Disability Studies QuarterlySpring 2009, Volume 29, No.2<www.dsq-sds.org>Copyright 2009 by the Society for Disability Studies

The Speech That Didn't Fly: Polysemic Readings OfChristopher Reeve's Speech To The 1996 Democratic

National Convention

Elizabeth SchermanDepartment Of CommunicationUniversity Of WashingtonE-Mail: Schere@U.Washington.Edu

Keywords:

Polysemy, Strategic ambiguity , Gaps and fissures, Leah Ceccarelli , Ableism, Christopher Reeve

Abstract

Actor Christopher Reeve's address to the 1996 Democratic NationalConvention was met with enthusiasm by the mainstream press, whilethe disability press responded with anger and disdain. This paperconducts a rhetorical analysis of text, context and audience receptionin order to explore these different interpretations of Reeve's speech.The study is framed by the concept of polysemy, and in particularLeah Ceccarelli's concept of strategic ambiguity and John Fiske'sconcept of "gaps and fissures" that allow for different meanings toseep through texts. Reeve's speech was not perceived by membersof the disability community as providing such openings for theirvoices to be heard. The negative reception of Reeve's speech wasfurther exacerbated by his lack of credibility with many in thatcommunity, his choice of language and metaphor, and even thevisual rhetoric of his convention appearance.

On August 26, 1996, former "Superman" actor Christopher Reeve sat before60,000 people at the Democratic National Convention in his electricwheelchair and gave a quiet but impassioned plea for funding researchleading to cures for disabilities. The television cameras panned over faces inthe audience that were intent and tearful, and the mainstream pressresponded to the speech with glowing reviews of how Reeve articulatedcourage and vision. "Reeve Saves Democratic Party" read the full-pageheadline in the next day's New York Daily News (Simendinger, 2000). The

Los Angeles Times reported that he "brought many delegates to tears as heappealed for more medical research," and noted that the major commercialnetworks ran eleven minutes overtime to accommodate Reeve's speech anda brief response from Clinton (McManus & Fritz, 1996). Reeve, who was

paralyzed in a 1995 riding accident, was hailed for championing disabilityrights. "The evening was capped by Reeve … (who) also praised the

Americans with Disabilities Act," wrote Richard Berke of the New York Times(Berke, 1996).

The Washington Post wrote that "Reeve paid tribute to the human spirit andspoke of balancing scarce resources and human suffering … the actor

praised the Americans with Disabilities Act" (Balz, 1996). The Seattle Post-Intelligencer described the speech as one in which

Reeve spoke movingly of families hit with the enormouscomplications of a loved one's disabilities. The 'Superman' starargued that the country must not only commit itself to easing sufferingand financial burdens, but also must find the research dollars todiscover cures. With the force of personal example, Reeve gavevoice to the themes of compassion and community. (Connelly, 1996)

Robin Leary of The Philadelphia Tribune wrote that "the heart-tuggingmoment of last night's program … came when actor Christopher Reeve, whois now a quadriplegic … spoke about overcoming adversity, and needs of thedisabled" (Leary, 1996). The Wall Street Journal simply summarized hisspeech as "(calling) for greater support for disabled people" (World-wide,1996). Even Washington Post's Tom Shale — no champion of the Democrats— conceded that Reeve provided "moving moments" and titled his column, "ItTook Superman to Rescue This One" (Shales, 1996).

It was Superman, in fact, who opened Reeve's speech. The man who was"faster than a speeding locomotive" teased Clinton about his train trip toChicago. "Sir," he said. "I have seen your train go by, and I think I can beat it.I'll even give you a head start" (Reeve, 1996). The convention audience ate itup. Reeve's speech ran ten minutes longer than rehearsed — largely due tosustained applause — but the networks did not cut away (Simendinger).

But if Reeve's "Superman" was seen by the mainstream press as soaringmagnificently, he barely got off the ground with the disability press.1 Thedisability press acknowledged that "Christopher Reeve incorporated someimportant lines about the ADA and disability rights into his … address," butthey attributed these references — which they saw as fleeting — to input bydisability activists in the Clinton party (Longmore, 1996). In fact, Reeve didwork with vice president Al Gore's main speechwriter,2 who disabilityadvocates say was heavily lobbied to include references to these issues(Longmore, 1996). Whether done to silence his critics or out of genuineinterest, Reeve began his speech with the declaration that "we all have value,"and added that the Americans with Disabilities Act should be "honoredeverywhere … [the disabled] need "access not only to buildings, but to everyopportunity in society" (Reeve, 1996).

However, these few lines did not impress the burgeoning disability press,which expressed feelings ranging from disappointment to absolute outrageover Reeve's speech. "Christopher Reeve launched the most subtle,pervasive, and invidious attack against disability rights and people withdisabilities in recent memory," wrote historian and disability rights author PaulLongmore (Longmore, 1996). Greg Smith, founder of a syndicated disabilityradio talk show, claimed that, "in twenty minutes, Reeve reinforced all thenegative images they have associated with [people with disabilities] fordecades" (Brown, 1996). Steven Brown, co-founder of the Institute onDisability Culture, asked, "Why is Christopher Reeve up there for other than tosolicit feelings of pity and pathos from an imagined [able-bodied] audiencethat will contribute to the cause of a party system that even goes so far as to

'claim' its disabled citizens" (Brown, 1996) and one disabled blogger wrote,"We're all horrified because he can undermine the life work of hundreds ofadvocates in just one speech" (Mail, 1997).

Why did the disability press have such a markedly different response from themainstream press to Reeve's convention speech? One concept that provesuseful in understanding the divergent responses to the same speech ispolysemy. James Jaskinski writes "in its most rudimentary sense, polysemysimply means multiple meanings" (Jasinski, 2001, p. 440). John Fiskedescribes polysemy in texts as being marked by "gaps" and "fissures" thatallow for different meanings to seep through (Fiske, 1986, p. 398, 402). Whilemost texts — whether speeches, writings, or films — present the possibility ofmultiple interpretations, there are times that the author of the text deliberatelyconstructs a text so as to allow for such differences in response. These"gaps," then, may be intentional; the strategic product of a rhetor who isdeliberately allowing for polysemic readings of the text, particularly where thetext is being marketed to a diverse audience. Ceccarelli writes that "in thiscase, polysemy is a strategy of the author, not the audience, and its power tomake a text popular with diverse audiences primarily serves the interests ofthe 'skillful' producers who are selling the text" (Ceccarelli, 1998, p. 407). Incontrast, there are times that the author may fail in his or her attempts toconstruct a text so as to invite multiple meanings, or it may be that the authoris not concerned with appealing to a diversity of audiences. In many cases,author intent is difficult to establish. However, Ceccarelli stresses thatresearch on strategic ambiguity does not depend on understanding authorintent, and does not merely conclude whether or not a text is "successful" witha given audience, but closely examines how a particular audience interpreteda text (p. 407, emphasis mine). It is this reading strategy that this paper seeksto employ in understanding why a particular audience — the community ofdisabled persons as reflected in the disability press — responded in such amarkedly different manner to Reeve's otherwise enthusiastically receivedspeech.

