the first time, I was like, “Yes! That is so helpful! That helps me understand what’s going on!” At the same time, when labels are applied by people who have institutionalized power to people who have less power, when those labels come with so much force, so much stigma and so many unacknowledged limitations, my view is that it’s often a lot less helpful and it can even be harmful for people.

When it comes to information about mental health, I wish that more people knew that the way the DSM has been constructed has always been a thoroughly political project.

Actually, I think that many of us in the TQBLG community do understand that, since people remember the process that got “Homosexuality” removed from the DSM. But generally, I think the idea that “mental illnesses” are diseases like any other (“just like cancer or diabetes”) is the more dominant view.

Q: So often our mental health narratives don’t include our own voices. What benefits can occur when we are able to narrate our own lives?

Elisabeth: I think that the power to author and tell our own stories, and to create communities in which our stories are respected and understood are incredibly important. Research-wise, this is the primary reason why I chose a narrative-based methodology and also did digital storytelling work with participants. Everyone should be able to tell their story, and should be given/should seek out the information they need to understand the stories of other people, and the big stories that impact all of our lives in different ways.

It’s hard to tell your story when you don’t know why the things that are happening to you are happening, you know? And it’s hard to understand stories from outside your experience without that knowledge as well.

Q: Could you tell us a little bit about the digital storytelling work you were doing?

Elisabeth: Absolutely. I have two supervisors for my dissertation, Dr. Geoffrey Reaume and Dr. Carla Rice. Carla is the founder of the Re-Vision Centre for Art and Social Justice, which is a research centre focussing on using digital media to enable oppressed people to tell their stories. ReVision has moved toward supporting people to create different kinds of videos, but their methodology started with the digital storytelling approach, and I was trained in that by the Centre so that’s what I decided to do with my own project. Digital Storytelling is a process where people are supported to tell a 3-5 minute long story using voice, music and visuals. The elements are created brought together by participants during a workshop, with support from facilitators who might be videographers, photographers, filmmakers, etc. It’s an arts-based or arts-informed method that allows people to choose a story and present it in the way they choose, which I think is awesome.

I should mention as well that the Re-Vision Centre has incredible equipment that makes this kind of work possible. I was very lucky to be able to access these resources.

Q: When you talk about Dr. Rice and Project Re-Vision, I can’t help but think about Artivism (art activism) and the power of finding new and creative ways of expressing information. Do you find that digital storytelling gives people a chance to express things in a new and creative way? … Especially since some of this material may be really challenging to express in traditional methods.

Elisabeth: What a great parallel! Yes, absolutely. I think that art is so powerful — the way people engage with art is often different to how they might engage with academic prose. Actually, I think most people don’t necessarily engage with academic writing very much, especially once (or if!) they’re out of the academic world. But most of us engage with art in various ways. We listen to music, we look at visual art, we constantly engage with design in our lives, we watch movies, etc. So for people to tell their stories in a way that is likely to be more accessible to more people is really helpful, both for the creators themselves (as they have quite a bit more control over the process than they would with, say, how an interview is coded and analyzed and presented by a researcher) and for potential audiences. I think that the process of storytelling is also really interesting. Many digital story creators haven’t made a video before and may not typically engage with any of the elements of the story at all. Of course, some participants are artists and that’s fantastic, but the process is organized in a way that it’s accessible to non-artists and even to folks who may not be super familiar with the kinds of technology used in the process, so I think that inevitably allows for the exploration of new ways of thinking about expression and how to convey and represent the information and meaning and feelings and resonances that they want to put into the world through the story.

I did not make a story in my own project because I was facilitating the workshop, but I’ve made two digital stories in other Re-Vision Centre projects. I like art, but I don’t really consider myself an artist. I’m absolutely not a practicing artist in any way whatsoever. So it was really interesting to have a chance to think about the elements of sound and visuals and timing and tone that I don’t typically consider too much when I’m basically writing essays.

I do try to make my academic writing as clear as possible, and there’ll very occasionally be a sentence that I think is kind of nice, but beyond that the other elements just aren’t there.

Q: Nicely said!! On a personal note, I really wish I could have taken part in your study. It sounds like you have created a powerful space for Trans, genderqueer, and non-binary folk to talk about their experiences as psychiatric survivors.

Elisabeth: I wish you could have as well! I did try to create that kind of space. It’s often just a really hard topic to discuss. I am extremely grateful to all the people who spoke with me and made stories with me, I am so, so, so appreciative of their trust and openness and generosity.

