Picturing Disability

In disability photographs, the person with the disability and his or her physical or mental condition are central to the composition. This centrality is clear in freak show handouts, begging cards, charity publicity, eugenics texts’ clinical portraits, and other genres. In addition to the deliberate and flagrant display of disability, other aspects of visual disability rhetoric are at work in these various genres.

It is not just photography of people with disability that employs specific visual conventions, however. There is a different visual rhetoric for each category of human being. The way men are photographed, for example, is strikingly different from the way women are presented (Goffman 1988). For any particular cluster of people, substantial variation exists in how they are photographed: women, for instance, can be photographed as pinups, housewives in ads, and executives in corporate booklets. In this chapter, I look at photographs of people with disabilities in which disability photographic conventions are not employed or, if they are, they do not dominate the image. In other words, in these photos people with disabilities are photographed as ordinary members of the community—regular citizens and family members. The rhetorical devices of family, friend, and other typical membership roles trump disability photograph conventions.

When I say that in “citizen portraits” people with disabilities are photographed in the way people typically are, I do not mean to imply that their disabilities are concealed from the viewer. The impairment is visible, but it is not featured as it is in other genres. As in illustration 10.1, wheelchairs, missing limbs, braces, and other indicators of disability are taken for granted in the genre of citizen photography.

Illustration 10.1 is an example of what I am getting at. It shows family members who in the late 1800s had their picture taken at a local photographer’s studio. The way they are arranged, their clothing, the bicycle, the backdrop, and how the son with cerebral palsy in the wheelchair is included echo family visual rhetoric, not disability conventions. It is this sort of photography that I examine in this chapter.

Since the late 1960s, there has been a progressive movement among professionals, parents, people with disabilities, and their spokespersons to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life that everyone else participates in.¹¹ This movement has self-consciously produced a genre of photography of its own where people with disabilities are deliberately posed as “normal.”²² Social service agencies have been behind the production of these photos, but socially conscious businesses incorporate people with disabilities into their ads as well, showing them as a regular part of the business team. These images are designed to present people with disabilities in the most complimentary way. This self-conscious production of normality rendered photographs that resemble the images I discuss in this chapter, but, as you will see, they are considerably different. The images I focus on are natural, flow unselfconsciously from people’s ordinary circumstances, and were taken by intimates and local photographers. They stemmed from people’s natural involvement with family, friends, and fellow workers, not from the arranged creation of inclusion by a human service and human rights social movement.

How do regular pictures taken within the frame of ordinary people, family, friends, workers, citizens look compared to the conventions of imaging disability examined throughout the book? When people are pictured in ordinary ways, they are in everyday settings—homes, gardens, public parks, stores, photo studios, at work and at play. They are also often pictured with people and animals with whom they have loving or close relationships—friends, family, fellow workers, and pets. In addition, inanimate objects that the subjects care about and that are part of their commonplace, non-disabled identity are part of the composition. Last, their apparel, grooming, and personal appearance are the same or similar to that of other citizens and family members. They dress in “regular” ways. I examine these dimensions in detail in this chapter.

Pictures taken within the conventions of “ordinary people photography” are shot inside homes, in front of homes, on the porch, in backyards, and in other domestic locations. When taken away from home, they are in work environments, public places, and other common locations. Photographer’s studios are also sites of ordinary people photography. Whether an amateur or a professional picture taker produced the image, the convention is to show the person in a typical, pleasant environment, one that establishes and promotes belonging for both disabled and nondisabled people.

Illustration 10.3 shows a man sitting at his desk. The wallpaper, curtain, oil lamp, rug, and pictures hanging on the wall convey the impression of a person’s personal, intimate, and comfortable space. We see a man who happens to use a wheelchair sitting at his desk at home.

In illustration 10.4, a young man with a developmental disability is shown on the porch of his family’s home. The picture was likely taken by a relative who was an amateur photographer. The subject is sitting in a rocker surrounded by plants, common props used in photography in the early part of the twentieth century. The wooden screen door, the clapboards in the background, the bucket plant containers convey normal life. The inconsequential setting contributes to the image’s ordinariness.

The setting is just as normal in illustration 10.5. Rather than being indoors, the woman in the wheelchair is on the edge of the family’s cornfield. Farm family pictures taken on their own property with their crops is a visual cliché. Created as visual records of a family’s farming success, such pictures were taken when a harvest was good. As you can see, the field in this picture is filled with robust corn.

People also normally spend their time at work and so are photographed there. In illustration 10.6, a man in his forties is in a wheelchair in his office, surrounded by typical office furnishings. An open safe is on his right, the shelves behind him are filled with file holders and drawers, and he has pulled back from his desk for the purposes of the photo shoot, giving the sense that he belongs. His officemate is at a desk toward the back. His work environment is what defines the situation, not his disability.

Illustration 10.7 includes a farmer in a field at work harvesting his crop of hay. As at so many small family farms, the workers are either relatives or hired hands. The man is probably the owner of the farm and is in the field supervising the harvest. His crutch and missing leg are apparent, but the harvest is central to the picture, not the disability—as evidenced by the wide shot of the entire field and the inclusion of other figures.

Illustration 10.8 shows another ordinary work setting in which a person with a disability is present. Three men stand on the factory floor in front of a large machine as they pose for the photograph. The man with the amputated leg and a crutch is not the subject of the picture. He is just one of three workers.

The group picture of workers standing outside their factories, offices, shops, and other vocational locations is a common photographic form. In some establishments, such pictures were taken yearly. Illustrations 10.9 is a good example of a work group photo. Given the high quality of the image, it was probably taken by a professional photographer. The setting is outside a shoe store in an unnamed Midwest town. The sales staff are lined up on the street, and the owner of the establishment is on the left, one step above the others. As we might expect for an owner, the man, who has crutches and only one leg, is holding the ropes that control the awning, and is better dressed than his employees. In worker group pictures, the boss is often placed in the center of the group; this man’s position on the sidewalk, one step up, sets him apart not as a person with a disability, but as the person in charge.

In illustration 10.10, the musician on the left has an arm that is not fully formed, but that disability is not central to the photograph, as it would be in images of disabled musicians in freak show and begging photographs. The person here is pictured as part of a musical group—not as a “human wonder,” but as an ordinary person doing an ordinary thing.

Regular schools, social agencies, and such community facilities as libraries and churches are additional places where people with disabilities appear in normal, everyday photos. Unlike institutional pictures in which people with disabilities are clustered together in segregated settings and dressed in uniforms, these photographs present the person with the disability as simply one of a group that also includes nondisabled peers. The placement of the person with the disability is sometimes dictated by the physical aspects of the setting, as in the class picture in illustration 10.11. Here the size of the platform on which the other children stand or sit is not large enough to accommodate the disabled child’s wheelchair.

Illustration 10.12 is a high school senior class picture taken in front of the main entrance to the school. See how the young man second from the left in the bottom row, the person who is unusually short, is included.

The photo postcard of a large group of church members (illus. 10.13) taken on a Sunday after services includes a man with a disability in a wheelchair in the center. In such pictures, that location is most often occupied by the pastor, which might be the case here.

In the period of concern here, photo studios were places frequented by the general citizenry and by people with disabilities as well. Some photo studios were located on the top floors of buildings, where skylights provided the illumination needed for picture taking. Such places could be reached only by climbing stairs, making access for people with physical impairments difficult, but the number of studio portraits I came across of people in wheelchairs suggests that although accessibility might have been a challenge, it was not an insurmountable one.

The initial illustration that leads off this chapter (10.1) and illustration 10.14 show studio portraits of people with cerebral palsy in wheelchairs. The decorative backdrop and the props in 10.14 may seem unusual, but they are normal for photo studio pictures of the time. The subjects in the photographs were thus photographed in the same way as other citizens were.

Illustration 10.15 is a studio portrait of a teenage girl with a disability and a companion who is probably a family member or friend. Notice the seaside scenery in the back. Such backdrops were common in photo studios of photographers who specialized in resort tourist trade. The two pictured were likely vacationing in a coastal town, a place that people without a disability frequented, too. In another seaside vacation image (illus. 10.16), two buddies in period bathing suits strike casual poses while sitting on a paper moon studio prop. The man on the left is an amputee.

If you review all the illustrations in this chapter, you will see that people with disabilities appear in more or less the same attire and have the same grooming as anyone else. Of course, their appearance, as does anyone’s, varies according to age, social class, status, and occupational group. In family and citizen pictures taken when people know they are going to be photographed, they dress up for the occasion, wearing their best or at least being sure to dress in conventional clothes that were clean and neat. Such clothing conventions are quite different from the conventions I discussed in earlier chapters, especially in freak photographs, horror movies, and asylum depictions.

An important dimension of picturing people within normal conventions is the presence of other people with whom the person has meaningful relationships: fellow workers, family, friends, and other loved ones. You can see this dimension of normality in many of the illustrations I have already discussed, but there are many more to examine.

The most common group portraits are of people with family members. Illustration 10.18 resembles the first picture in this chapter. Both are studio portraits consisting of a family group surrounding a disabled family member. In this photo, a child in a wheelchair is comfortably situated in the center of the picture with his parents and sister in the group.

