Monthly Archives: March 2014

Faking it: Diamond Grill vs. Cockeyed

Following our in-class discussion of “faking it” in the context of Ryan Knighton’s memoir Cockeyed, as well as our more extensive exploration of the concept earlier in the term as it relates to Fred Wah’s biotext Diamond Grill, I thought that it could be useful to compare the ways in which the idea of identity performances or “faking it” is approached in these two drastically different autobiographical texts. Although I seek to compare these texts, particular emphasis will be placed on “faking it” in Cockeyed.

While in Diamond Grill, faking it means passing as a privileged member of the dominant racial group in spite of partially being a member of a minority group, in Cockeyed, faking it takes a different meaning: it refers to the attempt to superficially appear ‘normal’ despite having a physical disability. In Diamond Grill, given that Wah is only one-eight Chinese, his external appearance does not disclose any details about his mixed racial identity, allowing him to be “camouflaged by a safety net of class and colourlessness” (Wah 138). Similarly, in Cockeyed, Knighton’s partial sightedness at the onset of his eye condition enables him to pass as “normal” and “sighted”, allowing him to reap the social benefits and privilege of being associated with the hegemonic normative culture. However, in Cockeyed, it seems that there is a more active attempt to be seen and accepted as part of the normative group. For instance, as Knighton starts to become familiarized with the differential social treatment of the disabled and the potential disadvantages of being associated with the special needs community, his decision-making comes to be shaped by his desire to disguise his identity as a blind man. For instance, as explored in the chapter “At Home with Punk”, Knighton begins to visit Vancouver night-clubs more often, seeing them as the ideal scenes for him. Here, he is able to blend in seamlessly (Knighton 51), as the movements common to individuals with eyesight deficiency, including toppling over, stumbling and falling are seen as normal in nightclubs.  Therefore, as Knighton confesses, the culture “camouflage[d] [his] inability to cooperate with bodies around [him]” (Knighton 64), allowing him to fake a degree of normalcy.

Nevertheless, as Knighton succumbs deeper into his blindness, it seems that the rift between the worlds of normalcy and disability also starts to grow. Seeing the sphere of normalcy receding further into the distance, threatening to leave him at the periphery, he gradually finds himself resorting to a series of other behavioral patterns in order to retain his position as a member of the sighted community. Indeed, Knighton continually takes potentially life-threatening measures in order to preserve his façade of normalcy. For instance, even after receiving instruction on how to properly use the cane, Knighton admits that it takes “several weeks” (Knighton 69) before he actually begins to use it,  consciously leaving the device in his bag in order to camouflage his eye condition.

What is particularly significant here is the degree to which he endangers his life to be labeled and accepted as ‘normal’, or part of the dominant culture. The fact that he takes such measures to avoid being categorized as disabled not only indicates his shame towards his disability, but also highlights an internalized social stigma towards people with disabilities. As we have briefly discussed in class, particularly following our reading of Couser’s “Rhetoric and Self-Representation in Disability Memoir” Knighton’s stigma towards his blindness at the initial stages of his eye condition is the product of the dehumanizing frames utilized to depict disabled communities. In emphasizing their deviance, malignancy and monstrosity, the public and official discourses (and of course the dominant rhetorics in disability memoirs identified by Couser) solidify confining stereotypes of people with disabilities as inferior individuals who are incapable of interacting with the larger society. Although they might try to resist these labels, soon these individuals begin to evaluate and dissect themselves from normative eyes and recognize themselves as ‘Other’. These stereotypes therefore often become foundational to the self-perception of individuals with disabilities, which has undoubtedly detrimental impacts on their self-esteem.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized