INTRODUCTION
Disability
and Capitalism has always had a complicated relationship, of providing personhood
and victimhood simultaneously. Market
Capitalism has allowed for the advancement of assistive technology necessary for
some Disabled people’s independence, and a higher standard of living which can
have the effect of moving them out of poverty (Charleton 2000). At the same time, Market Capitalism defines
labor in ableist ways, alienating disabled people from developing economic
stability for their salvation, by valuing and promoting “the able body” as the
ideal body, and the disabled as being docile (Foucault 1977). This relationship is epitomized by the
influence of Reaganite capitalism on the media in the 1980’s, where disability
and assistive technologies were present, while still maintaining the sacredness
of organic flesh, and the able body, as the ideal. This essay proposes that 1980’s media in children’s
programming, and the presence of disability characters, (fueled by “Free Market
Capitalism”) provided both a positive albeit “masked” representation of
disability, while concurrently dehumanizing and commodifying the disabled to validate
the able-bodied culture.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
On
July 15th, 1979, then President Jimmy Carter addressed the nation
concerned with a “crisis of confidence”. He reprimanded the American people who
(in his mind) had become too preoccupied with consumption; both in energy and other
more tangible goods. Carter’s speech, like Eisenhower’s warning against the
Military Industrial Complex 30 years earlier, became prophetic in hindsight,
echoing a Marxian outlook on consumption and consumerism; but at the time, the
warning was ignored. The abysmal
reception of this speech has historically marked the beginning of the end for
the Carter administration. In its place,
American Style “Democracy” chose the exact opposite in the form of Ronald Reagan.
Taking
Power in Jan 1980, the Reagan Administration had a vastly different
consumeristic philosophy that increased consumer spending, providing tax breaks
for corporations and the elite, hoping those “savings” would “trickle down”,
and general governmental deregulation (Reagan campaigned on the very
transparent “Government is the problem” message). Not only did this secure a workforce through the
centralization of Property[1], (while also opening the
world to US corporations as their own personal “labor farm”), but, through this
pro-market Reaganite form of capitalism, a consumerist culture was created that
permeated all media of the 1980’s, shaping our understanding of violence,
technology, and disability (Mills 1951).
Reaganite Capitalism and
Robots in Children’s Programing
In her seminal work Socialization
and the Power of Advertising Jean Kilbourne (1999) points out the power of
commercials in the social learning process. “Advertisements do not sell
products” she warns, “they sell norms and values,” an image and sense of normalcy;
they teach us about ideals of love, honor, and fairness. This becomes
increasingly effective the more marketing is directed at children, as they have
a greater inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality than adults[2] (Kilbourne 1999). Regardless
of this, the United States remains one of the few countries that allow direct
marketing to children, irrespective of the existence of The Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) since 1948.
Since its inception, The FCC
has been tasked with the regulation of the amount and nature of advertising
aimed at children (Goodman, 2010). In the 1970’s, with help from watchdog
groups like Actions for Children’s Television (ACT), there was an attempt to
ban advertising from all children’s broadcast programing. This movement was
gaining traction in the late seventies until the
election of Ronald Reagan, who in 1981, appointed Mark Fowler as Chairman to
the FCC. Under this
new leadership, advertising during children’s programing quickly became
deregulated. What followed, was a decades long practice of children’s
programing created as thinly veiled advertisements for Toys and a variety of
other products.
According to Goodman
(2010):
Toy companies adopted
several strategies in order to ensure success and estimable profits. In most
cases the toy was developed first, and the animated program was then used to
promote the line of toys. One example of this was the DIC/Kenner-Parker show
M.A.S.K. (1985). Most of the shows were syndicated, meaning that they could be
aired during blocks of time outside of Saturday morning, the traditional hours
of children's programming. Shows were ordered by the bloc rather than by the
season via a strategy known as strip syndication. A 65-episode series was quite
common, with new installments aired daily; after all, this was advertising, not
entertainment.
From Pac-Man, He-Man, M.A.S.K and
Transformers, to Go-bots. G.I. Joe, My Little Pony, Care Bears and
J.E.M; all these shows did not begin as original intellectual property with
their own stories. Instead, these were characters that were licensed by a
broadcasting company to develop into a TV show.