Audience response to Reeve's speech was influenced by both text andcontext. The context included societal events of the time, the involvement —real and perceived — of the subordinate population in the construction of thetext, and to some extent, the preexisting credibility of the speaker. Textualfactors center around the rhetor's ability or inability to apply strategicambiguity, and, among many disability writers, the perception was that Reevewas framing his message from an ableist standpoint. This perception wasinfluenced by Reeve's choice of metaphor and his employment of the "curenarrative." This paper examines each of these elements in turn, with theunderstanding that the involvement of the different populations and theperception of pre-existing credibility went hand in hand with the strategicambiguity of the rhetor — that is, how willing the rhetor was to let multiplevoices and meanings into the text.

Social Context

Reeve's 1996 speech came at a critical time in history for the disabledcommunity. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been passed in1990, and disability advocates had made some headway into issues such asaccess and health care. Yet to a great extent, disabled persons were stillsegregated from certain aspects of society, including the ability to physicallyaccess theaters, housing, stores, and places of business. Unemployment andunderemployment were rampant, and health care, including attendant care,was a critical and ongoing need, complicated by insufficient governmentfunding (Economics, 2007).

The medical model of disability, which placed the "problem" of disability on

the physicality of the individual, was being called in question, and new modelsof disability, including social models, were being utilized. These social modelsof disability explored distinctions between given impairment and thedeliberate or neglectful act of disablement, and focused on society'saccountability for the latter. Terms such as impairment versus disability, andableism — the belief that certain bodies are superior to others, and thepractices which are built upon that belief — were finding their way intoacademic and disabled community circles, although, unlike in the UnitedKingdom, disability was portrayed less as social oppression and more asmembership in a minority group (Shakespeare, 2002, p. 4). It is notsurprising, in fact, that such new terminology was not familiar to Reeve, whodevoted most of his attention to medical research.

As for the Democratic National Convention itself, disabled individuals (unlessthey were invited speakers) reported significant lack of accessibility to theevent.3 Even official convention delegate Harriet McBryde Johnson reportedlack of access to the convention, as well as a deplorable lack of disabledindividuals in attendance (Johnson, 2000). This was despite the fact that a keyissue being presented at the convention was disability rights.

In contrast, Reeve, who was solicited to speak at the convention by Al Gore,was treated almost reverentially by the conference audience. "I was delightedto find that there was applause after almost every line," Reeve recalled. "… Icame offstage — I think it was already a quarter past 11 — and I went by themedia pool, and suddenly there was a sea of television-camera light, and thecorrespondents all wanted a word" (Simendinger, 2000).

Navigating The "Cracks And Fissures"

The disability press had chafed against Reeve's agenda almost since dayone of his post-injury appearances, and did not expect him to satisfactorilyrepresent them. One disability press writer demanded that Reeve be yankedfrom the convention's program altogether. "We should all protest this AB[able-bodied] arrogance and warn Bill Clinton that if he does not reverse thisoutrage [and] cancel Reeve's speech … he will provoke our opposition to hispresidency" (Brown, 1996). There is no evidence that this request was takenseriously by the president or by the convention planners. Reeve, in fact, wasconsidered to be of such irreplaceable benefit that his speech contents werekept carefully guarded, much to the frustration of presidential political advisorDick Morris, who was denied preconvention access to Reeve's speech byDan Pink, Gore's main speechwriter, who had worked with Reeve on thespeech (Frisby, 1996). 4

Advocates within the Clinton administration did, however, contribute"strenuous and commendable labors" within the Democratic party, and werecredited with convincing Reeve to incorporate references to certain issues,notably disability rights and the need to support the ADA (Longmore, 1996).Reeve touched on these points early in his speech:

One in five of us has some kind of disability. You may have an auntwith Parkinson's disease. A neighbor with spinal cord injury. Abrother with AIDS. And if we're really committed to this idea offamily, we've go to do something about it. First of all, our nationcannot tolerate discrimination of any kind. That's why the Americanswith Disabilities Act is so important, and must be honoredeverywhere. It is a civil rights law that is tearing down barriers both inarchitecture and it attitude. Its purpose — its purpose is to givedisabled access not only to buildings but to every opportunity insociety. Now, I strongly believe our nation must give its full support to

the caregivers who are helping people with disabilities liveindependent lives. (Reeves, 1996)5

These inclusions of reference to caregiving, access, and the ADA, however,were seen as being achieved despite Reeve's efforts, not because of them."We should not underestimate this achievement," writes Longmore, "comingas it did at the last minute and against considerable counter pressures. We allshould thank our colleagues working quietly but firmly to get these civil-rightsclaims into Reeve's speech" (1996).

Reeve was not interested in "selling" his text to anyone but the mainstreamaudience, and in particular those who were in positions of power to determineallocation of research funds. He had agreed to speak at the convention, afterall, only on the condition that he was allowed to "use it as a platform to bringout any issues that [he] felt were important" (Simendinger, 2000) and he wasmore concerned with not offending either political party — both of which hewould have to work with to promote research — than he was in offendingthose in the disability community itself. Thus Reeve himself had considerableinfluence as to what types of textual "gaps and fissures" would be tolerated orenabled.

Reeve's speech was very constrained in its allowance of gaps that wouldallow other voices from the disability community to be heard. Reeve didcarefully create strategic ambiguity — appeal to diverse audiences — in hisspeech; he just didn't use it to appeal to the disability community. Instead, hefocused on creating moments that would speak to both political parties, toallow this "voice" of collaboration to permeate the fine membrane thatseparated his Democratic Convention speech from one that could bepresented at a Republican convention. Although Reeve reported that he wrotethe speech largely on his own, with the help of his wife, he did have input fromGore's main speechwriter, who had the agenda of creating a collaborative,nonpartisan atmosphere for the campaign (Simendinger, 2000). Voices ofthose in the disabled community were limited, and certainly they wereperceived by that community as being deliberately limited. In his speech,Reeve did invoke the disabled "characters" of Gregory Patterson and FranklinD. Roosevelt, although these were considered a curious choice by thedisability press: Patterson, like Reeve, had only recently become disabled,and Roosevelt was widely known for hiding his impairment as best he could(Houck, 1997, pp. 20-36).6 Reeve was certainly aware that many people whoidentify as disabled are born with impairments and do not see themselves asvictims of a tragic accident searching for a "cure." He had narrated "WithoutPity: A Film about Abilities," a documentary produced for HBO by MichaelMierendorf that included individuals who had lived with impairments all ormost of their lives.7 In his speech, however, he chose to share the stage onlywith people whose stories would advance his purpose — research and curefor spinal cord injury.

