The document summarizes and analyzes key points from an essay by Davis titled "Visualizing the Disabled Body". Davis argues that disability is a social construct based on cultural and sensory perceptions, rather than an inherent quality of individuals. He provides examples of how descriptions of objects and bodies can influence whether they are seen as beautiful or repulsive. Davis also compares responses to those with disabilities to responses to monsters, showing how ideas and labels shape these reactions. The essay discusses how society forms perceptions and assignments of "normal" vs. "disabled" based on differences they detect visually or sensorily.

1. Cassandra Glebavicius
English 111x
Major Essay 2:Textual Analysis
“Visualizing the Disabled Body” brings forward the idea of everyday events of the
interactions between “normal” and “disabled” people in everyday life. “Normal” people come
into contact with others who are different from themselves, and based on the visual
interpretations one receives, we as a society conclude that such people are “different”, and thus
“disabled”, as proposed by Davis (18). The posed question brought up however, is why society
envisions “disability” and makes various connections when coming into contact with an
impaired, or simply “different” body than what is familiar to them, what attributes of a particular
individual makes them “disabled” or different from oneself, and what degree of physical
impairment makes the connection of being disabled, compared to simply being limited.
Davis takes control of our imagination, evoking the adverse affect one would receive
from various visions when he describes them in an unknown way to his reader; making the idea
of making love a clumsy and embarrassing interaction between two by adding to the description
a disabled person, describing one of the most beautiful statues in the world with grotesque
language such as “Her left foot has been severed, and her face is badly scarred, with her nose
torn at the tip, and her lower lip gouged out,” giving his audience the ability to visualize what
normally is a gorgeous symbolic woman as a scarred and ugly being. Similarly, Davis provides a
new light into what we already know; the monster of Frankenstein, as we all know to be
unbearably ugly and horrendous, yet Davis puts particular attention to various attributes so that
we see the small beauty associated with certain characteristics the monster itself holds. The fact

2. that we see Medusa as an ugly woman with snakes for hair is because we are taught that within
the story society is told. Medusa, “once a beautiful sea goddess,” is turned to the hideous
monster we associate her name with today, the “winged monster with glaring eyes, huge teeth,
protruding tongue, brazen claws, and writhing snakes for hair” that follows the myth. Medusa
first represents the “embodiment of beauty and desire,” and then forcefully becomes the
“embodiment of ugliness and repulsion” (19-20). The end result is continuous in the image
people hold of Medusa.
Davis also brings to the table the comparison of the relishing Venus de Milo to that of the
visually disrupting quadriplegic Pam Herbert. Davis states the physical “mutilations” of both
figures and compares them, challenging that the visual of both would be considered “physically
repulsive” and “without erotic allure” based on the thought evoked, to that of a “normal” person.
He then raises the question as to why the Venus de Milo is an icon of beauty, while Pam Herbert
is a “focal point for horror and pity”. However, within the text, Davis answers his own proposal;
“Disability is a cultural phenomenon rooted in the senses.” Thus, disability, in the sense of Davis,
is an idea, or thought, placed in the minds of society through culture, and can be turned ugly
similarly to that of the Venus de Milo, with the right ideas. The Venus de Milo is an idea, the
icon of a battered woman. Disability is an idea, a politically correct term that society has labeled
as an accepted difference. However, when using the right ideas, one has the power to change the
meanings of words; such as an accepted term, or a famous statue. Every word or signifier holds
an idea, and with repetition and word choice, Davis changes this idea held within society. Davis
creates altered ideas of “disability”, and the “Venus de Milo”; both which already hold accepted
meanings.