It’s been hard in the past while, I did my interviews a couple of years ago now, and I think a lot about how all the developments around this issue are impacting the people I met. It’s been a rough go lately and its just so unfair.

Q: A lot of readers may not know about psychiatric survivor narratives or mad pride. Could you tell people a little bit about the background of these terms and, especially, what they mean for you?

Elisabeth: The terminology of psychiatric survivor has been around for quite a while (I believe since the 70s and 80s) and it’s a phrase used to challenge the idea that mental health care is, well, care, rather than, say, coercion or incarceration or just unhelpful or uncaring.

Mad pride, or the Mad movement comes from another, related perspective, that the kinds of states or experiences or ways of being conceptualized in the medical model as illness aren’t always inherently negative, but could instead be considered as just different from what gets constructed as “normal.” For me, I relate to these terms because I think they do a lot to politicize the experience of being pathologized, and to politicize difference and distress. And I think that distress, especially, is very, very often rooted in experiences of oppression, violence and injustice, which is something that the medical model doesn’t usually concern itself with.

Q: You mentioned the tough past couple of years and I can’t help but think about the impact of the Ontario Conservative Party’s decision to not recognize gender identity and what this may mean for people like us and those involved in your project. What sort of influence may this change have in Trans, non-binary, and gender queer lives and our psychiatric encounters?

Elisabeth: So basically, by pulling this garbage move at their party conference, they’ve done a lot of damage even without having to drag this bullshit through the courts and/or invoke the notwithstanding clause. Obviously it would be even worse if they did that, but the way that they did this has allowed them to express contempt and hatred toward our community and embolden bigots without all those pesky protests and legal bills. Personally, I have essentially zero problem with being disliked or misunderstood by people like Granic-Allen and/or Ford, but it’s very upsetting and disturbing to think about what this is going to mean for younger members of our community and for all the members of our community who face harassment and violence and discrimination on a daily basis.

Q: I can’t help but think that just discussing the possibility of disregarding gender identity will inspire acts of Transphobia and gendered violence by the public (and possibly by health care professionals). When people in power feel safe to express Transphobic sentiments it emboldens people who believe Transphobic ideologies to be more open about them as well.

Elisabeth: I have to situate myself, too. I’m an AFAB femme with a feminine gender presentation. Unless I tell people, people don’t typically know or guess or assume that I consider myself non-binary. I have been trying to come out more, and I try to speak out about the issues facing the trans community as someone who could be considered as having an identity that’s under the trans umbrella, and also as a person who is trying to act in solidarity with trans/enby/genderqueer people who are maybe not read as cis, or whose gender presentations are interpreted as non-normative. I’m extremely cognizant that the space I occupy in society is completely different from the kind of space that someone who, for instance, faces transmisogyny, would be.

I completely, completely agree with your analysis, Derek. I think that’s part of why they did this.

Q: Trans experiences with health care tend to be fraught with dangers, especially since many medical practitioners still believe Transphobic ideologies. This has resulted in a lot of Trans people not seeking out health care even when health care is considered urgent. What are some things that we, as a community, can do to shift the dialogue around health care for Trans folks and, especially, mental health care access? Or is there other options outside of the psychiatric system?

Elisabeth: That’s a very tough question and a tough reality.

Q: I was thinking the same thing. It’s something I have been struggling with finding answers to lately… and there aren’t a lot of answers out there.

Elisabeth: We need to keep doing what we’ve been doing as a community, which is to continue our activist work to ensure that our realities are as much as possible understood by those in power, to take up decision-making roles and shape the policies ourselves (which is arguably and in part what happened with the shift away from GID and toward GD, which has been helpful in quite a number of ways). We can keep advocating for better access to non-medicalized or less-medicalized forms of mental health care, such as counselling and psychotherapy. And beyond that, we can keep doing our work to improve or change the aspects of society that lead to distress for so many of us. So part of that is to promote the acceptance and celebration of gender diversity! And part of that is to advocate for access to housing, food and enough resources to lead a decent life, whether that comes through income security programs and/or employment and/or the dismantling of the neoliberal capitalist system. Which is clearly a lofty goal, but it’s so often the conditions of people’s lives that lead to distress, or that make differences in ways of being so hard to live with. We are told that we have to be productive all the time, that we have to be “regulated” all the time, there’s very little space for difficulty and difference, especially if you’re situated at the nexus of various axes of oppression. There’s no time, there’s no patience, there’s no opportunity, and there’s no tolerance. And that’s not okay at all.

