In his disability memoir Cockeyed, Ryan Knighton details his experiences with love, travel, work, and loss as he descends into blindness. Through Knighton’s interactions with society as a blind person, we gain insight on how society perceives, acts, and reacts to Knighton’s disability. At the same time, we see how Knighton has to present himself to society due to his blindness and the expectations that come with it.

The “I” and the “Me”

The presentation of the self as a result of society’s expectations is best understood through American sociologist George Herbert Mead’s theory of the “Self”, which can be attributed to two components: the “I” and the “Me” (Mead 320). According to Mead, the “Me” comprises of the socialised aspect of an individual, which refers to the expectations and attitudes of society that an individual internalises. On the other hand, the “I” refers to the individual’s responses and actions as a result of these values he/she has internalised from the “Me”. Essentially, the “Me” tells an individual how to act and respond as the “I”.

In Cockeyed, Knighton’s “Me” tells him how people recognise and respond to him as a blind man. For instance, when he first uses his cane, Knighton starts to recognise the various ways people respond when they encounter a blind person on walkways: Some are stumped and remain rooted in his way, while others panic and sidestep at the last moment (72). These expected responses come to comprise Knighton’s “Me”, and allows his “I” to react accordingly. For Knighton, he finds this amusing and “too fun to cause that much trouble” (72) and as such, uses his cane to elicit such responses from society. Likewise, Knighton’s use of his cane allows the public to identify him as a blind person, and this tells his “Me” that people will take extra caution around him, and as a result, his “I” is able to “take less care” (73) and “take more risks” (74).

Cockeyed also explores the “Me” and “I” of society with regards to disability and disabled people. The actions of society’s “I” helps us understand the attitudes assumed by society’s “Me”. When Knighton narrates his story of being mugged, and then let off with an apology when the robbers discover that he is blind (94), he shows how society’s “Me” sees blind people as weak and deserving of pity. In another story, Knighton’s experience with a blind man’s wife’s over-eagerness to help shows how the “Me” views blind people as helpless (227). Through these experiences, Knighton finds society’s attitudes towards the disabled troubling: in assuming all of them as weak and helpless, society inevitability discriminates and marginalises disabled people, even if it were for good intentions. Knighton, in his story about being mugged, comments that he felt a loss of dignity because “Discrimination feels like discrimination, even when it’s for the best”. He also writes “I wanted to lose. I wanted to lose like everybody else in order to keep that bit of dignity” (94). Knighton shows how society’s “Me” has internalised disabled people as second class, and challenges that this notion has to change as it is discriminatory.

Final Thoughts

Instances of the “I” and the “Me” are found throughout Cockeyed. By looking out for these presentations of the self from the perspective of a disabled person and the society that acts in response to the disabled, we can better understand how hidden rules and behavioural norms are shaped by the society around us. Knighton’s narrative offers us a rare and much-needed perspective that helps us understand how constraints of disability are often a result of social constructs. With this knowledge, we can work towards eliminating these stigmas to better accommodate the disabled.

P.S Learn more about Mead’s “I” and “Me” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

P.P.S Check out Merial’s blog where she explores how Knighton’s disability memoir challenges the marginalising attitude of society.

References:

Mead, George Herbert. “Self.” Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings. By Scott Appelrouth and Laura Desfor. Edles. Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge, 2008. 311-21. Print.

Knighton, Ryan. Cockeyed: A Memoir. New York: Public Affairs, 2006. Print.

Aboulafia, Mitchell. “George Herbert Mead.” Stanford University. Stanford University, 13 Apr. 2008. Web. 16 Oct. 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mead/#IMe>.

On Goodreads, I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban currently holds a 4.03/5-star rating from over 170,000 ratings and nearly 12,000 reviews at the time of writing. While it is important to study reviews, for they are a form of epitext (elements outside a book), which Gérard Genette argues can affect how a book is interpreted and received by various reading communities (Smith and Watson), rather than studying how majority of readers are reading the book, I would like to explore how critics of the book are reading it. After all, it is easy to find good reviews (74% of reviews are 4 stars and above) about the book talking about how “inspirational” and “powerful” Malala’s story is.

Book ratings on Goodread.