3. By describing the Venus de Milo with such word choice and vivid terms such as
“severed”, “gouged”, and being “covered with scars”, Davis evokes an idea; one that
condescends the original idea of beauty connected with the Venus de Milo, thus turning a
beautiful thing into a repulsive figure (16).
Similarly, Davis creates a new meaning to “disability”, by describing it as a
“fragmentation”, “disruption”, and “dysfunction”; evoking a new idea that condescends the
original idea of acceptance connected with the term “disability,” thus turning a politically correct
choice of a word into degradation (18-20).
Davis asks why “the impairment of the Venus de Milo [doesn’t] prevent people from
considering her beauty,” but what isn’t apparent is the idea of the Venus de Milo, for her
impairment is exactly what makes her beautiful. The idea of her beauty lies within her flaws,
because through culture, we have been led to perceive the Venus de Milo as a beautiful woman,
but we have been led to perceive the disfigurations she carries to be repulsive in nature. The
image we receive when coming into visual contact of a disabled person is a conscious one, but
the idea we recognize from the image is unconscious. The representations we see, as recognized
by Davis are based on the “nature of the subject” rather than the “qualities of the object”; the
problem lies within the “observer” rather than the “observed.” We as a society label disabled
people as fragmented, based on the visual perceptions, which are translated into “psycho-
dynamic representations” due to the conclusions we draw from familiarity (17).
In addition, Davis brings the comparison of Frankenstein’s monster to that of a disabled
person. Again stating similarities between the two, he then separates the two, stating the creature
is a “monster rather than a person with disabilities” (21). Though the creature has similar aspects

4. to that of a person, disabled or not, such as being “well proportioned…with long black hair, [and]
pearly white teeth” (22) like that of a “normal” person, and is “inarticulate, somewhat mentally
slow, and walks with a kind of physical impairment” (21) like the characteristics that may follow
a disabled person, Davis argues that the monster is neither normal, nor disabled, but a different
category; a monster. Again, the separation is marked by the ideas related with one another; such
that “disabled people are to be pitied and ostracized; monsters are to be destroyed; audiences
must not confuse the two.” Based on the view the audience is presented with toward the monster,
one concludes that the beast is horrendous and, not disabled, but dangerous due to the
representations society relates with the idea of a “monster.” This connection is posed again
through the idea that the monster is a visual interpretation and “evocative of the fragmented
body” (22).
We as individuals tie meanings and visions to specific ideas that are introduced to us.
Since the moment a child can learn, “each individual assigns good and bad labels” based on what
we know and are introduced to; from the splitting of “the good parent from the bad parent,” or
the labels of “whole and incomplete, abled and disabled, normal and abnormal, functional and
dysfunctional” as stated by Davis (18). These all are ideas we are introduced to because we are
equipped with what Davis refers to as the “abled gaze” (17). This creates a “disruption in the
visual, auditory, or perceptual field,” because something is different, or in terms of industrial
productivity, not as functional as a normal body (18). This then shifts the ideas of the different
perceptions of disabilities we associate with, to that of grouping different disabilities as either
“’disabling’ (bad) or just ‘limiting’ (good)” and the idea that if one is “disabled” they are
devaluated (19). This explains why one may feel little pity or possibly not even recognize the
impairments of a person with glasses, or a broken leg, yet feels uncomfortable and guilty when

5. coming into contact with an individual of drastic differences. This idea forces those with the
“abled gaze” to see others differently, pity them, or turn away in embarrassment, as Davis states
“even if that position is not warranted” (17). People don’t want to recognize these differences,
but turn away or avert their attention to something else so as to seem as though the difference
had gone unnoticed, but as Davis states, the aversion of turning one’s head too fast is just as
much an insult as staring. The fact of society is that we do have an image of the disabled person;
we know they are different, and that is unlikely to change. Abled and disabled people alike must
understand that disability is that of Davis’ theory, “a cultural phenomenon rooted in the senses.”
The reaction to the disruption of the visual and perceptual field of a disability is something that
in such a position, an individual is unlikely to control, however hard one may try. Disability in
the broadest sense is an idea, and nothing more.

6. coming into contact with an individual of drastic differences. This idea forces those with the
“abled gaze” to see others differently, pity them, or turn away in embarrassment, as Davis states
“even if that position is not warranted” (17). People don’t want to recognize these differences,
but turn away or avert their attention to something else so as to seem as though the difference
had gone unnoticed, but as Davis states, the aversion of turning one’s head too fast is just as
much an insult as staring. The fact of society is that we do have an image of the disabled person;
we know they are different, and that is unlikely to change. Abled and disabled people alike must
understand that disability is that of Davis’ theory, “a cultural phenomenon rooted in the senses.”
The reaction to the disruption of the visual and perceptual field of a disability is something that
in such a position, an individual is unlikely to control, however hard one may try. Disability in
the broadest sense is an idea, and nothing more.