Toy Companies flocked to this idea because the programing would funnel
children, armed with their parent’s money, into their stores. In the end, the Reaganite deregulation of the
80’s offered “nothing more than soulless vehicles for product promotion,
brightly colored symbols of corporate capitalism's ascendancy over children's
entertainment.” (Goodman 2010).
Several
of these licensing deals also allowed the toy companies to have strong
influence on the program’s direction and the creation of story arcs. Hasbro
even maintain script control over GI Joe throughout its run. This led to
a lack of continuity in storytelling as well as driving a hard line between
protagonist and antagonists[3]. Consequently, to maintain
their monopoly, and increase their profits, toy companies had to continually
develop new toy lines (and new characters) to keep kids interested, and parents
buying. This profit motive mentality spurred these Toy companies, and the cartoon
content they controlled, into the use of robots.
Even
though a Fowler Led FCC resulted in the deregulation of children’s programming;
effectively turning them into 23-minute commercials, there were still
restrictions on the amount of, and consequences to violence that programming could
show. This, coupled with the desire for
toy companies to maximize the number of toys that children could buy through
their cartoons, resulted in the use of robots and cyborgs as a circumvention of
restrictions, and provided toy companies with hordes of antagonists to sell.
According
to Gibson (2020)
A Robot is a mechanical
structure that performs certain tasks based upon inputs from software and its
own functional capabilities…as complex as a human shaped machine which can
speak and respond to conversation in ways that mimic our own emotive states. A
Cyborg is a being with both cybernetic and organic parts- in the case of a
human, prothesis which replace amputated limbs or repair damaged or missing
body systems…technically make that human a cyborg (p.5.)
Because robots are decidedly defined as not human, and
cyborgs are missing human parts, there is a disconnect and dehumanizing of machines
and machine hybrids. While other popular
fiction may ask deeper questions about the nature of consciousness, and what
makes something human (Blade Runner, T2, Bicentennial Man etc.) 80’s
children’s programming just used them as fodder[4], ways for Cartoons to
express violence without depicting real world consequences. Many action
cartoons of the 1980’s would consistently depict gruesome acts of violence for
young children. On an almost daily basis, children would be shown depictions of
decapitation, amputations of limbs, evisceration, and other maiming. But, because these acts were done on a robot
(or cyborg), and the consequences of that violence were often sparks and wires
rather than blood and viscera; the violence was accepted. Additionally, these
egregiously violent acts seemed to increase when the enemy is robot and cyborg
only. When the enemy was an organic life form, the violence and/or the
consequences, once again became tame. Thus, the act of violence is not the
problem in terms of censorship, instead it’s the consequences shown.[5] This lack of congruence
between action and consequence not only lead to a desensitization of violence
in children, but it began to sacralize human flesh as the biologically
deterministic trait of one’s humanity and personhood. An idea, that is again
extended, when discussing disability and technology.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
In popular fiction, robots and cyborgs are
often “metaphorical portraits of humans, representative of the way that we
build systems”, and an allegory for a variety of maligned or marginalized
groups (Faber 2021: 5). This means that from a Sociological perspective, the robot
and the cyborg are often used as parables about class struggles, and various
forms of identity discrimination. Yet, according to Haraway (1987) “The
boundary between science fiction and social reality is an optical illusion”
(p2). Where this becomes metatextual is in the application of these terms to
Disabled people, given that modern medicine has both allowed them to exist, and
transform them into cyborgs. Such a
label highlights both the victimhood and personhood of this disenfranchised,
and often invisible group.
Disability, Technology,
Sacredness and Bodies
Much of the way that a physically disabled person becomes
“visible” in our society, by that I mean able to participate in the able-bodied
culture that continues to alienate them, is by using technology, which results
in some semblance of Independence and autonomy. This is almost punning satire,
considering that their autonomy comes at the cost of their “organic selves”;
which has been made sacred through the able-bodied hegemony that permeates all
things. Durkheim (1912) understands the sacred as something that is given
expressed social meaning above all others within society. The Sacred can easily
be identified in the way that it is treated by a particular group; that it is above
and beyond other objects and behaviors that are seen as simply mundane,
ordinary, or profane (Durkheim 1912). For many in our society, the flesh, as
well as the complexities and power of the able body, is exalted. The
able body becomes “the ideal” whereas the disabled body becomes docile.
