by
Tristan Gevers
Everybody
knows apparently
I
must just be a transparency
The
thing I’ve been hiding so hopelessly is
That
I just want this bitch to notice me
These
are words that come from the band Just Jack’s song, ‘Doctor,
Doctor’. It is a feeling
that most of us have experienced and can relate to. That social
situation, where there is that incredible individual that may be
drawing the attention of the crowd. He or she may just be drawing the
attention of a few, or it may just be you. You try to catch their
attention, try to be noticeable. It seems that nothing you do can
catch their attention, nothing you do can get them to notice you. You
keep trying.
Success.
For
a split second they give you a smile, and then it’s gone. It is a
liberating and yet crushing smile. Liberating for they have now
noticed you. Crushing, because in that smile, they have said that you
just do not make the cut. You
realise,
like the individual in Just Jack’s song, that you can try but you
just cannot win. You have been judged by your physical appearance,
your shell. You do not lose hope. You say to yourself “hard luck
this time, perhaps I’ll have better luck next time?” It happens
again and possibly again.
Rage.
Lying
in bed at the night’s end, a battle begins to rage in your head. On
the one side, the justifications for not being noticed playing on the
flaws of those who have not taken notice of you, or those who have
taken notice and denied you for your appearance. They are stuck up.
They were probably too high maintenance anyway. They are not worth
it. You are probably better off without them. But this side has
little hope. For the counter-attack of a broken self-esteem is
overwhelming. Why? Why wasn’t I noticed? A harsh realisation. You
were betrayed by your physical appearance. Your essence has not been
recognised.
Your body has failed you.
Humans
are naturally social beings. All striving to be
recognised
by their peers, and yet most falling short of this recognition. What
recognition is it that seems so important? It is the recognition of
an individual beyond how they physically appear, a recognition of
what makes them, them. In short, it is the recognition of their
humanity. The recognition of who they are. The above example has been
experienced by all. The social situation where one isn’t
recognised,
limited by their appearance and physical traits. Many are lucky
enough to only face this in a social situation, and in the modern
world, many can pay to have certain physical traits changed. But what
if you can’t? And what if this is an everyday experience?
In
his work, Black
Skins, White Masks,
Frantz Fanon makes the correct claim that in a racist society “the
white man is sealed in his whiteness, the black man in his
blackness”. During the time of writing, Fanon was experiencing the
true horrors of oppression, being amongst those that were seen as
‘the
colonised’,
to use Albert Memmi’s term. Fanon was sealed in his shell, unable
to break out of the oppression that was brought down upon him by the
colonists. He was a black man living in a white man’s world. It
didn’t matter how hard he tried to break free of the shackles that
restrained him, he never could be free. He was a black man, and that
was all he could ever be. He was sealed in his shell, a prisoner of
his blackness with a white idea of blackness forced on him. And he
was not alone. He provides many examples in Black
Skins, White Masks
of those chained by their physical characteristics. Black women
striving to be seen by the white man, in the hope that the white man
will marry them; or perhaps attempting to learn to speak the language
of the
coloniser like the coloniser. These are all attempts by those who
have been colonised and oppressed to try and break out of the
shackles that have kept them down for so long. They are all attempts
that fail. Fanon and others like him had fallen short of humanity.
They were unable fulfil the specifications that were put in place.
However, what were these characteristics?
During
the enlightenment period, many philosophers attempted to define what
it is to be a human. Many different theories of man (sic) came out.
An idea was formed. Characteristics were given to what it means to be
human. Could this be right? The movie Bicentennial
Man,
which was released in 2001, is a wonderful example of humanity being
based on a set of characteristics. It is based on the journey of the
android (robot) – who is named “Andrew” by his family at the
very beginning of the film – towards humanity. Andrew is denied any
form of humanity, for he is an android. He is not an individual. He
is “the same as all the others”. But he is not the same. One very
soon begins to see that Andrew is no mere android. He is creative; he
is interested in his surroundings. He wants to learn, he craves
freedom, and he yearns to be human. He is loved by his family, and
then he is ousted by them for wanting freedom – freeing him as a
result, but forbidding him from seeing those of whom he has grown
fond. That does not stop him. He wants more. He wants to be human. He
embarks on a journey to be human. He begins working to earn money for
these changes. He gets himself skin, but he is still not considered
human because being human is more than having skin. He then gets
himself organs; he is still not human because being human is more
than just having organs. He marries a human woman, he loves this
woman, but the relationship is frowned upon because he is still not
human. Eventually he even sacrifices his own apparent immortality
(being an android) as humans do not possess immortality. The film
ends with him being declared human, something that he never saw
achieved, for he passes away moments before the announcement. He was
created a robot. Throughout his lifespan humanity evades him. He dies
a robot. Humanity is only granted once he has passed away.