Reeve's speech, then, did not create openings for the voices of the disabledcommunity to pass though and this was seen by many in the disability pressas disempowering.

Do We Believe The Messenger?

Another factor in audience reception of Reeve's speech was that of sourcecredibility. Jasinski writes that the strictest Aristotelian interpretation of ethosis that of moral character made manifest within the speech itself, but goes onto state that later scholars broadened the idea of ethos to include sourcecredibility, which include the audience's preexisting perception of the rhetor'sintentions, expertness, and trustworthiness (Jasinski, 2001, pp. 229-234). It is

this latter concept of ethos that appears to be most useful when consideringthe mixed response to the speech.

Reeve was seen as an outsider from the disabled community: through hiswords, his life situation, and his perceived agenda, he was not seen asunderstanding what it meant to be the average disabled person in Westernsociety (Williams, 1997). Even before he opened his mouth on the DNCstage, Reeve had been disparaged in the disability community and press. Hiscampaign for the "cure" had begun as early as his 20/20 Interview withBarbara Walters, given while he was still at the Kessler Rehabilitation Institute(Goggin & Newell, 2004). From that point to his death in 2004, he spoke onfinding the cure for his condition. Reeve's unique situation as a wealthy,formerly able-bodied celebrity who was now presented as a spokesperson ofall disabled Americans was as problematic as it was dramatic.

To the mainstream audience,8 Reeve was already established as a "culturalicon, respected, beloved (Longmore,1996). Journalist Barry Crimmins, in hisreview of the convention, wrote that Reeve's work "as an advocate for state-of-the-art treatment for all afflicted people has dispelled any doubts about theman's grit or character" (Crimmins, 1996). Reeve was tapped as keynotespeaker for the convention when polls showed that he was number one onDemocrats' list of popular celebrities (Berke, 1996). Reeve clearly carriedcredibility with the bulk of his audience; in fact, it could be argued that he heldparticular authority with the mainstream audience. He had been "one of them,"after all — an able-bodied individual — who had incurred and lived with a life-changing disability. His fall from grace — from superhero to superdependent— drove home the truth that disability can occur at any time in anyone's life.He had spent a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy researchinghis issue, and he spoke with articulation and intelligence. Why would theaudience doubt his credibility as a spokesperson for the disabled?

But if Reeve carried great credibility with his mainstream audience, thedisabled audience — the very community that mainstream listeners assumedhe represented — was not impressed. Quite simply, they did not see Reeveas one of them. Reeve's failure to design the speech to counteract thisperception only exacerbated his lack of preexisting credibility with thatcommunity.

This lack of credibility with the disabled community came about for a numberof reasons. One was that from the very start of his disability, Reeve wasprotected from much of what others in his situation experienced:9 he had themoney to hire a personal staff of twelve to help him in every aspect of his dailylife; he was not dependent on insurance to pay for his care; he held anesteemed position in society, in part due to his movie star fame and hisportrayal in the media as a hero; he "made $50,000 a pop talking about cure… a $3 million advance for an autobiography on 'overcoming' " (Williams,1997). In a population where a disproportionate number of people areunemployed, the privilege of wealth is seen as huge (Phipps, 2000).10

Another reason that the disability press did not perceive that Reeve identifiedwith them was that Reeve had made it clear that he considered himself onlytemporarily disabled. Especially in the first years following his accident,Reeve made it very clear that he expected to walk again. "Until ChristopherReeve admits he is 'permanently' one of us," wrote Williams, "He will find ituseful, in order to maintain his 'status,' to ignore the rest of us" (Williams,1997).11 Because he believed his disability to be curable, Reeve focused onresearch leading to spinal injury treatment, and was thus widely regarded aspromoting "cure" at the expense of "care." After initial references to civil rightsand the ADA, Reeve spent the rest of the speech talking about researchleading to cure:

Now, one of the smartest things we could do about disability is toinvest in research that will protect us from diseases, and lead tocures. This country already has a long history of doing it. When weput our minds to a problem, we find solutions. But our scientists cando more. We've got to give them the chance. And that means morefunding for research. Right now, for example, about a quarter millionAmericans have a spinal cord injury, and our government spendsabout $8.7 billion a year just maintaining these members of ourfamily. But we only spend $40 million a year on research that wouldactually improve the quality of their lives and get them off publicassistance or even cure them. (Reeves, 1996)

This in turn was interpreted as coming from an ableist standpoint,promulgating the medical model of disability as an affliction that must beprevented, cured, or pitied (Peace, 2002).12 Again, even though Reeveopened his speech with a call to support the Americans with Disabilities Actand to support caregivers, this was seen as a token gesture by many in thedisability community, including those who believed that Reeve only includedthe reference because he was pressured by disabled activists in theDemocratic Party. It is apparent by remarks such as those of Stephen Brown,who called for Reeve's expulsion as DNC speaker, that the disability pressfound little in Reeve to commend, even before the convention.13

There are two complications to this understanding of Reeve's lack of ethos, orcredibility, with the disabled population. First, Reeve himself denied being aspokesperson for all people with disabilities.

"I wasn't elected, nor was I appointed," Reeve said in a 1998 interview.14 "Inever went out and said that I would take on the mantle of representing allpeople with disabilities. I can't do that and nobody can." When pressed torespond to the idea that he had been "launched into a position asspokesperson for people with disabilities," Reeve remained resolute: "To askme to represent all people with disabilities is unfair and impossible … I amnot the spokesperson of people with disabilities" (Cooper, n.d., emphasismine).15

It would also be simplistic to conclude that everyone who consideredthemselves disabled reacted to Reeve in the same way.16 Even those withspinal cord injuries, Reeve's specific focus, were of mixed mind when it cameto Reeve. "Reeve has done more for us in five years than others [have] donein decades," claimed one blogger on the Christopher Reeve HomepageGuestbook. "Seven years I have spent in a wheelchair. My life has meaningbecause of this guy … He does not HAVE to fight for us. But he does."Retorted another blogger on the same site, "He does not speak for everysingle [spinal cord injured] person and I don't want him to speak for me."

"The disabled who carp at Reeve — and they are legion — are missing thepoint," added a disabled reviewer of Reeve's autobiography. "They want himto be our star radical crip, to take a stand on the erosion of the ADA; to picket,chain himself … to busses … but that's not his cup of tea; he's chosen anotherroad. He wants to fix his body — and he's willing to devote his time andmoney to The Cure. And that's OK by me" (Review, 2003).