I have to say too that I feel like as someone with more privilege in a lot of ways, this work is on me. And it should be on people working in solidarity with the community. This work can’t keep being put on the backs of the most marginalized people in our community.

In practical, more immediate senses, I’ve learned a lot from working with Dr. Carla Rice about how art can be used to influence health care provider perspectives. So it’s also about getting in to medical schools and health care institutions with pieces like the ones that the folks who participated in my project created, getting in with personal stories about what needs to be done differently, and helping people who are already in the system to learn and do better.

Q: Nicely said!! It sounds like getting our narratives out there is important not just for us to see ourselves represented, but also to shift social consciousness, especially for care providers. What are some ways we can get our voices out there?

Elisabeth: I definitely think that’s true. Well, the kind of work you do to promote disability studies perspectives online is an amazing example! Getting critical perspectives out into the world is a huge part of the process!

Q: I am reminded of projects like “Graphic Medicine”, who are trying to get “patient” narratives out there in graphic novel form to help medical professionals think about the lives and experiences of their patients. In what ways can art play a role in educating?

Elisabeth: Oh, great point! All kinds of art are good ways to learn about people and their lives. Derek, legit, they need to hire you to teach at a medical school. For real. The way you use art and culture to bring out so many dimensions of life and experience for your students, I truly think that’s what health care providers could use! Of course we can also present stories at health care institutions and schools in the meantime.

Q: Elisabeth, imagine how voices like ours could really change medical perspectives.

Elisabeth: Right?! Challenging sanism, ableism, transphobia, queerphobia all at once! And there need to be even more voices and more perspectives, to shift thinking on racism, colonialism, transmisogyny. The people from our communities should be at the forefront, telling the stories of what our communities have been dealing with and the incredible things that many of us have done even in the face of such intense oppression.

Q: I want to personally thank you for all of the work you are doing and all of the work you have done. You have done so much work for our community and I really appreciate you taking the time to talk about your work here. Is there anything further you would like to say to readers?

Elisabeth: Thank you so much, Derek!

It has been an honour to speak (/write) with you tonight! Thank you so much for inviting me, I really appreciate it. I always learn so much from you!!

 

Q: I like the way our conversations are always so generative. They get both of us thinking in new ways. I can’t help but think what medical practitioners could get out of collaborations and conversations like this.

 

47446294_338511906979336_6143493380220387328_n

 

Elisabeth Harrison (she/her) is a PhD Candidate in Critical Disability Studies at York University. Her dissertation research is about trans, genderqueer and non-binary people’s experiences with mental health care in Ontario. She also does work in fat studies.

 

Advertisements

Queering Disability and Disabling Queerness: A Panel on Access

As part of Peterborough’s Queer Pride Week, I organized a panel with Tessa Smith featuring Fiona Patton, Shannon Avery, Ronnie Ritchie, and myself, Derek Newman-Stille. Our panel was created to bring access to the way that our Queer community and Disabled community overlap while bringing attention to the fact Pride events in most locations tend to be inaccessible or only feature able-bodied people.

We wanted to explore not just the way that Queerness and Disability come together, but also the way that these identities can conflict. We explore the ableism in Queer “safe spaces” and the homophobia in Disabled “safe spaces”. We wanted a panel of diverse Queer people with disabilities and found people that occupy many different roles in our communities from writers to artists to students to activists.

We want to acknowledge the support of Peterborough Pride, the Rainbow Services Organization, and Traill College at Trent University for their support of this event.

This video was filmed at Bagnani Hall at Traill College, Trent University in Peterborough Ontario, Canada.

Please allow time for the video to appear

Queering Disability event

An Interview with Em Glasspool about Arts Ability: Taking the Stage

By Derek Newman-Stille

 

Today, I interview Em Glasspool about Dis Arts (disability arts) in the city of Peterborough, exploring the upcoming Arts Ability: Taking the Stage performance, which features the work of multiple Peterborough-area artists in the disabled community.

 

Em Glasspool is a performer in the Peterborough community and runs Mysterious Entity Theatre, a company that brings attention to gender diversity, bodily diversity, and neurodiversity.

 

Allow time for the video to load:

 

 

You can find out more about Arts Ability: Taking the Stage at https://www.facebook.com/events/1973700966203677/

23517665_1711478865570554_575016436069945676_n

A Review of What’s Left of Us

A Review of What’s Left of UsBy Derek Newman-Stille

Performed September 29 at Nozhem Theatre, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Performed by Justin Many Fingers and Brian Solomon.

Sponsored by Tangled Art + Disability and Nozhem Theatre, Trent University.

