The Threat of the Willful Child

I'd half-promised myself I wasn't going to write about the Schiavo case, because I don't think there's much I could add to the discussion that hasn't been said already.  However, I have noticed something interesting that I haven't seen mentioned, something which links up with other things I've noticed with regard to both the Republicans and the so-called "Culture of Life" crowd* that they pander to. 

The thing that I noticed is the oddness of the language used to refer to the living body of Mrs. Schiavo.  It is relentlessly infantilizing.  It's never "Mrs. Schiavo," but always "Terri."  It's never "the Schindlers' daughter," but "their child."  Even when terms appropriate to adults are used, they are  modified in this direction; thus we have the spectacle of politicians using the phrase "young woman" even though the body they refer to is 41 years old. 

The language used also tends to reinforce the notion that this breathing body is still the person who was Terri Schiavo before the damage occurred.  (In fact, it's very difficult to not fall into this rhetorical pit; the temptation to write about "Terri" rather than "Terri's body" is pretty overwhelming.)  This sort of reframing carries with it some dangerous implications, implications which I'm fairly certain the Culture of Life folks are aware of.  That is, if a body with no conscious mind or independent will, a body that is dependent on the continued support of others for its survival, can be called a "person," but living conscious creatures like cats or gorillas cannot, it becomes clear that the essential defining qualities of personhood are "possessing human DNA" and "alive."

The implications with regards to abortion and stem cell research are pretty obvious.  (Not so obvious are the implications with regards to other forms of legal personhood, like that granted to corporations.  Oddly, none of these people seem troubled by this, even though it is potentially more problematic.)  By this logic, a fetus is a person, an embryo is a person, a blastocyst is a person, and even an unfertilized egg or sperm cell is a person.  (Yet, weirdly, a finger or toe isn't a person.  Clearly, there are limits, but it's not clear to me why they've been set.)

Another parallel to the subject of abortion is the way that the aforementioned fetuses, embryos, and blastocysts are referred to as "babies."  As is the case with Mrs. Schiavo's body, it is easier to drum up sympathy by using language that evokes the helpless, vulnerable -- and cute -- child.  Yet this is not merely a PR campaign; this rhetoric is not deployed cynically by the core of the movement -- they do honestly believe that these underdeveloped human creatures are the same things as independent human infants.

This in turn raises the question, often asked by irritated opponents, of why, if they are so "pro-baby" when they talk about the unborn, they falter when it comes to addressing the needs of actual children (or their parents) after birth. 

The answer, I am coming to believe, is that it is not the physical aspects of infancy that appeals to or concerns these people.  It is the idea of infancy, particularly the aspects of it that relate to dependency and lack of free will.  The ideal child, under this formulation, is one that is quiet, obedient, worships its parents, and never questions them.  Mrs. Schiavo, like a fetus, is a "perfect" child; helpless, dependent, unable to talk back, unable to challenge her parents' delusions about her and their future together. 

Actual children, however, have minds of their own.  They cry.  They yell.  They knock things over.  They question.  They yell at their parents.  They make friends and form relationships outside the parent-child bond.  Eventually, even, they will develop relationships that will replace those parental ones, as the parents die and the former children become parents themselves.  Worse, they may do so in ways that show that they no longer view their parents as the center of the world, their parents' ideas as unquestioned truth. 

The irony, of course, is that these people, and the politicians who are their symbiotes, like to view themselves as the wise, knowing adults in this idealized world.  But they are not.  Critics like to dismiss them as "sheep" but a better description would be "spoiled children."  This is why they are so quick to attack, so thin-skinned when challenged, so impervious to logic and reason.  This is why they bully those weaker or less powerful than themselves.  This is why the existence of independent-minded, intelligent people who think for themselves is so threatening; not only do such people refuse to play the role of obedient children, they threaten to take over the role of all-knowing parent for themselves.  (And when these independent, thoughtful people are teachers in charge of children, or actual parents, watch out!**)

I don't know how one begins to address this dynamic.  But I think being aware of it is a good place to start.

*For a devastating exposure of the ways this "Culture of Life" is anything but, go take a look at the series of posts Lauren's been making over at feministe.

**This dynamic is particularly easy to observe in the behavior of rightwing trolls, as Scrivener has had the misfortune to discover.

Comments

[Laura (geekymom)]

There's a good post over at Raising WEG about Schiavo's parents' own idealizing their daughter. As a parent, I have to say, that yes, it's scary as hell to raise independently-minded children because they might think differently than I do. They might do things I disagree with. In doing so, they might harm themselves; they might alienate me. I still think it's the right thing to do.

Your analogy here is interesting. I feel like we're headed back to the 50s or the 1890s or something, a time when both women and children should be seen but not heard.

[Rana]

I still think it's the right thing to do.

And therein lies all the difference. :)

I think at the root of this is _trust_ -- trust in yourself, trust in them, trust in your values and your ability to inculcate them into the next generation. On their side: fear and distrust. On ours: hope and trust. (Not to say that we don't feel anxiety or fear, but that it is not how we define ourselves.)

I'll have to go look at that post.