Furthermore, the very nature of what society labels as "disability" is mercurial;in fact, what is labeled "impairment" or "disability" within populations whothemselves identify as disabled is fluid and evolutionary. Therefore, the veryidea that Reeve could be a "spokesman for disabled people" may bearguably portrayed as difficult if not impossible. But it is the nature of themainstream press, as we have seen, to lump all "disabled people" together inone group so that Reeve could, in fact, be described as an "advocate for the

disabled" (Simendinger, 2000), and as a "powerful spokesman for all peoplewith disabilities" (Discovery, 2000) and "a loved one's disabilities" (Connelly,1996). Interestingly, the passage of time appears to have brought a morenarrowed accolade from the mainstream press: rather than be portrayed asspokesman for a nebulous group of "the disabled," Reeve is specificallydescribed as a spokesperson for spinal cord injury (Eaton, 2003), for "betterbenefits for people with long-term disabilities" (Marchione, 2004) and aschairing a foundation which is "dedicated to finding a cure for spinal cordinjury paralysis and other diseases of the brain and central nervous system"(Washington, 2000).

Reeve's credibility — or lack of it — depended, then, not only on the text of hisspeech but also with his "source credibility," or the personal credibility hebrought with him as an individual (Jasinsky, 2001). Reeve failed to satisfymany within the disabled community that he was "one of them," and hissuccess with the mainstream audience — whose press portrayed Reeve asspeaking for the entire disabled community — only served to furtherantagonize those who did not see him as their spokesman. Furthercomplicating the issue was Reeve's unsuccessful early attempts to disclaimhimself as a universal spokesman for all disability, the paradox of defining"disability" in the first place, and the discordant responses to Reeve fromthose who identified as disabled.

Reeve's Use Of Language

Language has long been recognized as having he power to create as well asreflect societal attitudes toward disability (Abberly, 1987, Barnes, 1992;Mitchell, 1997; Scott, 2006; Shakespeare 2002, Wilson, 2001). Reeveemployed language in several distinctive ways in this address; first, in the useof metaphor with his allusion to FDR's symbolic act of "lifting a nation," andalso with his use of the metaphor of "family" to describe American citizens.Finally, he employed what is described as the "cure narrative" to frame hisappeal for disability care and research.

Reeve made an appeal to authority in his allusion to Franklin DeleanorRoosevelt, but his attempt met with mixed success in the two presses, in partdue to how the audience interpreted the metaphor used. "PresidentRoosevelt," said Reeve, "showed us that a man who could barely lift himselfout of a wheelchair could still lift a nation out of despair" (Reeve, 1996). Thereference "met with prolonged applause" (Berke, 1996) and became apopular pull quote or sound bite in the mainstream press.17 In contrast, thedisability press thought it odd — disturbing, really — that Reeve would refer toa man who did everything he could to hide his disability (Brown, 1996). MarioCuomo had also used this appeal to authority in his 1983 address to theDNC, but put it this way, "[Roosevelt] lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift anation from its knees" (Cuomo, 1983). In Cuomo's version, the image wasone of a strong man completing a physical act: Roosevelt lifted himself fromhis wheelchair and lifted a nation up from its knees. In Reeve's version,Roosevelt is defined in part by his limitations: he is a man who can "barely lifthimself out of a wheelchair," and there is no allusion to the metaphoricalphysical accomplishment of lifting an anthropomorphized nation up from itsknees, but rather he metaphorically lifts the spirits, or delights the nation, anemotional rather than physical feat.

Reeve also used the metaphor of "family" in his description of America. Thefamily metaphor is not uncommon in political circles, but Reeve's use of theterm was unusual in that he deliberately framed "family" to mean allAmericans, and specifically both political parties; a tactic that fit in well withthe Clinton team's platform of collaboration (Simendinger, 2000) and standsin contrast to the use of "family" to valorize a particular party, such as can be

seen in Mario Cuomo's speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention.Reeve's intent was to frame his audience as one interdependent family, andwithin that framework, to request care giving and research to benefit thedisabled members of that family. Within the first three minutes of his speech,Reeve used the word "family" five times. He consistently used first personplural pronouns such as "we," "us," and "our." In his opening, Reeve referredto the term "family values," which has at times been used to fragment, notunify, the audience.

The last few years we've heard a lot about something called familyvalues. And like many of you, I've struggled to figure out what thatmeans. And since my accident I found a definition that seems tomake sense. I think it means that we're all family. And that we allhave value. Now if that's true, if America really is a family, then wehave to recognize that many members of our family are hurting.(Reeves, 1996)

Reeve was met with applause after he claimed that we were "all family," butthe most immediate and enthusiastic applause and cheering followed hisconclusion that "we all have value." (Berke, 1996). Although Reeve hadappropriated the Republican term "family values," he did so in a way thatsought to bring the two parties together, rather than alienate either one. Thisline from the speech was widely reprinted in major newspapers,18 with noapparent offense taken by those who might interpret it as a jab at theRepublicans.

Reeve continued in the framing of his appeal as one of family duty, using theexamples of disabled persons as our "aunt," "neighbor," or "brother." Whileacknowledging the need to "balance our budget," — a task every householdcan identify with — he added, "But we have also got to take care of ourfamily." While his mainstream depicted this use of "family" as admirable andinclusive, some within the disabled community read the metaphor differently.English professor David Mitchell, writing for the Electric Edge, argued that :

When Christopher Reeve invoked people with disabilities as thosein need of being 'valued' as part of the 'American family,' his appealwas saying that disability automatically excludes one from holding adefinitive social value; that disabled people could not affirm their ownvalue without the approval of non-disabled citizens and institutions.(Mitchell, 1997)

Brown saw Reeve's speech as solicitous; calling the noble, able-bodiedmembers of the "family" to "pity and pathos" (Brown, 1996).

In addition to using a metaphor that could be interpreted as patronizing orexclusive by the disabled community, Reeve framed his appeal for researchfunding on what is known as the "cure narrative," which disability advocatesargue is based on an ableist framework which places those with disabilities ina demeaning position as individuals whose lives — unless they are cured oftheir "affliction" — are somehow of less value than the lives of the able-bodied.

Longmore, who had called for Reeve to be stricken from the speaker's roster,compared Reeve's approach to a Jerry Lewis telethon. "Christopher Reeve ismuch prettier to watch, and far slicker than Jerry Lewis has ever been," hewrote. "And Reeve does not talk about 'his kids.' Instead he has changed thefocus to adults, like himself, who have become disabled and sick, and need tobe fixed and cured. Symbolically, Superman laid his hands on all Americans

and testified for us to be healed" (Longmore, as cited in Brown, 1996).