The same is true of the image in illustration 10.19 that includes a child with a disability, likely cerebral palsy, sitting on his father’s lap. It is a studio portrait of a boy, his mother and father, and his two siblings. It clearly has many elements of a typical family portrait rather than being a picture of a disabled person. Although this picture is dominated by family visual rhetoric, there are two elements that violate those conventions. The disabled son’s footwear, the white knitted booties, and the fact that he is sitting on his father’s lap are not typical of what a boy of his age would wear or how he would be posed for a family picture. Like the presence of wheelchairs, braces, and other visual indicators of disability, these elements violate typical photographic code, but their presence is not so intrusive as to change this picture’s place in the category of a typical family photograph.

I have seen many photographs taken by amateurs showing people with disabilities as part of family and friendship groups. Illustration 10.20 includes a sightless girl in the front row and her blind mother in the second row (third from the right). The picture, likely taken by a family member, was shot at a family gathering. The individuals with disabilities intermingle with other family members in a way that suggests that they are not singled out for special treatment in either family life or family photography.

In a photo postcard that was probably taken by an amateur photographer, a mother and father and their two children are grouped outside their home in a rather formal and solemn pose (illus. 10.21). They have dressed up for the occasion and carried two kitchen chairs outside for the parents to sit on. The child on the left has Down syndrome. She is photographed, as are the others, as simply a part of the family.

In the picture of a young man in a wheelchair surrounded by his sisters (illus. 10.22), the subjects’ social ties, casual postures, and smiling faces identify it as a family photo rather than a disability photo.

Duet images are also part of family photography—sisters with sisters, brothers with brothers. Illustration 10.23 captures a younger sister hugging her older sibling, who has a developmental disability. In illustration 10.24, two brothers pose in a formal studio setting. One brother’s body is completely in view. The other, the one with an orthopedic disability, stands partially behind a table that he uses for support.

In the realm of typical family photography, it is common to have a parent pose with a child. Mothers holding young children are the most abundant of this type of portrait. The picture of a mother with her child with Down syndrome exemplifies the pose (illus. 10.25). Grandmothers are often pictured, too. In illustration 10.26, it is the grandmother who has a disability. Grandmothers also pose with their children and their children’s children (illus. 10.27).

Older children with their disabled mothers are also common. Illustration 10.28 is a studio portrait of a middle-aged mother in a wheelchair posing with her daughter. Although it is difficult to make a diagnosis based on the photograph, the mother’s gaunt appearance suggests tuberculosis. The daughter stands close to her parent, her body turned toward her. A feeling of closeness is created by her position, posture, and the way she holds her mother’s chair gently, as if it were an extension of her loved one.

Photographs also reveal couple relationships, people who have disabilities in romantic partnerships with people who do not. Illustration 10.29 shows a middle-aged person in a wheelchair with a person we can assume from the pose and body language is either her husband or her boyfriend. See how they look each other in the eye, body language suggesting intimacy. From their facial expressions, you get the impression that they genuinely care for each other. They are photographed the way a typical couple would be photographed, and the woman’s disability is incidental to the composition.

I have come across many pictures of elderly couples in which one of them is in a wheelchair, and both display caring gestures toward one another. Notice how in illustration 10.30 the man and woman are photographed to show their closeness as a couple. The women’s arm extends over to her husband so that he can hold her hand. Although both are experiencing physical deterioration associated with old age, the image displays them in a positive way in which personal relationship is central.

During the first third of the twentieth century and continuing to a lesser extent later, people had their pictures taken not only with human loved ones, but also with pets, mostly dogs and on occasion cats and other animals (Arluke and Bogdan 2010). Pets with their owners were a regular subject for photography. In illustration 10.31, a well-dressed young woman sits on the porch of her home. Her leg braces are inconspicuously visible where her long skirt ends. She reaches out to touch the dog, either to pet it or to assure that it does not run away before the shutter opens.

Including pets was not just a part of snapshot photography; people brought their pets to photo studios to sit for formal portraits as well. Illustration 10.32, showing a dog perched on a man’s wheelchair, was clearly taken in a photographer’s studio. In another picture, both the well-dressed siblings of the boy in the wheelchair and the adorable puppy help turn what might be a picture of a seriously ill child from a disability photograph into a family image (illus. 10.33).

These pictures of people with disabilities and their pets are not the first we have seen where people with disabilities are shown with animals. In the begging chapter, we saw animals, but, with the exception of the dog in illustration 3.20, they were used as working animals. Be they dogs or goats, they served their owners by providing transportation and in other ways facilitating their begging. The way the animals are pictured reinforced the centrality of disability in the images. Images of people with their pets in this chapter produce the opposite effect.

The picture in illustration 10.34 was taken on the steps of these siblings’ front porch. The girl on the right wears a leg brace and a lift on one shoe, suggesting that she has polio. But note how the children are holding playthings; the younger sister has a teddy bear, and the older sister is holding her favorite doll. These objects promote the idea that the children are typical young people.³³

Although illustration 10.36 may be offensive to some because of the presence of a dead animal, I include it because it epitomizes normal photographic conventions. It was very common for hunters in the first third of the twentieth century to be pictured with their dead prey. Some of these photographs feature women, but the great majority are of men finishing the hunt, a symbol of male culture and manliness. Here a person of small stature stands holding a gun next to the buck he just shot.

It was common for US mail carriers who delivered the mail by horse-drawn wagon in rural areas to have a local photographer take pictures of them beside the objects associated with their occupation, the mailbag and the delivery buggy. They had this portrait taken for personal correspondence but also to give to patrons on their route near the holiday season. In illustration 10.37, an African American US mailman, dressed in his occupational uniform, stands outside the Caledonia, Michigan, post office. He is holding the hand of a child and is standing next to his mailbag and horse-drawn rig. Upon close inspection, you can see that his left arm is missing.

Illustration 10.38, the last in this section showing people with objects, is another occupation-related photo postcard. It is of a farmer, Norman Brown, standing next to a complex yet primitive machine he built. Look carefully at Brown’s left arm, and you will see that the lower part is missing and a metal prosthetic device is in its place. He unselfconsciously displays it. (The prosthetic is much more apparent in the original than in the illustration copy.) The card is postmarked “Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, 1913” and was sent to Brown’s cousin to show her the “ditching plow” he had built over the winter. In the message written on the flip side, Brown brags about the machine and speculates that he will sell it for “nothing less than $600.” Although Brown has an obvious disability, it is not mentioned on the card. Brown and his invention are front and center. As in other images of people with objects shown in this section, attention is drawn way from the disability to the object, a plow.

In the images reviewed in this chapter, the disability is apparent; no attempts were made to hide the person’s missing limbs, wheelchair, braces, or other indicators of impairment. But what about pictures where the person conceals his or her condition? How do we know that some family pictures do not have a person who is hiding a disability?⁴⁴ What about conditions such as deafness, mental illness, retardation, and others where the nature of the disability may not be apparent? How should they fit into the analysis of visual disability?

I do not have answers to these questions, but I do have a photo that brought the issue to my attention, the picture of a brother and sister at the front steps of their home (illus. 10.39). Both have toys. He holds a bugle and a drum, and she has her hands on a doll carriage filled with dolls. Neither child appears to have a disability. In another photo postcard (illus. 10.40), however, we see the same youngsters a few years later. They are still in front of their home, and she still has a carriage with her dolls, but he is not holding toys. Careful inspection shows that the boy does not have a right arm. In addition, he has either a cleft pallet or a demonstrable scar on his upper lip. In the first photograph, his disabilities seem to have been successfully and purposefully hidden with his toys, whereas in the second he unself-consciously reveals them. Should we think of hiding a disability as a normal part of family visual rhetoric?

I end this chapter with a compelling photograph of a mother with her two children taken in a photo studio (illus. 10.41). It has all the elements of a typical family photo. The dress, the people, the location, the body language, the props are all there. The child on the left appears to have Down syndrome, but that may be a misdiagnosis. She might just have some of the physical characteristics we associate with that condition, but not the condition itself.⁵⁵ If she does have a disability, the picture is a wonderful illustration of how the visual significance of a disability is muted when a photograph is taken using normal family photographic conventions. If the child does not have the condition, it is a good illustration of a photo using family conventions. Either way it points out the power of photographic context in setting the scene and in leading the viewer to an interpretation of a person’s characteristics.

1. These ideas and policies originated with the concept of “normalization” (Wolfensberger 1972), providing the conditions that allowed people with a disability access to all aspects of a typical life, including housing, dress, and human relationships.

2. See Pietropaolo 2010 for an example.

3. Note the person, most likely the children’s mother, in the window behind the girls. She adds not only depth to the composition, but also the presence of the adult overseer.

4. This is quite different than with begging cards, where we are not sure whether the person pictured has a disability or is only feigning one.

5. On the back of this postcard, the phrase “Down’s Syndrome” is written in pencil, but I am not sure who wrote it or if the diagnosis is accurate.