Mules and Madmen: On the Disabling Habitats of Zora Neale Hurston and Jean Toomer

Liz Bowen
{"title":"Mules and Madmen: On the Disabling Habitats of Zora Neale Hurston and Jean Toomer","authors":"Liz Bowen","doi":"10.18061/dsq.v43i1.9680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay reads the work of two major Harlem Renaissance authors as underacknowledged sites of disability politics and aesthetics, situating this moment in African-American artistic innovation as integral to the literary history of disability and illuminating the theories of disability that shaped these authors' experiments in literary form. Specifically, it argues that texts by Jean Toomer and Zora Neale Hurston were attuned to the intertwined vulnerabilities of Black people disabled by early-20th-century labor exploitation and more-than-human ecologies debilitated by the same industries. These works represent a serious challenge to the long-running myth in white disability studies that claims nonwhite authors have historically distanced themselves from disability for fear of racist pathologization. Toomer’s story “Box Seat,” for instance, positions its protagonist's atypical mental state—represented by voiceover-like internal monologues—as both aesthetically generative and materially responsive to the commercialization of racialized, disabled, and nonhuman spectacle. Meanwhile, Their Eyes Were Watching God’s oft-cited “mule of the world” metaphor finds literal representation in the form of a work-disabled mule, whose appearance in the narrative occasions one of Hurston’s most memorable aesthetic innovations: the incorporation of folklore into the realist novel. For both of these authors, disability represents not only vulnerability to the machinations of racial capitalism, but also creative invention and formal resistance to white-dominated narrative norms. They show that a capacious, ecologically oriented disability politics is central to the history of Black cultural production.","PeriodicalId":55735,"journal":{"name":"Disability Studies Quarterly","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v43i1.9680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay reads the work of two major Harlem Renaissance authors as underacknowledged sites of disability politics and aesthetics, situating this moment in African-American artistic innovation as integral to the literary history of disability and illuminating the theories of disability that shaped these authors' experiments in literary form. Specifically, it argues that texts by Jean Toomer and Zora Neale Hurston were attuned to the intertwined vulnerabilities of Black people disabled by early-20th-century labor exploitation and more-than-human ecologies debilitated by the same industries. These works represent a serious challenge to the long-running myth in white disability studies that claims nonwhite authors have historically distanced themselves from disability for fear of racist pathologization. Toomer’s story “Box Seat,” for instance, positions its protagonist's atypical mental state—represented by voiceover-like internal monologues—as both aesthetically generative and materially responsive to the commercialization of racialized, disabled, and nonhuman spectacle. Meanwhile, Their Eyes Were Watching God’s oft-cited “mule of the world” metaphor finds literal representation in the form of a work-disabled mule, whose appearance in the narrative occasions one of Hurston’s most memorable aesthetic innovations: the incorporation of folklore into the realist novel. For both of these authors, disability represents not only vulnerability to the machinations of racial capitalism, but also creative invention and formal resistance to white-dominated narrative norms. They show that a capacious, ecologically oriented disability politics is central to the history of Black cultural production.
骡子和疯子关于佐拉-尼尔-赫斯顿和让-托默的残障栖息地
这篇文章阅读了两位哈莱姆文艺复兴时期主要作家的作品,他们的作品被认为是残疾人政治和美学的未被承认的场所,将这一时刻置于非裔美国人艺术创新中,作为残疾人文学史的一部分,并阐明了塑造这些作者文学形式实验的残疾理论。具体来说,它认为吉恩·图默和卓拉·尼尔·赫斯顿的作品反映了黑人在20世纪早期的劳动剥削中残疾的复杂脆弱性,以及被同一行业削弱的超越人类的生态系统。这些作品对白人残疾研究中长期存在的神话提出了严峻的挑战,该神话声称,非白人作家历来因害怕种族主义病态而与残疾保持距离。例如,图默的故事《包厢座位》(Box Seat)将主人公的非典型精神状态定位为旁白——就像内心的独白——作为审美上的生成和物质上的回应,以应对种族化、残疾人和非人类景观的商业化。与此同时,《他们的眼睛在注视着上帝》中经常被引用的“世界的骡子”的比喻在字面上得到了体现,即一只因工作而残疾的骡子,它在叙事中的出现引发了赫斯顿最令人难忘的美学创新之一:将民间传说融入现实主义小说。对这两位作者来说,残疾不仅代表着对种族资本主义阴谋的脆弱性,而且代表着创造性的发明和对白人主导的叙事规范的正式抵制。他们表明,一个广阔的,以生态为导向的残疾政治是黑人文化生产历史的核心。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信