This
example may be arbitrary because we are talking about an android. He
is a robot, how could he be considered human? But perhaps it is not
he who is at fault. When it becomes clear that he is not just another
android, that he is unique, he is a true individual; the company that
manufactures him wants to take him back to destroy him for precisely
his individuality. During his lifespan, he creates much happiness in
others, far more than many humans could be said to cause. He
experiences much more than many hope to experience, and he helps many
people that most humans would only give a glancing thought. Yet
because he has broken the mold, because he has gone against what an
android is meant to be, he is seen a threat to the company’s image.
He sacrifices so much, no longer an android because of his changes,
and yet not a human because he still does not fit the characteristics
set aside for human status. He is in limbo. He is a prisoner to his
form no matter what he does to try become something else. He is a
robot, he dies a robot.
How
flawed can this idea of humanity possibly be? It is understood that
when talking about the android, one is talking about a machine.
However, as with Fanon and others being black in a white man’s
world, “Andrew” is constrained by this very term “android”.
It defines him. Many people would find it completely insane to
consider a machine being human. But how are we, as organic beings
which fall into the category of “man”, any different? In the same
way, we are all “objects”. Yes, we were born and not
manufactured. Yes, we have skin and organs and are not made of metal
and wires. But is it not true that only a select few have the
privilege of holding onto that title of being human? As was shown
above, Fanon struggled through this during his experience of
colonialism. How is this any different to the struggle faced by
“Andrew”? He too, sought changes to himself, so that he too could
be considered human, so that he too could be recognised. The examples
presented by Fanon in Black
Skins, White Masks
show similarities with the journey of “Andrew” in the very
attempts by the colonised to be
recognised,
to reach this unreachable ideal. In the colonial situation they never
could break out of the shackles that were placed on them by others.
They could never reach that title of being properly human.
How
can this still be relevant in the modern world some may ask?
Colonialism was dismantled decades ago; Bicentennial
Man
was nothing more than a movie. Surely this indicates that there have
been massive changes, surely it can’t still be an issue? This could
not be more incorrect. Much like the fall of the apartheid regime in
South Africa does not correct all injustices, “formal” freedom –
being civil and political freedoms - does not necessitate that all
injustices are instantly fixed. One must raise the question as to
whether things have really changed. One cannot assume that things
have drastically changed solely because of “formal” freedoms that
have now been gained by those previously oppressed. Barrack Obama
recently came out in support of the rebels in Libya, saying that
these popular movements have won great victories; they have opened
the gates to political and civil freedoms. They can now join the rest
of the “free” world. The same was said in South Africa after the
truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Again, humanity has been
reduced to a set of characteristics, without actually removing the
previous characteristics – although it has been moved to a more
subtle sphere, hidden by the rhetoric of freedom that has become so
common place. Once again there is an exclusive humanity.
It
has been mentioned how Fanon argued that in a racist society the
black man is stuck in his blackness, and that the white man is stuck
in his whiteness. In much the same way as “Andrew” and the rest
of the androids have no chance of reaching that title of humanity,
marginalised
groups are trapped, prisoners of their own forms. These people are
viewed and objectified by their characteristics. They have fallen
short of what it means to be considered a human being. The homeless
are trapped in their homelessness, and the disabled are sealed in
their disability, the unemployed are restrained by their lack of
employment, the aged snared in their agedness. The list goes on.
Trapped by their characteristics, they cannot feature as humans. They
lack those certain characteristics. Like “Andrew”, like Fanon in
France after the Second World War, they can never know what humanity
feels like.