It is this use of language, the narrative of disability as that which should becured, that was perhaps the most problematic for the disabled audience.Where the able-bodied — one could argue hegemonic — audience took thewords "hurting," "merely being alive," "suffering," "needy," "pain," and"afflictions" to fairly describe the experience of being disabled, the disabledpress saw them as disempowering and as diminishing the value of lives livedwith a disability. In fact, Reeve's reference to "quality of life" was especially ill-advised, as the term had been used to argue for euthanasia for severelydisabled individuals; its inclusion into Reeve's speech can be seen as akin toGeorge W. Bush's error in describing his attempts to introduce democracy inthe Middle East as a "crusade."

Where the mainstream audience celebrated the idea of pouring millions ofdollars into the hope of a "cure," the disabled press saw both a pragmatic anda philosophical problem: pragmatically, seeking a cure meant divertingprecious dollars away from the vast majority of disabled people to a handful ofmiracle seekers; philosophically, the very idea of "cure" was based on theidea of disability as disease or "frontier" to be conquered. "The curenarrative," writes David Mitchell, is "a story of uneasy obliteration, for it alwaysends in the 'loss' of the object upon which it depends. Either the disability iseradicated and surrenders … or it resists conforming to the narrative of itsrehabilitation and the evidence of that refusal must itself be obliterated." Inthis, Mitchell argues, disability is the last "frontier": one that must beconquered or obliterated, despite its native occupants' protests that there isnothing wrong with it the way it is. And like the frontier of space, to whichReeve alluded in his speech, the frontier of disability can also be seen as"inexhaustible," placed in the future, a "perpetual lure" that seduces attentionaway from what need to be done for disabled people in the here and now."(Mitchell, 1997).

The narrative of "cure" is itself dependent upon the medical model ofdisability, or the framing of disability as disease.19 Reeve's reference to theneed for a "cure" that would "actually improve the quality of their (disabledpeople's) lives," suggests that disability equates with affliction, and hisanalogy of regenerating nerve cells with putting a man on the moon was seenas curious hyperbole, a rhetoric which "established a perpetual future tense inwhich we see the 'conquering' of disabilities as the foundation of aprogressive national myth … the 'cure narrative' … a frontier that will never beexhausted" (Mitchell, 1997). Indeed, this use of the medical model was evenseen as "located within the broader backlash against disability rights. Itprovides an avenue of escape that allows U.S. society and the government topretend they are doing something for disabled people" (Longmore, 1996).

Reeve's use of language, then, was not interpreted as empowering thedisabled community. He failed to select examples of what could be heard asother voices breaking through the cure narrative — using instead examples ofpeople for whom disability was experienced as a tragic injury or a source ofshame. Most importantly, his use of the cure narrative, and of disability assomething that can be conquered, was problematic.

Visuals And Images In Reeve's Speech

Reeve's speech on the DNC stage had strong visual elements as well. Rarelydid a mainstream newspaper describe Reeve's speech without noting whathe looked like; that he was in a wheelchair, or using a breathing device, ordramatically placed on stage. The Washington Post described Reeve as"strapped in his own wheelchair, his figure bathed in a spotlight (Balz, 1996)".As Reeve spoke, writes Berke, "The elaborate lectern lowered mechanically,

revealing his full, motionless figure in his high-technology wheelchair" (Berke,1996). By this time in the convention, writes Crimmins, "the audience was infull-blown sympathy … their hearts were open and accessible. And they wereabout to be caressed with a gentleness and dignity that is rare at politicalconventions. Christopher Reeve, an actor who was in a tragic accident and isnow confined to a wheelchair, was the evening's final speaker"(Crimmins,1996).

But if the metaphoric figure of Reeve on the convention stage — the erstwhileSuperman, now in a power wheelchair and on a respirator — was seen asinspirational by the mainstream press; the same presentation was seen asemotionally manipulative by some in the disability press. Disabled conventiondelegate Harriet Johnson saw it as a deliberate — although not scripted —emotional perspective, where the lights were dimmed, and Reeve wasintroduced:

Onto the stage he rolls and then sits, gleaming under a dramaticspotlight. The crowd is on its feet, wild with welcome, withexcitement, with awe. Yes. They're awed by the sight of this mansitting, smiling, looking around. He hasn't said a word and they'regoing crazy. It's real. There's no prompting from DNC staffers. I'm inthe middle of 60,000 drop-jawed souls witness to a late 20th-centuryPentecost. Physically, Reeve is way above the 60,000, isolated bythat spotlight. Symbolically, he's the object of devotion, not amember of the fellowship. As Reeve and the crowd are having theircommunion, I feel completely out of it. (Johnson, 1996)

Johnson, then, sees the visual rhetoric of Reeve as reflective of his position insociety and of his message: he is "way above the 60,000, isolated" in the waythat the disability press has described him as out of touch with the real-lifeexperience of being disabled. He is an object of admiration, not of pity —unlike many in the disabled population. How can this be? Researchers ofdisability portrayal in popular culture argue that representations of disabilitycan be broken down into archetypes, including disability as evil, as asupernatural mark, as a call for pity (charity), and as an amusement (Klages,1999 and Longmore, 1999). Colin Barnes lists twelve stereotypes, includingthat of "Super Cripple" — the person who achieves amazing things despitehis disability (Barnes, 1992). Reeve can be seen as that "Super Cripple" — infact, the disability press called him "Super Crip" — and therefore above beingtreated as a Tiny Tim, an object of pity (Goggin & Newell, 2004). This isparticularly interesting because the disabled population, as a whole, did notsee themselves as rising above that stereotype, in part thanks to attitudes thatthey saw Reeve as helping perpetrate. But Reeve himself was above it all; hehad been elevated — literally — above them, yet he was portrayed asspeaking for them.

Johnson goes on to describe Reeve as a "ventriloquist's dummy … CharlieMcCarthy … the face is commonly considered animated, but I see something… wooden" (Johnson, 1996). When interviewed by television news, Johnsonwas more circumspect. "Christopher Reeve is going through a tremendoustransformation," she said. "It doesn't make him a disability spokesman. He'sstill learning. He wants to be cured, but for us it's more important to live ourlives, just the way we are. He doesn't speak for us" (Johnson, 1996).20

Longmore, referring to Reeve's reference to the ADA and to caregiving, alsobased his interpretation in part on the visual elements. "Mr. Reeve clearlyfound the words he was compelled to utter distasteful to him, delivering themgrim-faced and grudgingly. He only warmed up in his speech when he got tothe subject of cure. He will continue to be a problem for disability-rights

activists" (Longmore, 1996). But if Reeve is a ventriloquist's dummy, who ismaking his mouth move? He is "being used" by research advocates, writesJohnson. This view — almost a conspiracy theory — that Reeve wasapproached in the early days of his paralysis by spinal research advocatessensing an ideal poster boy — was not uncommon in the disability rightsmovement. Peace writes that Reeve was "hopelessly naïve and surroundedby all the wrong people," (Peace, 2002) and disability blogger MichaelVolkman minced no words in his agreement. "Some greedy goody-two-shoesgot to him early, took advantage of his vulnerable emotional state, and isusing his celebrity for financial gain at our [disabled people] expense. He hasbeen set up. He is being used. I'd bet his time is carefully controlled so thatnone of us could get near him" (Volkman, 1997).