The terminology of ideal and docile bodies first comes to
light in Michel Foucault’s work entitled Discipline
and Punish: The Birth of Prisons. In
this work, Foucault compares a pre-modern soldier’s body, with one that was in
place during modernity, and after.
According to Foucault (1975):
[ In the
Pre-modern era] the soldier bore certain signs…of his strength and courage, the
marks, too, of his pride ; his body was blazon of his strength and valor…The
soldier has an erect head, a taut stomach, broad shoulders , long arms, strong
fingers , a small belly, thick thighs, slender legs and dry feet. [The soldier
of the modern era] has become something that can be made; out of a formless
clay, an inept body, the machine required can be constructed ; posture is greatly
corrected ; a calculated constraint runs slowly through each part of the body,
mastering it, making it pliable
P
(135-136)
Tobin Seibers (2006) identifies that what was the docile
body of the modern age, has become the “able body” of the postmodern age. This able body is one that can be, as
Foucault mentions, made into something from “formless clay”. Thus, this “able
body” (able, for “ability to be shaped”?) is consistently reshaped by cultural
and social standards, such as fad diets and plastic surgery, body image and
identity pressures through magazines and television ads, as well as government
health regulations, and informal peer pressure for these bodies to be
“improved” upon. This continues until they achieve the current standard enough
to disseminate their body to the public in order to avoid further ridicule;
thereby transforming their “able body” into the “ideal body”.
Meanwhile, the docile
body of the post-modern age is the disabled body; a body form that is seen as
unshapable by society through current cultural and social standards.[6]
Sure, the disabled individual living within the same cultural and social
framework as the nondisabled are subjected to the same influences from media
sources. However, that only furthers the stigmatization of the disabled body as
being “other”; regardless of what the individual does, or how the body is
manipulated to avoid it. Thus, validating
the able body as the Ideal, and the disabled body as not, has historically
caused the rationalization of disabled victimhood, and allowed for the
incarceration of disabled people in institutions and “clinics”. It is here, that
the bureaucratic and often pristine setting, masks the horrific realities of these
environments where its entire operation is based around the cutting and
experimenting on [usually disabled] bodies (Foucault 1963).
Simultaneously to the
victimization of the disabled through their general dehumanization and
exaltation of the organic flesh, the disabled are also given personhood through
their cybernetic transformations. The necessary advancement in technology that
open life chances and choices for the disabled was not originally conceived for
commercial use. Like many things, “Cyborgs…are the illegitimate offspring of
militarism and patriarchal capitalism.” (Haraway 1985). The assistive
technology aids and adaptions developed first for military applications and use
by soldiers. Unfortunately, this is a history that is common with any technological
advancement that we must reckon with. We use it first to improve our military
surveillance state before it “goes to market”, to generate a profit. Sadly, the
visibility, value and very existence of the disabled, is reliant on medical
advancements in technology. Thus, as these advancements have been achieved, and
capitalistically disseminated, the disabled have acquired more personhood than ever
before. Simple tasks that many able-bodied persons take for granted (such as
opening doors, feeding oneself, driving a car,), and once thought out of reach
for the disabled before, are now within their cybernetic grasps. It is however
unfortunate, that in this able-bodied hegemony of our society, personhood is
identified in the mainstream through a very narrow form of self-reliance. It is
only then, that they become people in the eyes of the able-bodied public.
It should also be noted that this personhood
through technology, while achievable, is not without its share of barriers. Life changing assistive aids are routinely
denied by insurance carriers as “non-essential”, and since the cost of these
technologies are so astronomically high, many people cannot afford them without
assistance. This is again rooted in the sacredness of the flesh. By denying the
creation of the independent and autonomous cyborg, and the able-bodied hegemony
of our society reinforcing the Foucaudian notion of the disabled “docile body”
that is unable to be changed; generates an underlying feeling amongst disabled
people that they are both “other”; and should not exist. Such a feeling is the
specter of a disability history that includes: driving the disabled and
mentally ill out of towns to “wander in the open countryside”, to being put on
a “Ship of Fools” and set adrift, culminating in confinement through Institutionalization. The feeling of alienation cannot dissipate if
barriers to independence are never taken down (Foucault 1965).
