The stories arrive from every quadrant. Not long ago we received news of a blind woman who was harassed by her neighbors in a condominium complex in Westchester County, New York. The neighbors complained because the blind woman in question was, well, blind, and not only that, she was old and for crying out loud she wasn’t always accurate when cleaning up after her guide dog out there on the lawn.
Her young and fully sighted neighbors, or some of them, excuse me, I’ll just say it–the neighbors who drive imported automobiles were inconvenienced by an occasional turd out there on the grass. The point is they had to “see” it.
They insisted that this elderly woman should have to take her dog to an unseen location.
Discrimination against people with disabilities is not new. Nor is the vulgarity of entitlement, the exaggerated posturing of privileged citizens who find physically challenged people unacceptable a new thing. The “Ugly Laws” that once prohibited physically challenged people from appearing on America’s streets come to mind.
Why are people with disabilities so interesting to neo-vulgarists? I’ll take a stab at the matter by positing that the new vulgarity is not economic in the old way. It doesn’t have to do with the cost of installing a ramp or retrofitting a bus.
Instead this new intolerance is driven by “trickle down” fundamentalism. Just as there are structural conditions that restrain people with disabilities there is a new and revised inhibiting attitude in our domestic affairs–an absolute denial of abnormal bodies in public. Americans are seeking the Puritan village. A Puritan village is after all a “pure” location uncontaminated by any kind of deviance.
The entitlement of “new vulgarity”–or, if you will, of Puritan self-congratulatory standards of social utility depends on dressing well, being slim, and keeping tidy. If you can’t manage these things you better get out of sight.
As for economics, in the world of popular culture banishment sells. Shows like “The Biggest Loser” or whatever MTV happens to be handing out are fine examples.
The blind woman mentioned above was commanded to appear before her condominium’s board of directors for a review.
This was a matter of considerable disgrace. Ultimately the matter was settled with all due apologies once the lady and her guide dog “lawyered up”.
Are the “ugly laws” back? Your guess is as good as mine. But certainly the rhetoric of aesthetic exceptionalism is all over the place.
S.K.
Planet of the Blind 
We the unwanted must continue to press forward regardless of how uncomfortable others may feel. Not only will I not go away but I will press for my civil rights.
LikeLike
Dear WJ: You can bet that I’m also an unwanted presence at town meetings, academic meetings, school board meetings, etc. You can see it in the eyes of the new vulgarians: “Why won’t (they) just go away?”
LikeLike
As one who lives in the very wealthy suburbs of Westchester, NY I found your concept of “new vulgarity” accurate and though provoking. When I moved into my home and started to build a ramp the building inspector was at my home in minutes. Apparently my neighbors were worried the ramp to my home would be an “eye sore” and ruin the “look” of the neighborhood. I was not humiliated and dragged before a coop board but I sure was angry. The bigoted response to my presence and “eye sore” of a ramp inspired me to be go to town board meetings whenever access is discussed. I glare at town’s people that want to ignore the ADA and my presence is as unwanted today as it was the day I moved in.
LikeLike