Groups
have often been
marginalised
on the basis of characteristics. Iris Marion Young clearly and
correctly states that
marginalisation
is one of the most dangerous forms of oppression. Marginalised groups
do not fit into society; they are seen as having no use in society;
as but a burden on society. It extends beyond this however. We in
society make them unwelcome. We pass the blame onto them for being
single mothers, for being unemployed, for being homeless, for being
disabled. How can it possibly be society’s fault? There is no
oppression; that was all dealt with when colonialism and Apartheid
were removed. Everyone has the ability to move up and down in
society, there is no job reservation anymore, society is open. How
wrong we are. How far we have fallen…
We
again have an exclusive humanity. We only admit those who are worth
admitting. Those who make the cut. Marginalised groups do not stand a
chance. Constantly unable to achieve the characteristics required for
humanity and unable to request societies help. They not only fail in
becoming human in the eyes of society, they are actively ignored by
it.
After
the fall of colonialism, and because of the attempt to destroy racism
and other forms of oppression, many countries as well as the
international community have adopted forms of controlling free speech
with limits, like banning hate speech. South Africa is one of these
countries. The idea of a limitation on hate speech creates many
problems. The international idea on hate speech can be used to
clearly demonstrate the apparent lack of consideration to these
groups. In this, limitations on freedom of speech can be made on the
speech when it humiliates, denigrates, harasses and intimidates
groups on the basis of group characteristics, almost always on the
grounds of race, ethnicity, gender and religion. The main problem
with this is raised by Eric Heinze in his paper ‘Cumulative
Jurisprudence and Hate Speech: Sexual Orientation and Analogies to
Disability, Age and Obesity’. He correctly suggests that this idea
of hate speech does not include the disabled, the aged and the obese,
amongst other groups. It is still very often that one will hear the
word “retard” used when insulting another, or hearing individuals
complain that old people just cannot drive. These forms of speech are
much the same as certain forms of speech that are limited by hate
speech. When this is raised however, it is argued that these groups
did not face the severe systematic oppression that Jews, blacks and
others faced. It is not necessary to limit this speech because it is
not as emotionally charged as hate speech towards the above mentioned
groups. Really? Can one truly argue that disabled people have not
faced the same horrors as other groups such as the Jews or blacks?
Were the disabled not also murdered in the concentration camps
because they were a threat to the purity of the German Aryan race?
Have they not faced extermination since the times when the city-state
Sparta was great? Have they not been avoided, for they have been (and
sometimes still are) seen as cursed by the Gods? How can one possibly
argue that they have not suffered as much?
It
can be seen that marginalised groups do not have a place in society.
But it is not completely grim. Some states have measures in place to
help such groups. It is a false hope however. Tainted by the societal
views, many of these groups find themselves at the mercy of these
institutions that have been put in place to help them. They have to
sacrifice rights, freedoms, before these institutions will
considering helping them. They are still often blamed for their
situation. Society begrudgingly attributes a small amount of aid to
them, on the terms that they work themselves out of the situation
that they have gotten themselves into; never admitting that there is
a problem with the structure of society, how could there be? These
groups, and their families, all suffer.
It
was a bright and sunny day in the city of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Mid-January. A family goes about its daily business. A mother in
Durban in a family meeting. A father at work. Children spread out
between school and university, although the university students are
still enjoying the last few weeks of their holidays. One child, a
first year university student, gets into the car to visit her
boyfriend. In a split second, a beautiful day turns into hell. A man
is speeding, and does not stop for a red light. The family is shaken
to its very core at the unfolding tragedy. But the child survives.
She does not survive unscathed however. She is in need of 24 hour
care. She is bound to a wheelchair. She has been given a life
sentence. Doomed to wonder a world that does not wish to understand
or care for her. Is she not the same person though? Her body might be
broken, but is she not still who she was? Whatever the answer, she is
shackled to this new life by one careless individual. She is forced
to adapt to a different life, realizing what has been taken from her
by this careless individual.