Millsian interlude into Bureaucratic
Capitalism
To understand the
duplicitous dichotomy of disability’s personhood and victimhood existing
concurrently, and its complicated relationship within the able-bodied culture, we
need to lay the foundation of bureaucratic capitalism from the ashes of World
War II. After military production stabilized the US economy, the social
programs created by FDR allowed for the current middle class to be created.
This “new” class of individuals became the life blood of a reborn economic
system, perpetuated by the exploitation and alienation of these workers through
a reinforcement of complacency, and an internalization of system friendly
American Myths of prosperity. This manipulation is an exercise of power (Mills
1951).
According to Mills (1951)
[Workers] are a cog in the belt line of bureaucratic machinery itself; [they]
are a link in the chain of commands, persuasions, notices, bills, which bind
together [the people] who make decisions and [the people] who make things. This
middle management is a systemic choice to create stability within the system; allowing
generations of individuals to replace their parents in the workforce, with
little incentive to change, while also bureaucratizing the entrepreneurial
system itself by routinizing greed (Mills 1951). The layout of the office
slowly becomes more factory-like; the abolition of private offices (e.g. open
floor plan concept) with a straight line form of work (Mills 1951). As this becomes more rationalized, machines
are used. Then the worker, whom have been transformed into a robot, also become
machine attendants themselves. This allows for quick turnover and easy
reproduction of the labor force.
Meanwhile, the workers have been swallowed by the system, transformed
into “Cheerful Robots”.
“The Cheerful Robots” are
the apathetic individuals of a mass society who blindly and complacently accept
their life chances as determined by fate (Trevino 2012: 191). For Mills (1951), this is the common
psychological trait for those living in a bureaucratized capitalism. There is
an emptiness to the work; a lack of fulfillment that never gets satiated, as
each task gets divided down to it minute detail, adding to this depression. The
alienation of a lack of ownership of products is obfuscated by the
psychological acceptance that the amount of labor used determines ownership.
This puts workers in a state of false consciousness, they feel emotionally
invested in their work and want to continue producing. Yet even recreation,
also becomes commodified and rationalized, so even in leisure, workers become
routinized. This gives rise to what
Mills calls “Personality Markets”; where individuals would be able to be sold
the personality traits they desire through their purchasing of products. This commodification of identity is again
another step in the creation of a “robotic” workforce. These “robots” then become “happy” through the
creation of a social interaction “mask” each worker wears, built on
stereotypical greetings, kindness, friendliness, and personalized service
(Trevino 2012). The consistent wearing of such a “mask” stifles creativity,
magnifies feelings of estrangement, and results in self alienation. The worker
learns to just go through the motions, and manufacture emotions, solidifying
their assimilation.
It should also be
noted that the fundamental gulf between the Disabled and the Able-bodied
populations, can be understood through the societal perceptions of robots and
cyborgs. The able-bodied view robotic transformations
as the dehumanized Psychology of emotional control, eliminating autonomy (The
Millsian “Cheerful Robot”). Whereas the Disabled find autonomy and agency
through their Cybernetic transformation. The desire to narrow this gap is
further complicated by industrial automation. First, there is some irony that
the dehumanizing psychology and standards foundational in Mills’ “Cheerful
Robot”, pushes individuals to work so hard they eventually acquire their
disability through the physical punishment put on their body by bureaucratic
rationalized standards of production. Secondly, there is irony in that the personhood
achieved through assistive technology for Disabled people, does not eliminate
their alienation from the general workforce, on account of able-bodied
discriminatory working standards and the automation of the workforce. In the
end, the workforce has chosen robots over cyborgs; proving yet again, it is
profit over personhood.
Case Study: The
Reformation of Darth Vader
The character of Darth
Vader in the original trilogy is a synthesis of 1980’s capitalism, and
disability personhood through assistive technology; while his reformation in
the prequel trilogy, redefines his personhood, as victimhood, and fetishizes
the flesh through biological determinism.