However, even before the accident that led to his injury, Reeve was known forbeing a widely involved activist, working for such causes as AmnestyInternational, Save the Children, and the National Endowment for the Arts, aswell as environmental issues (Biography, n.d). Within months he wasinterviewing with Barbara Walters, arguing passionately for spinal cord injuryresearch, a cause he described in his biography Still Me as being fully hisown. Regardless, he was not perceived as a free agent by disability writerssuch as Johnson.

Visual elements, then, were influential in shaping interpretations of Reeve'smessage. For the mainstream audience, he was seen as inspirational, andhis position in a wheelchair and on a breathing device were evidence that hewas a credible representative of the disabled community. That community,however, saw the visual of Reeve as soliciting pity for those of lesser caste insociety, as visually symbolic of his isolation from the general disabledpopulation, and as a "ventriloquist's dummy" being used by an outside agencywith an unwelcome agenda.

Conclusion

On the surface, several factors went into the disability press's markeddissension from the mainstream press's glowing reception of Reeve'sspeech. One was the credibility of Reeve himself; he was perceived to be soprivileged as to lack understanding of what life was like for the averagedisabled person, and he balked, in fact, at considering himself a permanentlydisabled person. One year after his injury, his primary focus was clearly not onliving as a disabled person, but on cure. Thus, many who identified asdisabled neither identified with him nor understood him to identify with them.He lacked the credibility to serve as their representative.

Reeve's use of language, including his metaphors of "family" and hisemployment of the "cure narrative" further served to alienate the disabledaudience. The disabled press interpreted the family metaphor as one ofexclusion, not inclusion, and the "cure narrative," based on the medical modelof disability, was anathema to this community. To the mainstream audience,these metaphors were seen as inclusive and inspiring. "These performancessurely played well with most viewers, but in terms of the disability constituencythey were a serious political mistake," concluded Longmore (Longmore,1996). In the mainstream American media, however, there was notwidespread use of terms such as ableism, or the differentiation between theideas of "impairment" and "disability." Because Reeve was primarily involvedwith medical researchers, he may not have been acquainted with such ideas,even if he was predisposed to adopt them.

Most importantly, Reeve's speech — whether by happenstance or design —did not provide the disabled community with the "gaps and fissures" thatwould allow voices to be heard from the disability community. Reeve was

seen as the unilateral rhetor in the speech itself. Reeve could not fairly beasked to give up his position of economic privilege, nor was he blamed forbeing established as a celebrity, but it was this lack of collaboration with thedisabled community, this lack of providing for multiple voices within his text —multiple rhetors — that served as a point of great frustration and antagonismwithin the disabled community. Reeve's publicly perceived position asrepresentative of all disabled people set the stakes high for every word thatissued from his mouth.

But there were factors beneath the surface that further complicated Reeve'sability to appeal to different audiences. The convention speech would come toreflect Reeve's paradoxical, lifelong attempt to acknowledge differing viewsamong disabled people, while maintaining his commitment to research inspinal cord injury. 21 The same man who could claim, "There is nothing wrongwith us. There is nothing wrong with being disabled and society must learn toget rid of its prejudice," (An evening, 1999) could less than a year later appearin a Superbowl ad — much maligned in the disability press — that portrayed acomputer-generated Reeve rising from his wheelchair and walking across thestage to shake the hand of a medical researcher (Williams, 2000). The needto address care was essential, but the vision of cure was seductive.

Finally, Reeve was both privileged and imprisoned by his symbolic link toSuperman. He had argued that he could not take up the "mantle" ofrepresenting all people with all disabilities, (Cooper, 1998) but in many ways,that was precisely the role that the mainstream press assigned to him. Thecape of Superman had turned into the mantle of Super Crip (Scott, 2006), anduntil the time of his death, Reeve himself could not fully discard it. Disabledcommentator Leonard Kriegel argues that it had been "only natural" for Reeveto be "sought out, urged to become a spokesman for those whose lives hadbeen permanently altered by illness or accident. The fall that made him acripple made the world's most powerful body an object of pity, transformingthe Man of Steel into a creature so frail that it was dependent on machines tobreathe and electric chairs to move" (2006). This fall from grace was apowerful image to those (temporarily) able-bodied people who realized thatReeve's story could be their own. But to those who saw their bodies and livesas disabled primarily by society, Reeve's ability to rhetorically construct theimage of disability and to possibly divert resources was a frightening"superpower" indeed. "Struggling to identify gaps and fissures in Reeve'smessage, and ultimately failing, the disabled press persisted in its efforts toinfluence Reeve's agenda. "We must break through to him somehow,"declared disability press writer Michael Volkman. "He must learn how many ofus there are. He must be made to see all of us" (Volkman, 1997).

In the end, both the mainstream press and the disability press could bedescribed as falling prey to the fallacy that one individual can be aspokesperson for all disabled people; that one person can represent"disability" when the very concept of disability is a fluid and dynamic one. Overhis lifespan, Reeve did begin to "see all of us [disabled people]" andsubsequently modified his rhetoric to include more references to the need forcare and to disability as a social construction, yet he would never waiver fromhis primary commitment to research. The mixed reception to his conventionspeech was in itself a microcosm of the diversity of voices within the disabilitycommunity, and of the need for accountability which that community continuesto demand of those who use language in a position of power.

References

Balz, D. (1996). Democrats debut with emotional appeal: Reeve, Brady

highlight evening. The Washington Post, p. A1. Retrieved November11, 2007, from ProQuest Direct (21858129).

Barnes, C. (1992). Disability and the media. Keele: University of Keele.

Berke, R. (1996, August 27). Personal stories are the focus of day one. TheNew York Times on the web. Retrieved May 28, 2007, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/library/convention/0827/dem-rdp.html

Biography. (n.d.) Christopher Reeve Homepage. Retrieved March 18, 2007from http://www.chrisreevehomepage.com/biography.html

Brown, S. E. (1996, October). Super duper? The (unfortunate) ascendancy of

Christopher Reeve. Independent Living Institute. Retrieved October 5,2006, from http://independentliving.org/docs3/brown96c.html

Ceccarelli, L. (1998). Polysemy: multiple meanings in rhetorical criticism

[Electronic version]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84(4), 395-407.