However, by exploring what critics dislike about the book or the author, and why, we can better understand what Malala’s story lacks or misrepresents, or even why some critics see her story as a form of Western propaganda. To do this, I will be looking at one-star reviews found on Goodread.

Misrepresentation

One key criticism of Malala’s life narrative is the misrepresentation or exaggeration of the situation in Pakistan. In a review by Muhammed Syed, he writes,

“Most alarming thing for me was that Pakistani’s(sic) oppress women. This could be attributed to rural areas but not at all applicable to cities or urban towns. We have doctors, teachers, accountants, nurses, air force and commercial pilots.”

In another review by Ayesha, who in response to a line from Malala’s book (‘I agree that female teachers should educate girls,’ he said. ‘But first we need to educate our girls so they can become teachers!), says,

“Anyone living in Pakistan can see how false this statement is since majority of the teachers are women here.”

In both reviews, there is a common sentiment of anger and shock at how Pakistan is being portrayed as backward, oppressive, and discriminatory, which the reviewers claim is overblown and exaggerated. It would appear that from their point of view, Malala’s descriptions are either false, exaggerated, or over-generalised for the entirety of Pakistan solely from her own experiences in her town. This brings about questions on the authenticity of Malala’s book, and whether her retelling of her stories were shaped in such a way to garner a more sympathetic attention from readers, particularly from the West. This is especially so when we consider that her book was not her effort alone, but in collaboration with a British journalist, Christina Lamb, who is listed as a co-author. In her review, Guardian writer Fatima Bhutto too questions the purpose of the book when she writes,

“here in Pakistan anger towards this ambitious young campaigner is as strong as ever. Amid the bile, there is a genuine concern that this extraordinary girl’s courageous and articulate message will be colonised by one power or other for its own insidious agendas. She is young and the forces around her are strong and often sinister when it comes to their designs on the global south.”

Arrogance

Another criticism of Malala’s story is how cocky or arrogant Malala comes off in her descriptions of herself, which critics found as a turn-off. In the same review by Ayesha, she comments,

“We don’t need to know about how high and mighty and how different from every girl you are in like every chapter.”

In another review by Colleen, she writes,

“Much of what other people were saying was how great Malala was. The book is filled with a nauseating amount of self-praise and humble brags. Oh, she is always quick to point out that other people are the ones saying those things.”

When readers find that the author of an autobiography comes across as arrogant and cocky, they become less invested in the story the author has to tell. As a result, readers may be less receptive of Malala’s intended message in her book, as the book had become a weak medium to transmit this message. In fact, Colleen is supportive of Malala’s message and cause, but instead finds the book a poor means of promoting it, as she writes,

“Let me start by saying that what Malala has lived through and accomplished is incredible. I do not want my low rating of this book to imply that I am in any way unsupportive of her cause… But this book is so poorly written that it seems to counteract Malala’s cause. As harsh as it sounds, while reading this book I kept wondering how she became famous from her writing if it was all as passionless and choppy as this book.”

Final Thoughts

When we consider that Malala’s message may have been poorly received due to her descriptions being interpreted as arrogance, distancing the reader and the writer also causes more scepticism to Malala’s story, which exacerbates the first criticism of her story being exaggerated. And it is this possible misrepresentation of her story that has a huge influence when we question the purpose of the book: While Malala may have wished to share her story and stand for freedom and education, the book itself may have been edited and published for the sake of demonising the East and praising the West instead. And it is this perceived purpose that may explain why some critics see Malala, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, instead as Malala – propaganda of the West.

P.S. Check out Andrew’s blog where he discusses how Malala’s book is received in Pakistan.

References:

Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2001. Print.

“I Am Malala.” Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17851885-i-am-malala>.

Syed, Muhammad. “A Review of I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” Goodreads. N.p., 04 Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/739633268?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1>.

Ayesha. “A Review of I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” Goodreads. N.p., 09 June 2016. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1498107513?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1>.

Colleen. “A Review of I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” Goodreads. N.p., 01 Oct. 2016. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1711186955?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1>.

Bhutto, Fatima. “I Am Malala by Malala Yousafzai – Review.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2016. <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/malala-yousafzai-fatima-bhutto-review>.