Barton and Leitch: The Response to the Disabled

Ellen Barton's "Textual Practices of Erasure" really makes me think about the influence and effectiveness of advertisements. It's strange that they seem to have such a strong influence over the reader, when interpretation is supposed to be our right. Leitch says, "This transaction, which we provisionally call 'reading' or 'interpretation,' typically involves such activities as personal response, appreciation, evaluation, historical reception, explication, exegesis, and critique. "(Leitch, et al 2) So it stands to reason that what we read and perceive is based, not necessarily on what we are confronted with, but how we apply our own personal response and criticism to the text.

Leitch's claim, however, presents a bit of an issue for Barton. She is basically blaming United Way for the way disabled people are seen in the United States. She talks about how the children are always shown to seem pitiful, and the adults overcoming extreme obstacles. But if they aren't able to overcome, then they are labelled unproductive members of society (Barton 196). I wouldn't necessarily say that United Way has all the power in this situation though; they aren't forcing us to believe a certain stereotype. Rather, our personal experiences and responses form our own interpretation of the advertisements. A person can be influenced by these things, yes, but only for a moment without applying some serious personal addendum. For example, am I for going vegan to save the animals? No, absolutely not. Did PETA's pictures make me feel a bit bad? Yes, of course, they influenced me. But not enough to change my opinion, my way of life. And I think that's a huge part of a person's individual process. Barton might say, we have these stereotypes because of United Way. But maybe we have these stereotypes because a lot of people have been exposed to the "pitiful" disabled person. United Way is just reinforcing this way of thinking.