When Darth Vader first
graced the screen in the opening minutes of 1977’s Star Wars, the audience
reacted with revulsion, knowing “instinctively” that he was the bad guy (or “just
plain evil”) due to his human face being covered by a mechanical mask. This “Techno
Marvel” that made him “more machine than man”, allowed the filmmakers to
underscore his villainy through the unnatural qualities that he possessed, including
the labored breathing emanating from his mask like respirator (Norden 1994:
293). The creation and later perpetuation of this disability stereotype (beyond
just their appearance in the sequels), have unfortunately reinforced the
congruence disability has with antagonistic villainy. However, through some
revision, the character of Darth Vader can be a case study for understanding
the simultaneous personhood and victimhood Disabled people experience when going
through cybernetic transformations.
Darth
Vader in the original trilogy is an able-bodied cultural contradiction. He is a
Disabled person, but he is also powerful, and in a position of authority. These
two concepts are in such conflict with each other that most (able-bodied people)
do not think of Darth Vader as a disabled person, or if they do, his strength
in the force is believed to negate his disability. Part of this is the
fundamental problem we have with the syntax and context of the word disability
being perceived as a negative, something that is needed to be overcome and
compensated for. However, if we look at
the character through a disability perspective, Darth Vader’s personhood can be
understood through his use of assistive technology (which also adds to his
commanding presence). This is richly depicted in the Star Wars Expanded
Universe.
One novel that is
invaluable to understanding the personhood Darth Vader achieves through his
cybernetic transformation, is Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader by James
Luceno. Set after the events of Revenge of the Sith, much of the book focuses
on Darth Vader coming to terms with the outcome of his duel on Mustafar; and learning
to accept his new disabled reality. The
depiction of his frustrations with learning how to exist in his new disabled
body, his connection with the force, as well as deal with various traumas, parallels
the very real experiences of disabled war vets; both finding purpose and drive in
their new circumstances and learning to adapt to how their bodies now function.
The novel also builds the
fearful reputation of Darth Vader across the galaxy. To get used to his new
prosthesis, The Emperor sends Vader on Missions to hunt down renegade Jedi that
escaped Order 66. This leads to the fall of the Wookie planet of Kashyyyk and Darth
Vader becoming the Universe’s boogeyman. Vader’s ability to insight fear is
finally depicted on screen in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, where Vader
infamously cuts down terrified resistance troopers trying to recover the stolen
Death Star plans. From that moment, through the original trilogy, Darth Vader
is a competent tactician, warrior, pilot, and second in command of the Empire.
He is a disability success story. Unfortunately, this is all nearly lost
through his retroactive backstory, which transforms this glorious disabled
personhood, into the tragic victimhood of a whiney, entitled, and imbittered
child.
From the beginning of the
Prequel Trilogy, Anakin Skywalker is seen as an innocent child. The intension
by Director George Lucas was for the audience to wonder how such a sweet child
could turn evil. This is the first step in Vader’s transformation from
personhood to victimhood. The initial depiction of Anakin in this way, leading
to the general question of “What happened to make him into Vader?” Positions the
result of Vader as Anakin’s lowest point, dehumanizing the disabled, rather
than see power in it. Additionally, as we move through the Trilogy, the great
friend, warrior, and General, Anakin Skywalker whom we are supposed to root for;
is an arrogant, adrenaline obsessed douchebag who has a self-absorbed
attachment to people and an inability to deal with change, due to a literal God
complex. This is the kind of hero Lucas believes Vader should be redeemed back
into? No, Thank You. What Lucas also misses here is that often, acquiring your
disability gives you a different perspective on the world. While some
physically disabled people long for their “golden” years before an illness,
accident or incident caused their disability, for many others, they do not long
to go back to who they were before. Their disability made them a different
person. This “certain point of view”
from Lucas, illustrates the undercurrent of biological determinism in the
Prequels through the added unnecessary existence of midiclorians
In the original trilogy,
the force was literally explained as “an energy field created by all living things.