Justin Many Fingers and Brian Solomon describe their performance What’s Left of Us as “Two 2 spirited ndns, with only two hands between them. A gloriously deranged world of dance, storytelling, and the unexpected things that make you sexy”. What’s Left of Us was a beautiful fusion of identities, bringing disability, indigenous, and two-spirited identities together in a way that celebrated the power of movement and narrative for shaping lives, but more than that, this was a tale of resistance and of writing our own stories. 

Justin Many Fingers and Brian Solomon wove multiple tales together in their performance, drawing on the power of polyphony and resistance to a singular narrative. Their performances were about breaking barriers, stretching out into new spaces, and resisting confinement into one story or one space. They began by preparing for their performance in front of the audience, costuming, putting on make-up, eating, practicing shadow puppets, and stretching in front of the audience, breaking down the idea that there is an easy separation between performance and life. They lived performance. They gave chocolate to the audience, walking between audience space and acting space to illustrate that we are all part of and involved in performance. 

Many Fingers and Solomon began their official performance by critiquing the music choices on their entrance, playing with the form of theatre and the idea of theatre as something that is always polished. They then burst out onto the stage to circus music, sharing a bicycle and bringing attention to the history of treating disabled bodies, indigenous bodies, and queer bodies as parts of the freak show tradition. They brought attention to the way that people look, the way that people stare, and the fact that performance has always had an interest in the spectacle of different bodily presentations. 

Many Fingers and Solomon brought attention to their spirit hands, their smaller left hands with tiny fingers and the way that these hands had shaped a wide variety of emotions, letting their faces show isolation, laughter, fear, strength, and sexual freedom with alternating expressions. They illustrated the way that others tried to tell stories ABOUT them, exploring the power of speech in constructing identity by having loud, clamouring voices of doctors describing their hands in medicalised ways, trying to structure them as flaw. But, while these voices sought to overwhelm them, their bodies moved with passion, responding to what was being said in a way that told the audience “our bodies can speak for themselves, no one should tell our bodies who or what they mean”. Narratives tried to overwhelm them in the performance, but their bodies spoke for themselves, moving in ways that illustrated strength, beauty, and raw sexuality. 

Many Fingers and Solomon danced strength into the performance, illustrating the power of their bodies to be capable of speaking for themselves, while narrating their own understandings of themselves to resist the earlier stories of doctors, sharing their own histories – moments of joy, playfulness, change, and journey. Their stories interwove with each other as they shared the similarities between their two lives as people who both have spirit hands, both came from reservations, and both came out as two-spirited people while they moved around the stage, meeting and separating from one another, showing similarities and differences through movement. 

Many Fingers tied story and hand together by creating shadow puppets first with his right hand and then switching to his spirit hand. He illustrated the power of hands to speak, to tell their own stories, shaping them up on a screen and creating a dual performance of the stage space that featured Solomon’s movements on stage and Many Fingers’ hand shapes on the projected screen. Many Fingers emphasized the connection of voice and hand by using the light from his cell phone (a symbol of speech) to project the shadows of his hand.

What’s Left Of Us was the most accessible performance I have ever attended, with accessible seats, descriptive audio and ASL interpreters. Not only were interpreters present, but the performance disrupted the normal isolation of the interpreters and the challenge of interpreters being off to the side of the stage (meaning that Deaf or Hard of Hearing audience members would have to divide attention between performance and language interpretation). Instead, interpreters were centre stage, woven into the performance. Many Fingers and Solomon made the space a bilingual one, not separating Deaf space from Hearing space, but illustrating that both were significant by bringing interpreters into their performance space and interacting with them. The interpreters were also able to move with the music and signed in a form of dance, face and body animated in a way that few interpreters are able to accomplish. The interpreters were dance partners in this glorious performance of body and language.

What’s Left of Us was powerful, creating a sense of the ability for those of us who are disabled, LGBTQ2IA, or indigenous to speak for ourselves, to disrupt the simple gaze of the audience and a society that is focussed on staring and remind people of the history of that gaze in the history of performance and medicine. It was a performance that suggested that we can stare back, that we can move from spectacle to spectator, and that we can tell our own stories even while others are trying to narrate our stories for us. This was a performance that was about the power to express.

