Who Counts? Care, Disability, and the Questionnaire in Jesse Ball's Census.

IF 1.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Medical Humanities Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1007/s10912-024-09879-5
Emily Hall
{"title":"Who Counts? Care, Disability, and the Questionnaire in Jesse Ball's Census.","authors":"Emily Hall","doi":"10.1007/s10912-024-09879-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the Biopolitics of Disability, David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder (2015) assert that disabled people are subjected to endless health and government questionnaires that harvest their data in exchange for better care. As disability advocates such as the National Disability Rights Network (2021) have demonstrated, these questionnaires-like the 2020 census-are highly flawed because disabled populations are not asked to shape the questions that will determine government funding and access to medical care. Although data collection is a source of contemporary literary and scholarly interest, few works explore this in the context of disability. However, Jesse Ball's 2018 novel Census examines questionnaires, specifically the census, and illuminates how narratives of disability are warped by the faulty data these objects collect. I argue that the protagonist, a dying father whose son has Down syndrome and requires full-time care, uses what Jack Halberstam calls \"queer failure\" to create a more equitable census that will make possible the kinds of care disabled populations deserve. Rather than create a perfect, objective questionnaire, the father skews the questions and data to center disability in the story of America, as he moves away from recording everyone's experiences and instead highlights the lives of disabled people, their caretakers, and their systems of care (doctors, neighbors, etc.). I suggest that this \"failed\" census reveals those networks and systems of interdependency that scholars like Judith Butler (2020) and advocates such as Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018) posit would radically change how care is approached, thus rendering the census as an object of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":45518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Humanities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-024-09879-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the Biopolitics of Disability, David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder (2015) assert that disabled people are subjected to endless health and government questionnaires that harvest their data in exchange for better care. As disability advocates such as the National Disability Rights Network (2021) have demonstrated, these questionnaires-like the 2020 census-are highly flawed because disabled populations are not asked to shape the questions that will determine government funding and access to medical care. Although data collection is a source of contemporary literary and scholarly interest, few works explore this in the context of disability. However, Jesse Ball's 2018 novel Census examines questionnaires, specifically the census, and illuminates how narratives of disability are warped by the faulty data these objects collect. I argue that the protagonist, a dying father whose son has Down syndrome and requires full-time care, uses what Jack Halberstam calls "queer failure" to create a more equitable census that will make possible the kinds of care disabled populations deserve. Rather than create a perfect, objective questionnaire, the father skews the questions and data to center disability in the story of America, as he moves away from recording everyone's experiences and instead highlights the lives of disabled people, their caretakers, and their systems of care (doctors, neighbors, etc.). I suggest that this "failed" census reveals those networks and systems of interdependency that scholars like Judith Butler (2020) and advocates such as Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018) posit would radically change how care is approached, thus rendering the census as an object of care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁算数?杰西-波尔《人口普查》中的护理、残疾和问卷调查。
在《残疾的生物政治学》(Biopolitics of Disability)一书中,大卫-米切尔(David Mitchell)和莎伦-斯奈德(Sharon Snyder)(2015 年)断言,残疾人要接受无休止的健康和政府问卷调查,这些调查收集他们的数据,以换取更好的护理。正如国家残疾人权利网络(National Disability Rights Network,2021 年)等残疾人权益倡导者所证明的那样,这些调查问卷与 2020 年的人口普查一样,都存在很大的缺陷,因为残疾人群体并没有被要求提出决定政府资助和医疗服务的问题。尽管数据收集引起了当代文学和学术界的兴趣,但很少有作品以残疾问题为背景进行探讨。然而,杰西-波尔(Jesse Ball)2018 年出版的小说《人口普查》(Census)审视了问卷调查,特别是人口普查,并揭示了残疾叙事是如何被这些对象收集的错误数据所扭曲的。我认为,小说的主人公是一位垂死的父亲,他的儿子患有唐氏综合征,需要全职照顾,他利用杰克-哈尔伯斯坦姆(Jack Halberstam)所说的 "同性恋失败 "来创建一个更加公平的人口普查,从而使残疾人群体获得应有的照顾成为可能。这位父亲并没有制作一份完美、客观的问卷,而是对问题和数据进行了调整,使残疾问题成为美国故事的中心,因为他不再记录每个人的经历,而是突出了残疾人、他们的照顾者以及他们的照顾系统(医生、邻居等)的生活。我认为,这次 "失败 "的人口普查揭示了那些相互依存的网络和系统,而朱迪斯-巴特勒(2020)等学者和莉亚-拉克希米-皮埃普兹纳-萨马拉辛哈(2018)等倡导者认为,这些网络和系统将从根本上改变人们对待关爱的方式,从而使人口普查成为关爱的对象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Humanities
Journal of Medical Humanities HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Humanities publishes original papers that reflect its enlarged focus on interdisciplinary inquiry in medicine and medical education. Such inquiry can emerge in the following ways: (1) from the medical humanities, which includes literature, history, philosophy, and bioethics as well as those areas of the social and behavioral sciences that have strong humanistic traditions; (2) from cultural studies, a multidisciplinary activity involving the humanities; women''s, African-American, and other critical studies; media studies and popular culture; and sociology and anthropology, which can be used to examine medical institutions, practice and education with a special focus on relations of power; and (3) from pedagogical perspectives that elucidate what and how knowledge is made and valued in medicine, how that knowledge is expressed and transmitted, and the ideological basis of medical education.
期刊最新文献
Guest Editorial: Medical Humanities and COVID-19/Post-COVID-19 Challenges. The Long or the Post of It? Temporality, Suffering, and Uncertainty in Narratives Following COVID-19. Wait for Me: Chronic Mental Illness and Experiences of Time During the Pandemic. Mary Unknown. The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No, by Carl Elliott. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2024.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1