Connelly, J. (1996, August 27). Democrats speak out for victims spotlight on

stricken families and gun control. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. A1.Retrieved November 10, 2006, from ProQuest Direct (15806601).

Cooper, C. (n.d.). The road I have taken: Christopher Reeve and the cure.Ability Magazine, retrieved June 27, 2007 fromhttp://www.abilitymagazine.com/ reeve_interview.html

Cooper, C. (n.d.) The Practice: Interviews with David Kelley, ChristopherReeve, Camryn Manheim, Michael Badalucco and Carolyn McCormick.Ability Magazine, retrieved January 22, 2008 fromhttp://abilitymagazine.com/Kelley/interview.html

Crimmins, B. (1996, August 29-September 5). Conventional people, lessonone: Republicans have hairstyles, Democrats have empathy. Boston

Phoenix. Retrieved November 11, 2006, fromhttp://www.bostonphoenix.com/alt1.archive/news/CONVENTIONAL_PEOPLE.html

Cuomo, M. (1984). 1984 Democratic National Convention keynote address:

a tale of two cities. Retrieved May 28, 2007, fromhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com

Discovery Health Chat with Christopher Reeve (2000, April 27). Christopher

Reeve Homepage. Retrieved October 6, 2006 fromhttp://www.chrisreevehomepage.com/livechat-health-190400.htm

Eaton, Lynn. (2003). Man and Superman. British Medical Journal (International

Version), 326(7402). Retrieved Oct. 12, 2006 from Research Librarydatabase. (Document ID: 370376041)

Economics and people with disabilities (2007, May 28). Retrieved May 28,2007, from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-employment/

An evening with Christopher Reeve. (1999) Copps Coliseum. RetrievedOctober 12, 2006 from http://www.chrisreevehomepage.com/sp-coliseum-130599.html

Fiske, J. (1986). Television: polysemy and popularity [Electronic version].

Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3(4), 391-408.

Frisby, M. K. (1996, August 27). The Democratic National Convention 1996:Top strategist losing his grip. The Wall Street Journal, p. a14.Retrieved November 10, 2006, from ProQuest Direct (23888336).

Goggin, G. & Newell, C. (2004, November) Fame and disability: Christopher

Reeve, Super Crips, and infamous celebrity, M/C Journal, 7(5).Retrieved 29 May. 2007 from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0411/02-goggin.php>.

Houck, D. W. (1997). Reading the body in the text: FDR's 1932 speech to theDemocratic National Convention [Electronic version]. Southern

Communication Journal, 63(1), 20-36. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2006 fromProQuest Direct (26098927).

Jasinski, J. (2001). Ethos. Sourcebook on rhetoric: key concepts in

contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Johnson, H. M. (1996, October). Conventional wisdom part I and part II. NewMobility. Retrieved December 1, 2006 fromhttp://newmobility.com/review_ article.cfm?id =288&action=browse

Klages, M. (1999). Woeful afflictions: disability and sentimentality in Victorian

America. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kriegel, L. (2006). Superman's shoulders: On the healing power of illusion.Southwest Review, 91(2), 258-269.

Leary, R. (1996, August 27). Democrats stress solidarity, but offer dissenters a

voice. The Philadelphia Tribune, p. A1. Retrieved February 28, 2007,from ProQuest Direct (490693111)

Longmore, P. (1996, August 26). Bad news in Chicago. Mainstream:Magazine of the able-disabled. Retrieved Nov. 11, 1996, fromhttp://www.mainstream-mag.com/hottopic.html

Longmore, P. (1999). Screening stereotypes: images of disabled people.

Social Policy, 16, 31-37.

Mail [Letter to the editor]. (1997, March). Electric Edge: Web Edition of the

Ragged Edge. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com

Marchione, Marilynn. (2004, October 12). Superman's legacy lives on.Cincinnati Press, p. B10. Retrieved October 5, 2006 from ProQuestDirect (Document ID: 711467371).

McManus, D., & Fritz, S. (1996, August 27). Democrats' emotional night;politics: convention opens with Bradys, Reeve casting Clinton as a

leader who reaches across party lines. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.Retrieved November 10, 2006, from ProQuest Direct (Document ID:16652862).

Mitchell, D. (1997, January). The frontier that never ends. Electric Edge: Web

Edition of the Ragged Edge. Retrieved May 28, 2007, fromhttp://www.raggededgemagazine.com/archive/p20.htm

Peace, W. J. (2002, September 24). Wishing for Kryptonite: a response to

Christopher Reeve's pursuit of care. Ragged Edge Online library.Retrieved November 11, 2006, fromhttp://www.raggededgemagazine.com/library/subjects/independent_living/wishing_for_kryptonite_a_respo.html

Phipps, C. (2000, January 25). [Interview with Peter Mansell]. The Guardian.

Reeve, C. (1996). 1996 Democratic National Convention address. RetrievedNovember 10, 2006, from http://www.americanrhetoric.com

Review of Still Me. (2003, Early Summer). Review of Arts, Literature,Philosophy and the Humanities (RALPH) 45(4), retrieved June 27,2007 from http://www.ralphmag.org/CC/briefs.html

Scott, C. (2006). Time out of Joint: The Narcotic Effect of Prolepsis in

Christopher Reeve's Still Me. Biography, 29(2), 307-328,423-I.Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Research Library database.(Document ID: 1126879291).

Shakespeare, T. (2004, October 29). Christopher Reeve: you'll believe a man

can walk. Retrieved May 28, 2007, fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/news/btn/tshakespeare_reeve.shtml

Shakespeare, T. (2002). The social model of disability: an outdated ideology?Research in Social Science and Disability (2) pp. 9-28.

Shales, T. (1996, August 27). It took Superman to rescue this one. The

Washington Post, p. B01. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from ProQuestDirect (Document ID: 21858472).

Simendinger, A. (2000, August 19). Pictures from Chicago: the human story.

National Journal, p. 2686. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from ExpandedAcademic (A65160735).

Volkman, M. (1997, April). Online posting. Retrieved May 28, 2007, fromhttp://www.ragged-edge-mag.com

Washington Post Online Chat with Christopher Reeve. August 16, 2000.Retrieved October 5, 2006 fromhttp://chrisreevehomepage.com/livechat-washingtonpost.html.