[Jill Smith]

...we have the spectacle of politicians using the phrase "young woman" even though the body they refer to is 41 years old.

These are the same people who refer to their own pecadilloes, performed way beyond the cusp of adulthood, as "youthful indiscretions." It is one instance of perfect consistency in this topsy-turvy circus. It's not logical, mind you, just consistent.

[Rana]

Huh. I hadn't even thought of that! And yet, how well it fits.

You know, I'm beginning to suspect that there is, if not exactly _logic_ at work here, a certain coherency of thought; that is, they are not as random in their beliefs (or as "hypocritical") as it might be assumed.

Not that this makes this system of beliefs any less destructive and creepy.

[jo(e)]

Interesting analysis. I hadn't even stopped to think about the language being used.

I just put up a sign on my own bulletin board here at home that says, "If I am ever in a coma, pull out the fucking feeding tube."

My 16-year-old son came home, looked at it, and said, "But Mom, what if you are in a persistent vegetative state?"

[wolfangel]

Rana, I have never doubted that this isn't random or incoherent: this makes it more, not less, frightening.

Jo(e): I love your son. The answer, though, is that if you are in one of those, you want a lot of major court battles and for the president to try to get guardianship over you. But only if the president prays.

[Phantom Scribbler]

jo(e), if you are in one of those, the president will not try to get guardianship over you. Not unless you are in Florida, or another state that is potentially in play during upcoming elections. The president would not mind seeing three-quarters of the residents of solid blue states doing the persistent vegetative thing. Ungrateful disobedient children that we are.

[wolfangel]

Actually, I also wonder how this plays into the fairy tale/Belle au bois dormant mythologies.

[Rana]

Argh. My own blog thinks I'm spam.

What I was trying to say is that I think there are definitely some parallels (although her being married complicates things). However, I get disturbed thinking about who the prince in this story is supposed to be. Especially since the original Sleeping Beauty wasn't kissed awake, but raped and impregnated.

[yami]

Hey! That's brilliant! That's where we can get our next generation of soldiers - women in persistent vegetative states!

[af]

It also struck me that Terri Schiavo is the ideal patient. So many people who care for their aging/ill parents or other relatives have to deal with the fact that the patient fears them, is angry with them, complains to them about the food, their treatment, the fact that they don't visit, the pain they are in, etc. I don't want to suggest that this situation in any way makes it easy to see a loved one in a PVS - I'm sure it's horrible - but it's a very different type of situation than what many people face.

[larkspur]

The "perfect child" aspect is real important. Among other things, I suspect it covers a lot of rage. I mean, this person was an independent young woman who got married and left home, and had sex, and didn't require her parents' direction every day...and worse, she may have had significant emotional problems (as evidenced by the bulimia), and if she'd been a really *good* daughter, most of that stuff wouldn't have happened. They'd have their good girl, and no one at all could even suggest that the Schindlers were anything less than perfect parents.

Of course, over the years, this has required them to demonize their daughter's husband, but they seem to have been peculiarly willing to do that. Now their daughter is a good girl. And there's a vocal group that's delighted to support the parents in this weird alternate universe.

[pericat]

Most insightful. Good job, Rana.

[Lisa]

Do you know why Mrs. Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state"? Because she was bulimic -- extreme enough to cause a massive heart attack at age 25. Doesn't this change everything?

[Rana]

yami -- that is a frightening thought!

af -- yes. It also occurs to me that there are parallels with Munschausen by Proxy syndrome. All the attention can focus on the devoted family; the patient serves as the means to that end.

larkspur -- I hadn't thought about the demonization of Michael Schiavo. It does make sense; they can project all their fears and anger about their daughter's "rebellion" onto the man who "stole" her. That he keeps trying to free her from their care must disturb them even more.

pericat -- thanks! :)

Lisa -- apparently not. I suspect, in a sick and twisted way, that some of her "supporters" view her collapse and brain death as both punishment for being willful and salvation. The rhetoric around her is not only similar to that used regarding fetuses, it's similar to that used to describe saints, particularly her being in a different state than other people, and the clear connections to ideas about an uncorrupted corpse as a sign of divinity.

If nothing else, this woman's body functions as the ultimate tabula rasa.

[Harrison]

You know -- the reminds me about something I once wrote about Swift's scatological poetry. There is this weird fascination there; the female body is laid out for adoration, but the shock, the disgusting remainder, appears as the specter of female subjectivity.

[Rana]

Huh. I hadn't thought about the "female body as spectacle" angle. I guess that's partly because I find it hard to think of Theresa Schiavo in explicitly gendered terms. (That is, I recognize that her body is female, but since there's no person there for me, that body lacks gender.) But, yes, I think there's something in what you say; "she" makes the perfect subject, in that she can't return or challenge the gaze of those who look at her. (Quite literally!)

Hmm. That makes the situation even more creepy, now that I think about it.

[Cleis]

Rana,

This is a wonderful post, much deserving of the spike in hits you've received. If it weren't for a handful of people writing on their blogs, we would hear nothing about the feminist implications of this case - and those implications are important, wide-ranging, and deserving of a place in public discourse. I'm really thankful that you wrote this.

[Rana]

Aw, thanks. :)