Interview with Nicolette Barischoff

Interview with Nicolette Barischoff

By Derek Newman-Stille

nicolette

I was able to work with the wonderful Nicolette Barischoff when we were both included in the collection Accessing the Future (edited by Kathryn Allan and Djibril al-Ayad) a few years ago and just recently had the pleasure of working with Nicolette again when she edited my personal narrative submission as part of Uncanny Magazine’s Disabled People Destroy Science Fiction. As always, Nicolette had a plethora of ideas and I realized I had to share some of her insights with readers here on Dis(Abled) Embodiment. I want to thank Nicolette for joining us here and taking the time to do an interview.

 

Q: To start our interview off, could you tell readers a little bit about yourself?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: Well, I’m a speculative fiction writer. That’s probably the least visible and most important thing I do.  I’m also a chronically naked performance artist and art model. That’s a big part of my activism. It’s very important to me that we get people used to seeing many different types of bodies, and that we normalize the sight of visibly disabled bodies in particular. I have Spastic Cerebral Palsy and I use a wheelchair unless I feel like crawling (which I do, frequently).

 

Q: Could you tell us a bit about how you interact with disability in various ways?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: I resisted disability as a large part of my identity for a the greater part of my life. I’ve always identified as disabled (having a visible disability kind of forces you to be out and proud) but I fiercely resisted the idea of myself as Disabled Writer or a Disability Activist throughout my teens and early twenties. I think I thought of able-bodied peoples’ preoccupation with my disability as a distraction from the things I really wanted to say and write. To a certain degree, I still think that’s true. But as I grew into a proper adult, and as body and sex positivity became more and more important to me, I realized that I couldn’t be Body-Positive without being actively Disability-Positive. I have a very visibly disabled body. It’s the body I will always have. The two activisms are not separate spheres. They never can be.

 

Q: How have you interacted with ableism in the past?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: For me, ableism always seems to take the form of a struggle over personal autonomy. Many of the abled people in our lives really do want to empower us to make our own choices, but they often have trouble respecting those choices when they find them alarming or inconvenient or odd. They feel entitled, often compelled, to step in. Every disabled person I have ever met has at one time or another had their personal autonomy overridden for the comfort and convenience of the able-bodied, sometimes for the comfort and convenience of total strangers. Another off-shoot of this kind of ableism is when a disabled person is denied the assistance they need in the name of promoting their autonomy. I often encounter this at women’s clinics, where they don’t let my partner/assistant past the front desk in the name of protecting my privacy. Able people often fail to recognize a disabled person’s autonomy when it comes in the form of assisted living.

 

To be a true advocate for disabled rights (or human rights generally) is to empower autonomy, even when that autonomy is expressed in ways you do not fully understand or support.

 

Q: What does Disability Pride mean to you and what does it mean to be part of a disabled community?

 

Nicolette Barischoff:  To me, Disability Pride is Body Pride. It’s about coming to terms with the enormous variety of bodies there are in the universe, and celebrating them. There is no such thing as a “normal” body, or even a “fully-functioning” body. Every person on earth is just trying to get the most out of the body they’ve got. Disability Pride for me is about building worlds for the bodies we actually have, instead of trying to shove every body under the wheels of a great big Normalizing Machine.

 

Q: What potential is there is science fiction for thinking about disability in a different way?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: Science fiction is all about changing the shape of the world. It’s a genre that offers us the space (sometimes literally!) to imagine societies that fit our varied bodies. (Andi Buchanan would call these non-disabling worlds, worlds that don’t favor one type of body above all others.) Science fiction has all kinds of bodies and societies depicted in it. It’s kind of tailor-made for exploring relative concepts like disability.

 

Q: What are some pitfalls that literature gets into when portraying disability? What are some of the problematic tropes that arise?

 

Nicolette Barischoff:  We have had many talented essayists devote a great many words to answering this question over at Uncanny, so I won’t try to outdo them.  But I will say that one of the most common problems I see in disabled characters written by abled writers is a preoccupation with disability itself. Real disabled people have very bored and boring relationships to their bodies (because, you know, we live in them). When I wake up to my spine arching like the Brooklyn bridge, I don’t think “Oh, Gods, my disability! I hate this, this is so unfair!” I probably only have time to think, “Oh, fuck my back, today… Maybe a bath will help?”

 

Q: There is often pressure on those of us with disabilities to write about disability. How have you balanced this pressure to write disability with all of the other things you want to write about?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: Good question! And one I haven’t really found a good answer to, yet. I suppose the short answer would be that I’m very choosy about who I write about disability for. And my disabled characters don’t get to come out of my head until I have the right story for them.

 

Q: You wrote for the collection Accessing the Future. What was it like to write for an anthology that centred disability and didn’t seek to erase us from the future like so many tales of the future do?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: Wonderful! Accessing the Future means a great deal to me. It was the first science fiction story I ever wrote.