Williams, P. (1997, January). What's it gonna take? . Electric Edge: WebEdition of the Ragged Edge. Retrieved November 11, 2006, fromhttp://www.raggededgemagazine.com/archive/p16story.htm

Wilson, J. C., & Lewiecki-Wilson, C. (2001). Embodied rhetorics: disability in

language and culture. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

World-Wide:[18]. (1996, August 27). Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p.A1. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from ProQuest National NewspapersCore database. (Document ID: 23889592).

Endnotes

1. The term "disability press" here refers to publications, both online andhard copy, which are produced by people who identify as disabled andwhich are written for people who identify as disabled, not excludingparticipation and readership of people who do not so identify. Many ofthese publications are electronically published, in part for accessibility,but may have a hard copy correlate.

Return to Text

2. Reeve was personally called by Al Gore to speak at the convention aftersurveys showed that he was one of the most admired celebrities in thepool. Reeve balked at first, concerned that his audience would seeresearch as a partisan issue. "I remember being very concerned thatbiomedical research not be perceived as the exclusive domain of either

party," he recalled. "The imperative we have to ease human suffering —that's not a political issue. I look back on it with a lot of pride becausemany of my speeches are given without notes, and I remember takingabout two weeks to write it with input from Gore's main speechwriter.Then my wife, Dana, and I together spent a good 10 days reallyreviewing the choice of every word. We wanted to make it a speech ofinclusion, about all of us taking care of all of us." See Simendinger.

Return to Text

3. "Significant" because not only was accessible transportation to theconvention hard to come by, and running late, but there were serioussafety concerns for fragile persons or persons in wheelchairs on theconvention floor (Johnson, 2000).

Return to Text

4. Frisby reports that Morris demanded to see Reeve's speech a few daysbefore the convention, and, when refused, first by Pink and later byPink's boss, president's chief of staff Ron Klain, was "outraged that animportant convention message' had slipped beyond his control, [and he]unleashed a barrage of curses." Frisby postulates that Morris was beingexcluded from the discussion because of his hard line on attacking theGOP, which was diametrically opposite to Clinton's interpartisanapproach as reflected in Reeve's speech.

Return to Text

5. Citations from Reeve's speech in this paper are taken from ChristopherReeve, 1996 National Convention Address. Retrieved November 10,2006, from http://www.americanrhetoric.com, which includes an audioMP3 recording of the speech.

Return to Text

6. Davis W. Houck claims that Franklin Roosevelt's acceptance speech tothe 1932 Democratic National Convention was structured to "deny hisdisability" (Houck, 1997). Writes Pat Williams, "He [Reeve] is ourcurrent most famous gimp. He's like Roosevelt was, except then nobodywho liked him would admit he was a gimp. Times change" (Williams,1997).

Return to Text

7. The documentary aired soon after the Democratic National Convention,in October 1996.

Return to Text

8. For simplicity, I use the term "mainstream" audience here to mean thoselisteners who do not identify themselves primarily as disabled; these

listeners constitute the majority by Reeve's own estimate, four out of five.

Return to Text

9. British disability activist Peter Mansell, who also has a spinal cord injury,claimed that Reeve should have used his celebrity to "do somethinggenuinely useful. He could go to a theatre and be slung out because offire regulations. He could go to Waterloo station and discover how manytaxi drivers suddenly become visually impaired because setting upramps for a wheelchair-user is too much effort" (Phipps, 2000). WroteTom Shakespeare, "Ordinary disabled people pointed to his hugefinancial resources, the team of personal assistants, and the elaborateequipment he had access to" (Shakespeare, 2004).

Return to Text

10. See also "Economics and People with disabilities," The Center for anAccessible Society, http://www.accessiblesociey.org.

Return to Text

11. See also the obituary on Reeve, wherein columnist Tom Shakespearewrote, "Reeve could sometimes be dismissive of disabled people whodid not share his obsession with walking again." (Shakespeare, 2000).

Return to Text

12. "No single individual has spent so much and done so little for others in asimilar situation," writes William J. Peace. "And no one has ever beenas oblivious to the fact that all of the ramps, elevators, and lifts he useswere fought for by the people he is actively alienating" (Peace, 2002).

Return to Text

13. Reeve had began speaking for a cure within the first year of his injury.His appeals were primarily to medical associations, and thus picked upon by the disability press.

Return to Text

14. This interview took place about three years after Reeve's injury, whichoccurred in June 1995. However, no date is available for this archivedissue of Ability magazine.

Return to Text

15. It is true that Reeve was caught in a tension between acting as aspokesperson of all people with disabilities and focusing on his originalgoal of spinal cord research and cure. In an interview given the sameyear as this quotation, he responded to the accusation that he was "not

really representing the entire community" by replying that he was theVice Chairman of the National Organization on Disability, which he said"covers the whole spectrum of the disabled" (Christopher Reeve ondisability shows plugs N.O.D., talks cure, Ragged Edge July/August,1998. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/0798/a798ft2.htm.)

Return to Text

16. Ability Magazine writer Chet Cooper observes that "in the world ofdisability, there are those who were born with a disability or acquiredone at a very early age in life and there are those who find themselveslearning to live with a disability later. Statistically, people in this secondcategory tend to direct their focus toward finding a cure" (The Practice:Interviews with David Kelley, Christopher Reeve, Camryn Manheim,Michael Badalucco and Carolyn McCormick, Ability Magazine, retrievedJanuary 22, 2008 fromhttp://www.abilitymagazine.com/Kelley/interview.html)

Return to Text

17. The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Seattle Post-Intelligencer,Washington Post and CNN are a few of the major media that chose tofeature this quotation from Reeve in their articles and news clips on theconvention. See corresponding citations.

Return to Text

18. These newspapers include the New York Times, Boston Globe, LosAngeles Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Boston Phoenix, andChicago Tribune. See separate entries for these publications.

Return to Text

19. In addition to Shakespeare, Linton, Barnes, and Longmore are allscholars who discuss the medical vs. social model paradigms in theirwork.

Return to Text

20. Johnson contrasted the use of Christopher Reeve with disabledadvocate Justin Dart, whom she praises as a true representative of thedisability rights movement. Dart's speech at the DNC, however, wasscheduled in early afternoon, so "American's prime-time image ofdisability will remain Christopher Reeve."

Return to Text

21. Reeve saw his mission as being in "two parts, and that is somethingthat has been very hard but me to learn, but I call it acceptance anddenial, and in a weird way they work together" (Evening 1999).

Return to Text

Return to Top of Page

Copyright © 2000-12, The Society for Disability Studies.

If you encounter problems with the site or have comments to offer, including any access difficulty due toincompatibility with adaptive technology, please contact the Web Manager, Melanie Schlosser.

Disability Studies Quarterly acknowledges and appreciates the Ohio State University Libraries for

publishing DSQ as part of the University's Knowledge Bank initiative.