We get a mini exhibition!
As an epistemic clue that we are recognised as something, rather than someone, our predicament is objectified in form of a mini exhibition here at the University of Zurich.
What the question is: what is a normal body
The most intriguing question that they ask is what defining criteria for a “normal body” really is. We have to take that as the relevant question also because, — as I read the exhibition — that is the one question that finds a strikingly clean answer.
Overall, the idea to think of exhibiting cripples (Cybathlon at School, ETH) or old stale stuff that they see as integral parts of cripples that need to be stared at and made fun of (Iron Man Captain Hook, ETH) certainly has to be regarded as cute : ) at least it also is definitely extremely outdated, historical, stale, moldy.
Never do they answer their alleged questions, take Cybathlon, for example: while their ever raging claim is that they somehow improve something, they never actually develop prosthetic arms that are actually better, at least not for real work – all they actually do is objectify and exhibit cripples in a cripple circus [Cybathlon discussion]. While it is trash culture at its best, that is what the world gives us. But I digress.
Pile of stuff (E1)
At this mini exhibition they had things on display. Pile of stuff behind glass.
Here is the stereoscopic photo pair that I took, myself, on 26.09.2024 around 20:20 hours (that was all there was, in terms of actual object exhibition, though) [what is a stereoscopic image pair: make sure eye distance / image distance are in line and stare long and hard, maybe it will become 3D in your perception]:
So far, so good. Generally, that is what Universities do, collect old stuff, copy old texts, have the stuff stand there for a bit, promote ancient meanings, keep the past alive, scare the professors. And make sure the wrong people aren’t included. No surprises there. A pile of old cripple stuff, behind glass so it doesn’t smell.
So, E1 (exhibit 1) is that pile of stuff right there. More importantly, however, we did not learn what defines a normal body so far, so more work is needed.
The makers (E2)
The people that came up with that are listed here (Alessandra Cortiana, @betschartiwan, @artvalentina2012 / Valentina Egli, Jona Garz, Michèle Hofmann, @eliotcgisel, Sabina Carraro, Dr Sophie Ledebur, Johanna Stierlin, @theophilevergnaud / Theophile Vergnaud, Frank Weinmann, Katja Steih).
In total we count 12 people, a dozen. They also had their own carpenter.
This now becomes interesting as this certainly takes up so much space on the panel that I would go forward and label that E2 (exhibit 2).
While the enumeration as such is a satisfying step in what now amounts to a bit of quantitative epistemic discovery, we are not there yet, so more research work is needed.
“Citing” me (E3)?
Now, apparently, the Masters students were to perform a bit of “research”. Seems like others acted as supervisors or helped put the display up.
Interestingly, the authors provided some content that they somehow obtained from me. This is where this gets more interesting.
Let us point out this text part at the core of my argument, “In contrast dasu sest sih Wolf Schweitzer heide mit Nochdrolk dafur ein das Targen vom Huk zu entistagmitieren” (or something like that, see photo) and label this as E3 (exhibit 3).
So, how on earth did the authors get that information that they seemingly obtained from me.
Verbal? Nope. They never talked to me about that. They did not call me. They sure did not write an e-mail to me. They definitely did not come by our office even though they are on the same campus. They did not even send a written note or send a fax. In no word did anyone mention this. And if ever the one or other on this list was in our scanner r oom and if ever I was there myself they still kept shut perfectly well. That’s OK, I am not going to ask before posting this either.
How then did they “know” what I might have said?
Written word? They must have read things. But any normal researcher or other writer of scientific text that reads stuff and re-uses that, they will cite sources. As I wrote things on this website, and, in scientific papers, I am easy to cite, properly, by giving author, date, title of document, and website / URL or journal name.
But no, that was not done either.
Kilroy was actually there:
So in terms of trying to generate truth in any scientifically citable sense, in their eyes, I don’t even exist. I cannot be cited, or, asked.
And that is not to be seen from a personal angle: what this states is that it does take a full dozen apparently non disabled University employees that are funded by University to not even properly cite the cripple.