“It binds us, penetrates us, and holds the galaxy together.” For Lucas however,
this needed more explanation. In the prequel trilogy he introduced the idea of
midiclorians as something in the blood of force sensitive people, that allows
them to manipulate the force. The higher your midiclorian count, the stronger
you are with the force. Add to this the
notion of your ability to use the force is directly proportional to how much
organic tissue you have; and not only are you providing an unnecessary pseudo-scientific
explanation for something once thought spiritual, but the way it is explained
is also eerily close to explanations used throughout Scientific racism to
justify oppression. Additionally, this explanation also sacralizes the flesh,
by defining the power of the force by the abilities of a full and complete able
body. This disgusting validation is quantified
in fan databases which have depicted Jedi and Sith power
levels based upon the amount of organic flesh they have. This is the epitome of
an ableist representation.
Taken all together, Darth
Vader was a “Techno Marvel” conception of the 1980’s, and from a disability
perspective, a powerful and feared warrior whose authority in the Universe was
second to only one. Yet, that validated disability identity is ruined through
the ableist and biologically deterministic reformation of the prequel trilogy,
that deconstruct Vader’s achieved personhood through disability, into a sad
victim narrative of a petulant child who never learned to grow up.
CONCLUSION
Disability and Capitalism
have always carried between them personhood and victimhood. Profit motive Capitalism allow for an
incongruous independent personhood along with the seeds for exploitative
victimhood for Disabled people. This merging duality coming into form beginning
in the 1980’s, led to an increase in the visibility of disabled persons through
the depictions of cyborgs in science fiction and children’s programming. While
the strength of those depictions may have been muted through their use in
profit driven corporatization, or retroactive continuity changes later, there
is importance in their visibility to the overall acceptance and integration of
Disabled people in the larger able-bodied society. We must always look to
science fiction for how we could better our present, as long as we also remain
vigilant to those stories and reconsiderations that may provide the opposite.
REFERENCES:
Charlton, James L. 2000. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment Los Angeles. University of California Press
Durkheim, Emile 1912. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Faber, Liz W. 2021.
“Introduction to the Special Issue on Robots and Labor.” In Popular Culture
Studies Journal 9. (1). Retrieved on 8/1/2021 at https://mpcaaca.org/the-popular-culture-studies-journal/current-issue/vol-9-is-1/
Foucault, Michel. 1965.
Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason New
York: Vintage
_________1975. Discipline and
Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage
Gibson, Rebecca.
2020. Desire in the Age of Robots and AI: An Investigation in Science
Fiction and Fact. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave
Goodman, Martin 2010.
“Dr. Toon: When Reagan Met Optimus Prime.” In Animation World Network Retrieved on 8/26/2021 Retrieved at https://www.awn.com/animationworld/dr-toon-when-reagan-met-optimus-prime
Haraway, Donna.
1987. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in
the 1980’s” In AFS Autumn (4) Retrieved on 8/1/2021 Retrieved at https://www.sfu.ca/~decaste/OISE/page2/files/HarawayCyborg.pdf
Retrieved
Mills. C. Wright.
1951. White Collar: The American Middle Classes New York: Oxford
University
Norden, Martin F.
1994. The Cinema of Isolation: A History of Physical Disability at the
Movies New Jersey: Rutgers University Press
Siebers, Tobin 2006. "Disability Studies and the Future of Identity Politics" In Identity Politics Reconsidered p 10-30.
Trevino A. Javier.
2012. The Social Thought of C. Wright Mills. Los Angeles: Sage.
[1] “The
Centralization of Poverty has thus ended the union of poverty and work as the
basis of man’s essential freedom and the severance of the individual from an
independent means of livelihood has changed the basis of his life plan and the
psychological rhythm of that planning. For the entrepreneur’s economic life
based upon property , embraced his entire lifetime and was set within a family heritage, while
the employee’s economic life is based upon the job contract and the pay period.”
(Mills 1951:14)
[2]
This has become even more difficult given the development and implementation of
Sponsored
Content and Native Advertising
[3]
This is what I point to in explaining my moral compass as a child and the
development of a hero complex.
[4]
There were some exceptions to this “rule” the 1990’s Batman: TAS episode His
Silicon Soul tackles the heavy topic of Robot personhood
[5]
This also leads to another issue of violence desensitization in children
because they are not shown the consequences.
[6]
This is not for a lack of trying.
Hospitals and the privatized medical industry have been trying to cut
the disabled body into an able-bodied form for years through unnecessary
surgeries, experimental drugs etc.