It
is not all lost. Through the mutual support of family and friends,
this family survives. However, the world is not made for one with
disabilities. The very house the family lives in is not suited for a
disabled person. There is a chance that the family can get some
relief from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). It is funded by a levy on
petrol, so every driver contributes. This appears to be the perfect
solution; however, it is not necessarily that simple. This is a fund
that has been put in place (supposedly) to look out for those who may
get injured in road accidents. When a claim is made, it does not go
to those individuals who caused the accident, but to the RAF. The
idea behind the RAF is excellent. It protects those who may have
caused accidents but may not have the income to fix the problem that
has been created, but also provides for those who have faced injuries
in road accidents, and who may have been left in a vulnerable
situation because of it. But the fund is riddled with corruption.
Doctors and lawyers collude to defraud it. The child and her family
have to prove their claim. This requires lawyers’ accusations,
fault calling and reliving the horrors of this life changing
experience. The family fights. The family wins. Among other rewards,
the RAF is told to pay half of the costs of reconstructing the house
to be more disability friendly.
The
family is excited to make changes. Changing the house would make it
more comfortable for the child, and would possibly aid the child in
gaining a bit of independence and successfully retaining as much of
her dignity as possible. The world is not disability friendly, and
until now, the family has been unable to make some of these changes.
The child is living a life in a world that does not accommodate her
basic needs. The family consults stimulating specialists, consults
architects, and does intense research into creating an environment
that will accommodate this child, to create a space where she is not
held back because she is disabled. Plans are made. The house will
need to be transformed to allow this child to access all areas of it.
She will finally have a space where her disability will not be such a
hindrance. She will have a bathroom suitable for her, a bathroom
separate from the rest of the family so that her bathroom needs are
not in open sight of the rest of the family. She is not the only one
who benefits. The caregivers that provide her with the 24 hour care
will have a room to themselves, attached to the one where this child
will be residing, benefiting both the child and the caregiver, for
they both have privacy. Things are looking up.
Dreams
are dashed. A letter from the RAF prefaced with “Without
Prejudice”, shoots down the suggestions from the medical
specialists, presenting its own solution. Even though the project is
geared towards improving life for the disabled child, stimulating the
child’s recovery, bringing back remnants of a stolen life, the
disabled child still has no access to the garden, kitchen, or other
rooms in the house. It is still impossible for her to attempt to grow
a little independent within the constraints of her disability. The
world is unfriendly to the disabled. Now her personal space remains
so. The RAF proceeds to accuse the family of only wishing to enrich
themselves. It argues that the changes are unreasonable and that the
Fund will not contribute its 50% to the funding. It then proceeds to
say that it is only obligated to pay for a fraction of what was
estimated, and only if the “reasonable” changes that it suggested
are adhered to. These changes involve a ramp through the main bedroom
of the house and converting one bathroom. The remainder of the house
remains unchanged. For this to be changed, the family must fund all
these changes. As things stand, the payments the RAF makes for
medical costs and other therapy needs trickles in at a very slow
pace. Thus the family can’t afford these changes. The changes
suggested by the RAF not only forces the child to live in a house not
suited for her, but eliminates the remnants of her dignity, while
also eliminating all chance of privacy for the child, her caregiver
and the child’s parents. The Fund has successfully limited its own
involvement in creating a level of existence that could leave this
child as comfortable as she could be in this new disabled life that
has been forced upon her by another careless individual. It has
successfully protected the perpetrator, the individual who ran the
red light, while leaving the victim in a still vulnerable position.
It has made the disability the family’s problem, and has left the
family to fix the problem. One wonders how many others – disabled
and other groups - have faced this same treatment by the very
institutions that are meant to help them.
One
placed in this situation can quite easily understand the frustration
that goes into Fanon’s Black
Skins, White Masks.
They are not part of society, they do not fit in. They cannot reach
an equal level of humanity because they do not have the
characteristics required. They are always bound by their
characteristics. They live in a world that is not willing to accept
them. They live in a world that does not want them. Perhaps we need
to readjust what humanity is? Perhaps we must do away with the
current ideas of humanity altogether? What is certain however is that
we cannot continue denying that there is a problem. We must recognise
people for who they are, not for what they look like.