And while all that now clearly is a deep insight of sorts, deeper than counting to 12 (I can only count to 5!) (test question: why?), we still have no idea what defines a normal body. So wo have to keep banging the rocks together.
So close and yet so far
Let me recap: they make an exhibit at our Uni, as part of an assignment for a master degree in education.
Now, as it appears really, this is a place where they may not learn much, like, how to include others, such as disabled people, sure, place of exclusion more than anything else, but they should at least be able to learn how to cite properly. I guess I understand their cultural background, and why it is good for them that they stay away from PWD, as, … oh yikes aaargh, they seem to act like we all could be infectious – as all people with handicap, we likely propagate fear and trembling, terror and angst.
After all, that is the academic environment that we know and joke about, that is not specific to a particular place and location, but to academia in general [link], as from past days and years, this is a very consistent continuation of previous experiences.
Recommended reading to understand better the context of what type of disabled people to avoid, and why
Not everyone provides others’ opinions without proper citations/references. Here is recommended reading to learn how, why and what to do when rejecting or avoiding disabled people:
- Tringo JL. The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. The Journal of Special Education. 1970 Oct;4(3):295-306.
- Also, continue reading about Gunther Cloerkes.
- You most likely follow a value set as laid out and explained by Thorstein Veblen.
#stayaway #disability #epistemicinjustice #exclusion #uzh #iem #ife #amputee #academia #closedworld #enlightenment #imperialism #thorsteinveblen #alienation #ivorytower
What, then, are normal bodies?
What we really want to know is what was promised on the flyer for the exhibition: what, then, is the defining criteria for a normal body?
Assuming that it is true that in this microcosmos, E2 -> E3, i.e. the dozen of apparently nondisabled normal body people were unable to create a better attempt at citation than E3, then we could call “botched citation by 12 normal bodies” E4 (exhibit 4).
Then, we could ask, do old stale (or new) prosthetic arms, the pile, E1, you remember, cause E4 to be perceived as good? That is where it gets interesting: not a person in the world that has a normal body will have realised there to be any issue with E4 – simply because E2 placed E1 most likely as an effective distractor.
It does appear, then, that E1 distract normal bodies from academically relevant aspect E4.
The role of grotesque bodies in academia in all likelihood must be that of distractors
Knowing that, we can argue the hypothesis that placement of a grotesque body (or signs, symbols, insignia of grotesque bodies) act as effective distractors so that any supervisor or visitor will not realize that academic rigor if not academic focus is entirely lacking or absent.
Because really, they didn’t explain anything that makes particular sense.
A great other example is that of Cybathlon. The Cybathlon prosthetic arm competition was started after the ETH seemingly had not much to show for in context of the NCCR Robotics [link]. They still have absolutely no own prosthetic arm developments with regard to just about any device that can be used for real work as arm amputee, as they also seem to lack all professional exposure [link], and that is where it gets interesting: how can they get away with that? How do they get away with belittling arm amputees that wear normal prosthetic arms [link]? With zero relevant training? The answer lies exclusively in the social hierarchy with regard to institutional powers [link].
So as conclusions, normal bodies can show stale piles of old prosthetic junk or other grotesque circus style distractors to other normal bodies, and thusly get away with incorrectly treating a disabled body and with lack of precision content and with lack of proper academic etiquette. That is what is anecdotally suggested here.
PS
I attended their live presentation 17.12.2024. They spent half an hour detailing every little thing they did to arrive at a glass covered stand in the main hall of the university. About 10 people were there to hear about how to make a stand happen, give or take. The banality of that felt hard to top, but, admitted, it seemed like it was a lot of work. Thusly I suggested they try to do the whole thing in 3D / virtual space next time. One participant replied that she still believes the exhibits are more interesting physically and when they can be touched, but I pointed out these exhibits would all be behind glass and not to be touched anyway. The subject of prosthetic arms, and why their exhibit had not actually addressed any content related questions, remained untouched.