 

Q: In your story “Pirate Songs” as part of Accessing the Future, you create a wheelchair user, Margo, who is thrust into an alien environment. What was the inspiration for Margo, and in what ways was “Pirate Songs” ultimately about all of us disabled people feeling as though we have been thrust into an environment that is alien to our bodies?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: “Pirate Songs” is really a story about the fluid and flexible nature of privilege: the idea that a person can be extraordinarily privileged in some respects and utterly marginalized in others, that a person can be marvelously privileged in one environment, and horribly disadvantaged in another. The character of Margo came about as a result of a fun, funny thought experiment. Say you plucked someone from a very sleek, progressive, Roddenberry-esque “Federation of Planets” kind of society (away from all the 127 holodecks and the food replicators and the androids that play the violin) and you plunked them down in a backwater, somewhere at the very far edges of that society. What would they find? All societies look different at the margins, no matter how advanced they consider themselves to be, and if a person is disabled, that difference is all the more keenly felt. Disability is treated very differently in societies and subcultures that lack the resources to create non-disabling environments. Fear or hatred of disability often comes about when a society is too resource-poor to accommodate it.

 

Q: In what ways can our art (writing, visual arts, theatre, music) be an act of resistance to an ableist world? How can we evoke change through our art?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: I think change happens naturally as a result of the kinds of art and stories we produce. There’s a reason why book burnings and book bannings are a cornerstone of any burgeoning fascist regime. It’s because stories are natural vehicles for making us think new and uncomfortable thoughts by ancient and comfortable methods. We don’t need to TRY to make change with art. Art, by its nature, changes. All we need to do is write good stories full of wise and sensitive and beautiful human things.

 

Q: What are some things we can be doing to increase the profile of marginalized stories? So often, one of the biggest challenges is getting the sort of attention for marginalized stories that are already in place for able-bodied, straight, white, cis-gendered men’s narratives. How do we challenge this privilege in publishing?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: Good question. I don’t know that I’m entirely qualified to answer it. I think one thing we can do is invent new and unconventional ways of promoting stories. New platforms for doing so are popping up faster than publishing houses can make use of them. This is good. This subverts the gatekeepers.

 

Q: You are currently editing the personal narratives section of the Disabled People Destroy Science Fiction collection from Uncanny Magazine. What are some of the most rewarding parts of reading and sharing these personal narratives?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: It was always a fun surprise to me what each essayist chose to write about. Discovering which characters and stories are important to people and why. Oftentimes, two essayists would express totally opposite opinions on the disability rep in the same work of fiction, and they’d both make absolutely fabulous essays. That’s the sort of stuff that makes editing fun!

 

Q: What thoughts, perspectives, and ideas have these personal narratives evoked for you? How have the stories of other people opened up new viewpoints for you?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: One head-smacking moment occurred for me while reading Elise Mattheson’s essay “The Only Thing Faster Than Tonight: Mr Darkness.” She spoke on the idea that disabled people are often thought to be remarkable for simply existing (we’ve all been called “amazing” by dim and kindly strangers before, right? )  She points out that the mere fact that disabled people are alive and occupying the same space seems remarkable to able-bodied people, because there is an unspoken and unconscious belief that disabled people aren’t supposed to survive. That they aren’t supposed to live long enough to do perfectly ordinary things. That thought was a sharp tack to suddenly sit on! I couldn’t believe that I’d never thought about that aspect of it before. Anyway, there were a lot of little moments like that.

 

Q: What other current projects are you working on and how can readers find out more about your projects?

 

Nicolette Barischoff: The novel. Always the novel!  (The details of which are still misty and mysterious and very top-secret). I also have some pretty epic body-positive performance art planned for the coming year, so look out for that. You can find me on Twitter @nbarischoff or you can look up my dusty little blog, Turtles Have the Best Dreams.

 

——

 

Bio:

Nicolette Barischoff was born with spastic cerebral palsy, which has only made her more awesome. Her fiction has appeared in Long HiddenAccessing the FutureThe Journal of Unlikely AcademiaPodcastle, and Angels of the Meanwhile. She regularly writes about disability, feminism, sex- and body-positivity, and how all these fit together. Her personal essays on these topics get read way more than her fiction does, which is only a little annoying. She regularly collaborates with visual and performance artists to promote normalization of visibly disabled bodies. She’s been on the front page of CBS New York, where they called her activism public pornography and suggested her face was a Public Order Crime.